[ Page 151 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill

12). Second reading.

Mr. Stupich –– 151

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 154

Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 3). Committee stage.

On section 3.

Mrs. Wallace –– 157

Report and third reading –– 158

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 158

Pari Mutual Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 6). Committee stage.

Report and third reading –– 158

Revenue Surplus 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Mr. Howard –– 158

Mr. Nicolson –– 161

Mr. Stupich –– 162

Mr. Brummet –– 163

Mr. Cocke –– 164

Mrs. Wallace –– 166

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 166

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1979

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 12.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
RESOURCES INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

(continued)

MR. STUPICH: Can I just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, repeat one of the statements that I was dealing with near the 6 o'clock hour? That was the one in which the Premier said: "This is the start of a trend."

Although I didn't get into the figures then, I will now, particularly for the benefit, as I say, of those who are avidly awaiting Hansard, and also, perhaps, for some of the new members who weren't here and don't realize. Looking at public accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, an excellent source — the latest ones available — and looking at some of the assets that were transferred, Westcoast Transmission cost the government $25,456,750 and was sold to BCRIC for $37,363, 66, an increase of some 50 percent; Plateau Mills cost the government $7.66 million and was sold to BCRIC for $9 million; Canadian Cellulose cost the government $1,825,000 and was sold to BCRIC for $64 million.

No, Mr. Speaker, it's not the start of a trend, because the government just doesn't have any other good assets to give away to the people who are getting this bargain, when they are getting BCRIC shares for $6 a share, and will not have any such assets until such time as the NDP is re-elected and can start acquiring assets in the name of the people again.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder what is so wrong with this idea of common....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Which ones are you going to take over?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is out because I'm obviously going to be more than the ten minutes that I told him if I am going to be encouraged to answer questions such as: which ones are you going to take over? We took none over other than by dealing with the owners in a personal way. We made deals with them, dealt with them in the open market. In the case of Plateau Mills — in spite of what the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) has to say — we negotiated with the owner and agreed to pay the same price that he had agreed to accept.

Mr. Speaker, what is so wrong with this idea of common ownership that the government says they're hanging this whole thing on their commitment to individual ownership versus common ownership? And I'd just like to go back in history a little bit on this. There is a poem, "The Deserted Village," by Oliver Goldsmith, and I'll deal briefly with this.

AN HON. MEMBER: All of it?

MR. STUPICH: No, not all of it. It's quite a long poem, and he apologizes in the introduction to the poem for it being so long. It's a story that goes back to the time some five or six hundred years ago when the villagers owned the land in common. And it was a great scheme. It worked fine for the villagers, but it didn't work all that well for the wealthy landowners. And so the government, serving the interests of the wealthy landowners, thought it would be a great idea to expropriate the common land. Well, the villagers didn't like that very much, and it was the Peasants' Revolt that changed the government's mind about that particular attempt to do away with common ownership. So then the government came up with a smarter idea. They thought, rather than simply expropriating the land and causing all that trouble, they would divide the common land among the peasants so that each one of them might have his own little share — too small to do anything with, but nevertheless each one would have his own little share — and then proceeded to buy those little bits of land away from those individual landowners. And the land more and more became concentrated in the hands of just a few.

Mr. Speaker, it's because of that concern that we're opposed to this whole BCRIC principle. Sure, it's all very well to divide all of these assets that were built up by the NDP administration among all the people and say, "Isn't it great; everybody has a share of it." in the same way that those English peasants each had a little bit of that common land, and then to say to them, "All you have to do now is sell it and you've got the money." And they got the money; they spent that little bit of money and then they had nothing, no access to the common land. The land that they had left was not sufficient to live on in the absence of their share of the common land, and so the villagers deserted the countryside and moved to the cities. They had nothing. It was great for the landowners, great for the wealthy. And that's our concern.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, he says I'm making it up. Well, I wasn't going to read it, but I will — a little bit of Goldsmith's "The Deserted Village":

But now the sounds of population fail.
No cheerful murmurs fluctuate in the gale.
No busy steps the grass-grown footway tread.
But all the blooming blush of life has fled.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier encouraged me to read this. I hope he's listening. Maybe he doesn't have much more time to read poetry than I have.

No more the manner's news, the barber's tale.
No more the woodman's ballad shall prevail.
No more the smith his dusty brow shall clear,
Relax his ponderous strength and lean to hear.
Yes, let the rich deride the proud disdain
The simple blessings of the lowly train.

[ Page 152 ]

To me more dear congenial to my heart
One native charm than all the gloss of art.
Ye friends of truth, ye statesmen who survey
The rich man's joys increase the poor's decay.
'Tis yours to judge how wide the limits stand.

Those assets were producing revenues that were available to the people of the province on the basis of their individual need as determined by government ministers in providing government services. Those assets are now being taken away from those people. They say: "Here's your five shares. Go out and sell them. Collect $30 if you can, or more or less or whatever." That's the end of it. No more will you share in the benefits produced in the profits of these enterprises, because these enterprises are going to be more and more concentrated in the hands of a few. That's one of the reasons we opposed this BCRIC legislation. Control of it certainly will disappear into the hands of a few; there's no doubt about that.

The Premier knows. He has investments. He told us he put them into a blind trust. He hasn't told us what he is going to do with his BCRIC shares. But he knows, as a shareholder of all those companies, that it's common practice when the time comes for the annual meeting, if the company is going to have an annual meeting, to send out a notice inviting the shareholders to sign the proxy and give the president of the company, or some such officer, the opportunity to vote on their behalf. The president gets all these votes.

The Premier knows that the directors of BCRIC are going to do exactly the same thing. They're going to send out all those proxies to the people who own the shares and invite them to sign the proxies. A lot of people do it automatically. There's a self-addressed stamped envelope, so it's very easy to reply to that kind of an invitation for a proxy. People send their proxies in, and the same directors appointed by the Premier will perpetuate themselves in office by that device, even if they are obliged to vote in an annual meeting. Control will undoubtedly pass into the hands of a few. But the legislation before us now does provide some measure of distribution of the shareholdings throughout the population.

We opposed the BCRIC legislation two years ago, and we would oppose it today if there were some way of doing away with it, but there isn't. All we're dealing with now is some changes to that legislation. Some of the changes we can support, some of them we will oppose, and some of them we will amend. But the main principle of this bill is to say to the people of British Columbia that the 151 million shares that the government has will not all be allotted to friends of the government per se — only 1 percent each. But the cabinet may say 2 percent tomorrow or it might say 10 percent. Without this legislation the government was holding 151 million shares that it could dispose of in any way that it wanted to. With this legislation it's clear how they are going to be disposed of. They are going to be disposed of by allotting possibly 12 million shares on the free issue and other shares by purchase.

So because of that change, because it is providing a means for the people of the province to, at least temporarily, acquire some measure of ownership in this, and hoping that won't be concentrated into the hands of too few between the time of now and the next election, we support the amendments before us tonight to the BCRIC legislation we opposed two years ago. Because it does provide for some measure of widespread ownership, temporarily.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You wouldn't buy it.

MR STUPICH: I'm not sure if the Attorney-General is saying: "You wouldn't buy it if you didn't support it." I'm not sure I'd pay income tax, and I don't always support that. To make it clear to the Attorney-General we opposed the BCRIC legislation two years ago, I can go through my whole speech and tell him why. We opposed it because we felt it was taking ownership of all these resources, and the access to the income, out of the hands of the many and putting it into the hands of the few, potentially. That's one reason. Also, contrary to what the Premier said when he said people don't have a vote, they do have a vote at election time. The way it is right now, they might not have a vote if you never held an annual meeting.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The Premier keeps asking about Yugoslavia. Although my father came from that part of the world before there ever was such a nation, he left there in 1897. There was no Yugoslavia then; it was part of the Austro-Hungarian empire. I don't know that much about Yugoslavia. He keeps asking questions about it. Perhaps he's been there, and perhaps he can answer the questions.

In any case I gave the two reasons why we are opposed to BCRIC. It was transferring ownership, potentially, to a few. The legislation before us now does nothing to stop those things from happening in the long run, but in the short run it does give to the many the opportunity to acquire some degree of ownership. I hope they take advantage of that opportunity, and I hope, along with the Premier, that they do keep those shares so that they will have some access, through some means or other, to the control of those assets. This is one of the things that could happen. We've got a group of directors appointed by the Premier, and his supporters. What's to stop those directors from running BCRIC to their own personal advantage? Even the Premier has said

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The shareholders! Your five free shares. Are you going to have any influence on that?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The level of noise in the room is intolerable.

MR. STUPICH: There is absolutely nothing to stop those directors from establishing other corporations — quite apart from BCRIC — that will deal with BCRIC, to the advantage of the other corporations and to the disadvantage of BCRIC. If the Premier had said the government will keep a watchful eye on this, that the government will maintain enough control so that it will make sure this company is operated in the interest of the people of British Columbia, then I would feel happier about it. But the Premier has said from the beginning, and insists, that the government will not have that kind of control over BCRIC. He is urging everyone in the community to go out and get free shares, to go out and buy more shares, and saying: "We'll be having

[ Page 153 ]

nothing to do with it. We won't be there to protect you in the event that the people who are running it will likely perpetuate themselves in office to make sure that they continue to operate that company in the interests of the people of British Columbia. We want you to buy them. We are encouraging you to buy them, but once you've bought them we're going to wash our hands of the whole mess." Mr. Speaker, we can't support that aspect of it either.

But that's not part of this legislation. As I say, the one aspect of this legislation that I can support is that it does make it possible for everybody in the province to have five free shares, to buy a few more in the hope that those people will have some influence in that company, and in the hope that they won't....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. STUPICH: The Attorney-General asks if I am advocating it. I've been doing that for about 12 minutes this afternoon and all evening, and for five weeks of an election campaign I've gone around the province and advocated that people buy them. Once we had gone that far there was no choice. Once BCRIC had been established, two years ago, once the government had decided to spend some $20 million or $25 million advertising it, it had gone too far. Now we have to start picking up the pieces and repairing the damage. One of the ways in which we can repair the damage of transferring these assets to BCRIC in the first place is to make sure that as many British Columbia citizens as possible do participate through this means, which is not nearly as good, not as effective and not as good for the people as was our method. One of the methods was the B.C. Savings and Trust. Remember the B.C. Savings and Trust Report that we had commissioned? That was delivered to the government in January 1976, and that has not yet seen the light of day. Remember the Carruthers report that was commissioned by the coalition government? That was delivered to the Social Credit government soon after it arrived in office, but never saw the light of day until the NDP was elected some 20 years later and found it in the outgoing Provincial Secretary's garage. I wonder how long we are going to have to wait for the B.C. Savings and Trust Report.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, for the last time I call for order. If there are to be conferences, I suggest they take place in the corridors. If we don't wish to listen to the debate, at least we should allow those who wish to listen to be able to hear.

MR. STUPICH: Had the Premier really wanted to spread ownership of this out into the community, rather than keeping it in government hands, there was an alternative. There was the B.C. Savings and Trust. There was the report. It must be a good report or you wouldn't have buried it. You would have let us see it. So it must be a good report with good ideas in it.

The B.C. Savings and Trust envisaged the government working with individual people, people who would have the individual right to decide their own level of savings and of investment as members of credit unions throughout this province. Surely the Premier is not opposed to credit unions. In credit unions the principle is....

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to have shares in it.

MR. STUPICH: Okay, you have shares in the credit union. As a member of a credit union you know it's one man, one vote, and that's the difference between that and BCRIC. One man, one vote: that's a good principle. It's one we could support.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm glad the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) isn't here to hear that question. The Premier asked me what I have against women. I guess I'll have to try and watch that and say "one person, one vote," although when I was giving my history lesson a while ago you'll remember that originally it was one man, one vote. After some struggle it was extended to women.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I would ask the hon. Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Mair) to please restrain himself.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sure you realize that what I was recommending was that had the government wanted to spread ownership throughout the community, and make it available to individuals, the route to go would have been through B.C. Savings and Trust, in cooperation with the credit unions, where individual citizens all over the province could have participated as individual members of their credit unions, where they would have had a vote as a person, rather than to the amount of money they were able to put into the acquisition of these shares.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), in his budget speech, waxed eloquent about the importance of this 2 point reduction in income tax, and said.... I think the figures were that something like 68,000 people are going to save $65 a year. I may not have the figures quite right, but it was something like that. If they took that $65 a year, borrowed money to buy enough shares to vote in BCRIC, in some 10 years — 20 years, I suppose, with interest — those people would have saved enough to buy enough shares to have one vote in BCRIC. If they put $5 of that money into a credit union, they'd have a vote right away.

To our mind that would have been a better way had the government really wanted to extend individual ownership in this community to include the assets that were built up under the NDP administration. They could have been turned over to some agency such as B.C. Savings and Trust where, in cooperation with the credit unions, citizens all over the province would have opportunity to discuss what was happening in that company in their own local credit union meetings, where there is an opportunity for people to attend meetings, where you don't have to worry about too many coming, where they would have had votes according to themselves as persons, not according to their ability to accumulate $65 a year and over a period of some 10 or 20 years buy a voting share in BCRIC.

[ Page 154 ]

Had the Premier really wanted to extend ownership, as I say, it could have been done by that means, rather than creating this corporation which, to a greater and greater extent, is going to fall into the hands of fewer and fewer people, and be controlled by fewer and fewer people.

The case rests.

MR. SPEAKER: The Premier closes debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT:I appreciated very much the debate today, because we've seen some very unusual positions taken. We've had some very unusual lessons in business and democracy from the members of the New Democratic Party. One of the new members, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), recycled from the federal field, has come back to British Columbia to teach us something we didn't know, because it's a basic principle of companies that the directors are not responsible to anyone else but the shareholders of that company. Their responsibility is to the shareholders, and somehow, in a convoluted way, he tried to say that by being responsible to the company the shareholders own, they somehow weren't being responsible to the very people who owned it. He said that in times when there are cycles, if they couldn't pay a dividend, they should have stripped the company and broke it to pay dividends and have the company go down the drain, and that would have been responsible to the very people who own it. That was the essence of his argument. I find it hard to believe.

I know that many of the members over there have spoken tongue in cheek, but what surprised me was that he was serious. He was serious when he was speaking. I've had a lot of fun listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). He's always interesting to listen to, and I said at the start of the session that I hoped we could all resist the temptation not to refight the election we just went through in 1979. And you were right; he didn't fight it. He fought the elections of 1975, of 1972, of 1969 and 1966, and in speeches we are all familiar with. Apparently the emotional wounds from having been defeated twice are still there.

When they say we were giving away the assets the NDP have built up, obviously they are incorrect. I can remember going out on the election campaign — and I hate to bring it up — and one of the young people the New Democratic Party get.... They brainwash them and they give them the slogans. He came to one of my rallies and he asked me a question. He said: "Why are you selling off the oil and the gas lands that the NDP bought?" I said: "They didn't buy them." He said: "Yes, they did. I was told by the party that the NDP bought those oil and gas lands."

I say those oil and gas lands are a heritage of all British Columbians. They weren't bought by the NDP. They are there and, yes, they are the major assets of BCRIC, the major assets to supplement those other logically private sector corporations that should belong in the hands of people. Yes, they're part of the assets.

But that myth that they would spread and try to brainwash the young people of this province into believing.... I could hardly believe it. Obviously I spent some time with the young fellow, and he was a very disillusioned young man when I was through talking to him because they set him up. They sent him out to heckle at these meetings and they sent him out with information that wasn't correct.

What the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation has is assets that belong to the people, assets that they will now have in individual ownership, Mr. Speaker. That's what it is all about — encouraging individual ownership, getting experience in individual ownership, not so that the ownership of the BCRIC shares, whether they receive just the five free shares or get this chance to get in on the ground floor for additional shares will encourage them in the future, but to show them the way in which they can participate in our society.

It's not enough for the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) who, before supper, said he talked to someone from Yugoslavia and the person said he was very happy with that country, in which they had commonality of ownership. He was questioning the statement I made about what private ownership is worth. I say it's priceless if you ask someone who has had it taken away.

Now obviously he's talking to the wrong people. He should talk to people who have experienced both the opportunity for individual ownership and have been forced to live under a system in which no ownership is allowed to individuals at all. Then they've had a chance to measure the two systems, the two sets of opportunities, if you could call one of them that, and the fact that when you own, you are truly free. You are not a captive of the government. You do not depend on government. You are not then fearful of government, because when the government becomes your only answer, you don't think like a free person. You think, and if you have the opportunity to vote, you vote out of fear.

It's the independence of ownership that makes people truly free, that gives them the right of dissent, that gives them the right to make a point against the government and stand up without fear that what they have may be taken away because the government doesn't like it. Their very being and their very existence and their support and their jobs are not threatened, because they can stand up because they have the security of individual ownership. It may not just be the business and industry; it may be their home, it may be their land, it may be their farm. But above all, that makes them free.

I don't believe that the answer is in, as the member for Nanaimo says, a commonality of ownership. I don't believe that. I believe that erodes the very opportunity and the very soul of people. The security of knowing that you can come to this Legislature and dissent because you feel secure because back in Nanaimo you have your own home or you have your own business or you have security that the government, whether it's us or you over here, cannot somehow, because you disagree, bring about some retribution that would take away your freedom or affect your life — that's the very thing we're talking about.

I said that the BCRIC was brought in because I was concerned that the very system that we have was not giving the opportunity or extending the opportunity that we would like to see extended in British Columbia and Canada. I said that the early hopes and aspirations of the people that settled this country.... They came to this country from other lands where ownership may have been denied them because (a) the government owned everything, or (b) they came from a country in which a few wealthy people or industries owned the land or owned the business, and they became tenants. I said they came to this country from various systems to experience and have that opportunity for ownership.

[ Page 155 ]

In the early days of this country, the whole trend was towards individual ownership, and that individual ownership encouraged their initiative because they knew then that they could bear the fruits of their own efforts and from their efforts their family and their family's families could have security. They also had a social conscience because they said that from our efforts also.... "We're a civilized country. We shall have government and democracy." And those people were willing to send, in what we call a form of taxation, money to them to provide a measure of care and a level of protection for everyone.

That's what the system is about. You've got to have people out there earning and working and owning and producing because there's got to be somebody to pay the taxes. Taxes don't come out of thin air; they come out of the efforts of our people, our people as individuals, our people collectively.

I said BCRIC was brought about as one of a number of measures and not just to deal with a few companies that the member for Nanaimo said they were willing to use the people's tax dollars to purchase, but a greater asset, an asset that's always been there — oil and gas lands, a heritage — and to make it part of a package that would give the people individual ownership. That's what we talk about, and that's what BCRIC is all about — letting people who have lost the knowledge or haven't acquired the knowledge know how they can participate in our society.

I said it was sad when we found out that only 60,000 people were participating in equity ownership through the share market. As I say, although I come from small business, not everybody can be a small businessman. You can't have your small bicycle shop, used-goods store, hardware store or grocery store in this society where you have industry of scale, particularly resource industries as we have in this province. People learn special skills, to be part of a larger organization. It doesn't make them inferior; it makes them stronger, because they have a skill and they can earn. And they want to earn, but beyond that they must satisfy their need to own. Yes, they can own their own home; yes, they can own their own land. We'I make sure that that continues to happen for the millions who are workers in this province — union, non-union and others. Their only way to own a piece of the action directly is through shares. It's distressing that that has been declined.

I've heard political parties and politicians from all sides of the political spectrum talk about local ownership, Canadian ownership. It makes great slogans at election time, but I've never heard them ever offer to participate in some concrete action such as this that would give the ownership directly to the people. They're great talkers, great with slogans, but slogans that don't always tell the truth. Mr. Speaker, I'm telling you that this single move is but one of many, the same move not to be repeated, but there will be others that will encourage the people to own. Because the enemy is not just the corporate giants who make the mergers and the takeovers. The enemy is also government, which taxes away more and more of our income, leaving us less and less to invest, leaving us with only a little to get by on. They're taxing it away and saying it's good for us, and what an end that spells for the people.

As they take away that discretionary income, saying they're doing it to help people — and that's very hard to argue against — they leave less and less choices in the hands of individuals, in the way of income, to start their own small businesses or make their investment. That's what has been happening: government has been the enemy. Then some governments and some political parties say the private sector is letting us down. They're not carrying out the investment; they're not creating the jobs. How can they when you've taken away all their money? You take it, and then you blame them and you use that as an excuse to take more and more, and the end is very, very predictable.

I'I tell you, Mr. Speaker, we saw the high costs that were brought to this province when that party was in government for just three years. But forget them. Look at countries that have had a succession of terms of governments that have had that high-taxation, government-ownership policy. You don't just see the problem we're experiencing in Canada where 40 percent of the gross national product is going for taxation; you see countries where it's 50 percent or 60 percent of the people's income, and they're left with less and less. The governments there use it as an excuse to take more and more, because they say that people don't show the initiative to respond, and they must respond for them. It's the chicken and the egg, and somebody has to make the first move.

Somebody has to stop the trend that was happening, and you can't just lame the corporations or government. You can't blame the people. Somebody's got to say to the people: "We'll give you a chance, and we'll show you how, and we'll let you participate." I don't expect this to happen in a year, or two years, or three years. This is something that's taken us almost 100 years to arrive at; hopefully it won't take 400 years to reverse.

This country started out with a lot of bright promise, and that promise — a little bit dim — is not yet tarnished. We still have a great opportunity. The individuals who came here still haven't lost hope, and the young people particularly are the ones who stand for the future in this province, and they're the ones who are the most excited about this share opportunity.

It may be too late for some. We can't change their thinking. Their minds were made up years ago; they haven't had a new thought in years. They became committed to a political system and they closed their minds. But our young are not that way. They know what they want, and they want opportunity. They know what they want. They want freedom. They know what they want, and they want ownership. And do you know what else they're prepared to do? They're prepared to get out and work for it. But they're not going to work if everything they do goes to government.

Yet the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) tried to tell us that the directors of companies aren't responsible to their shareholders. I tell you that's their first responsibility.

You know, I wonder, when the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) gets up and talks about the directors being somehow captive and not working for the shareholders or something, if the directors of the Nanaimo Commonwealth Holding Society held a meeting to vote on that famous $80,000 that was paid out to buy a political seat. That's the political democracy that takes place over there.

We've got laws in this country that cover companies that sell securities and issue shares, laws to protect the shareholders. There are things called minority shareholders' rights and they'll be protected. This bill gives extra rights and protection to the shareholders in this corporation.

Interjection.

[ Page 156 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: You just listen to me a moment. I listened to you this afternoon and you were wrong. Now let me help you. Those of you who have been away from British Columbia for a long time might have forgotten what's gone on here.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Hon. members, may I take this opportunity — just while tempers cool a little — to remind all members, particularly new members, perhaps even some members who have sat in other Houses, that the procedures in this House may not be exactly the same as those to which you have become accustomed, and that in this House when the Speaker stands there are no further interruptions and all members take their seats immediately.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! And just in case the member most recently elected in Skeena (Mr. Howard) is not aware of the provisions that are given in this House for interruptions while the Speaker stands, perhaps I should read them for him.

I'I not take time just now to give those instructions. The member may wish, in the light of what happened this afternoon and again this evening, to read pages 461 through 466 of May, 17th edition.

There's only one way that we can have orderly debate in this House and that is if order is left in one place, and that is in the Chair. I trust that we can return now to orderly debate. The Premier has the floor.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the 1 percent is there to protect the people. It was in the legislation passed in 1977 — and the fact that people must be Canadian citizens. It is not the intent in the section to allow government to increase that, but rather, should the situation warrant it, decrease it as a further protection.

There are also protections written into this legislation, if the members will read it, to protect people who would try to circumvent the intention of this government. Let me say again what that intention is. It's to get the broadest possible distribution to all of our people, to give them an opportunity to own and not to let anyone take it away.

There have been suggestions from that side of the floor that somehow someone can take this away. I tell you they can't take it away if you won't sell. I tell the people not to sell. I was surprised after we announced the distribution that some political parties who first opposed it — and then they were told by their public relations agents that they couldn't act like socialists, because we might be coming to an election — said it was too late to do anything about it. Then some of them were suggesting, almost demanding, of their members: "Get your shares and turn them over to the political party. Give them to us." They didn't want the people to have ownership, even after it was extended. They said: "Give it to the political party. Give it to the NDP." They want their shares when they are government, and when they are in opposition they'll take them as a political party. That's the way they think. That's what they suggested, not just in one association but in a number of associations around this province.

I want the people to apply for the free shares and purchase others if they can.

We live in a society where many people have disposable income. It may be that you have to cut down going out for dinner or you may take a more modest holiday. I'm not asking people to put themselves into debt or to create a hardship on things they need. But there is income that I would like to see our people harness because they are willing to own a piece of the future of this province. I don't want them to just talk about it or listen to those who only know talk and don't know how to deliver.

I want the people to be encouraged to divert part of their income, because investing takes a little bit of guts and courage. It takes a little bit of sacrifice. I don't want them to follow the siren song of an easy road that starts off paved and ends up rocks. I want them to know that they have to show a little responsibility and sacrifice in making investments. I want them to know that it's easy to yell against some foreign or other ownership, but that somehow if they don't participate themselves and show a little sacrifice, that somehow those who give them the glib talk and the slogans are going to come along as a government and hand it to them and all of a sudden we'll be in Valhalla.... It doesn't happen that way.

Ownership is an experience that shows you responsibility along with the opportunity. The additional investment will give you a chance to extend some of that opportunity, but you've got to show that you're willing to make a little sacrifice. You can't go out. You might have to have a more modest car. You can't have twin exhausts and chrome tail pipes. You may not be able to drive a Mercedes Benz like the member for Vancouver Centre, who hasn't been in the House for the last few days. You may have to show a little restraint, but the opportunity for investment is there.

I'm encouraging the people to apply for the free shares, and not to let any slick-talking business talk them out of them. Don't let any political party bully you out of them. Hold them. Don't sell them. Don't give them away. They're your stake in the future. If you're young, and you can only apply for the five shares now, know that in the future there will be other opportunities to purchase additional shares. You can have more shares if you continue buying. There'll be opportunity. There will be a market. And surely, with such a future as there is with this company and in this province, there'll be plenty more opportunities for our people.

These five shares do not take away the right to have dividends. You can get dividends with your five shares. It was only out of concern for the very shareholders of the company, the people who are getting the company, that it was decided that you couldn't, economically, without costing them a lot of money out of their company that could go for dividends or expansion, print glossy brochures and annual reports and meetings and votes. So it was decided, as it has been done in others, to have a board lot of 100. That means two things. It means their company runs more economically and they can still get their dividends; it also

[ Page 157 ]

gives them a goal to shoot for, to increase their shares, an added incentive for investment.

Second-class? No, for once we're calling them first-class. Second-class is when a group of people run for office, take the government, tax you and then, without consulting you, spend your money as they see fit on investments, saying they know what's good for you.

They talk about shareholders' meetings. I've got a lot of people who would like to go to a shareholders' meeting of Hydro or ICBC or any of the other government Crown corporations in B.C. or Canada, anywhere. I'd like to see them try and collect their dividends there or have a vote, because they don't have a vote. At least at an annual meeting they can vote in these companies because of law. You say they're protected every four years. Sometimes four years is too long with the wrong sort of government. There was a great opportunity in the election, and earlier, for parties of philosophy to get beyond the "you did, you didn't" of this and that, and talk about philosophy. The member for Nanaimo came closest when he talked about commonalty of ownership. He talked about someone who was happy with that type of ownership in Yugoslavia. That's fine, and he agrees with it. I don't, nor do most people in this country who came here to get away from it.

If we are going to give the people a clear choice, then people should be prepared to stand up and be counted, not only in debate but by their vote. I've never heard such a thing as I heard today when the member for Victoria stood in the House, spoke against BCRIC as members of that other party have, raised all sorts of....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Premier has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. KING: Senator McCarthy will never die as long as you are alive.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're absolutely brilliant.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. May we proceed with orderly debate, please?

HON. MR. BENNETT: When you believe in your principles, you can speak about your principles; you can talk among your friends about your principles. But the final thing is having the guts to vote your principles. To talk one way and then say you are afraid to vote is jumping squarely on the fence and trying to balance there. They said that it was too late so they couldn't vote against it. Too late! Well, I've got to tell you that your party does not have a majority in this House, and you can vote against it. Vote your principles. If that is the way you carry out votes, I don't expect to see you vote against any of the measures this government introduces in the next five years.

You are not going to vote against it, because you are afraid. You wouldn't tell the people during the election where you stood. You wanted to agree with those who didn't understand it or disagreed with it. You wanted to let those who believed in it think you wouldn't take it away. But this bill extends to the people of this province an opportunity they haven't had. It is going to reverse a trend. It is going to create more ownership. It is going to set an example.

I hope the schools will be encouraged to provide that kind of education. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) said it is propaganda to have an educational system that equips our young people to cope in the society we live in, the society we are in right now. This is a private enterprise society. Education can be just as distorted by omission. Yes, I want the young people of this province to know the opportunities that are here. I don't want them to be lost because they are not trained or don't have the knowledge to take advantage of society. Lack of education would make them fodder for those who would sell them on another system.

I am proud to have introduced this bill. I am proud to support it. I think the response in this province will be overwhelming in the years ahead. When we started out, I thought if people invested just an additional $20 million or $30 million, it would be an outstanding success. I hope that their confidence will exceed that $20 million or $30 million of additional investment in their corporation. It will be their actions; they will be the final arbiter. They will be the judge who will decide whether this is what they want for themselves and for British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the answer doesn't just lay here where we have a majority; the answer for this will lay out there with the people. That is where the final judgment will be made.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 12, British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

SOCIAL SERVICES TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 3: Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

On section 3.

MRS. WALLACE: I am very pleased to see the additions that are included in section 3 — the vitamins and dietary supplements, and the diabetic and ostomy supplies. But I'm wondering whether or not we could persuade the Minister of Finance to include also those supplies used by sufferers of asthma.

This is a long-term affliction that goes on for years and years, and those particular products, things like Bronchaid, for example, that are prescribed by doctors are not exempt from the tax. I would certainly like to urge the minister to include those items that asthma sufferers use in this particular section.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I appreciate the member's comments, Mr. Chairman. There are amendments of that type

[ Page 158 ]

that from time to time can be considered by regulation, I presume. We have incorporated these amendments in the Act, but I appreciate her suggestions.

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

Bill 3, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Now, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: And it is an Act, the Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, now that I have caught my breath and collected my thoughts, may I draw your attention again to Bill 3, which is the Social Services Tax Amendment Act and ask those in favour to please say "aye."

Motion approved.

Bill 3, Social Services Tax Amendment Act, 1979, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Does that mean it's gone down an extra percent? [Laughter.]

Committee on Bill 6.

PARI MUTUAL BETTING TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Pari Mutual Betting Tax Amendment Act, 1979, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 7.

REVENUE SURPLUS OF 1977-78
APPROPRIATION ACT, 1979

(continued)

MR. HOWARD: Just a while ago I had the opportunity to listen to some admonitions about what the rules say with respect to debate and decorum in debate. I know there is in the eyes of the general public a sort of a cynical appreciation of what the Legislature is and how it should conduct its affairs. It's true that at times the debate runs a little bit beyond the bounds of normal, respectful conversation and hence gets out of hand. But normally we all appreciate the cynicism of the general public about the level of debate in the House, and that is contributed to from time to time. Probably the most deleterious contribution in that regard comes when persons at the commencement of their remarks make some inappropriate comment. In the heat of debate one can probably overlook it sometimes. But when at the commencement of a conversation or debate persons make a remark that degrades the level of debate, then it's worth looking at. In that regard, during the comments of the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) on this particular bill there was a comment made that I didn't think quite fitted the level of debate we wanted in this House. I made a note of it.

I really do think, with respect, that the comment of the member for North Okanagan, referring to the speech made by a member on this side of the House to the effect that after she had heard that speech, she then understood why the hon. member on this side of the House had to put his wife out to work was inappropriate. I thought that kind of personal remark really is not germane to the contents of the bill, and certainly not elevating, or designed to elevate the level of debate in the House. They were made at the commencement of the hon. member's remarks. It's that sort of thing that tends to reduce the level of debate in the

[ Page 159 ]

House, regretfully. A personal remark of that nature with the innuendo behind it that some people might interpret, could easily generate something in response which we really don't want to see. In passing, I say it was regretful.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Your remarks, I think, although perhaps not germane to the bill, will be well received by the House. Perhaps we could now move to the principle of the bill.

MR. HOWARD: I'm getting to that stage. I was trying, in a very gentle way, to approach the question without incurring anybody's wrath on the other side of the House.

One could comment in passing, although it certainly wouldn't add to the level of this debate, that perhaps after listening to the member for North Okanagan, one could appreciate why her husband likes to see her in the Legislature, because it keeps her out of the home. But I wouldn't say that. I just mention in passing that that's the type of comment that is generated by the initial invitation.

Far be it from me to proceed any further on that, and I'm only looking at the bill before me which says that there is a revenue surplus somewhere that needs to be expended and applied towards certain things.

I think it's necessary to say that, through you to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), there are kernels of truth within the budget. Those truths, to a certain extent, are reflected and carried forward into the bill that's before us. But those truths, so-called, need to be examined and we need to say: "How did this surplus come about that this bill seeks to deal with in part?"

I only put these forward in order to balance the question. It is a known fact, Mr. Speaker — admitted, I think, by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), and others in the cabinet as well — that there did exist and there still exists in this province funds called "special purpose funds." These are moneys set aside for particular and for special purposes. Some of those funds were set aside under the premiership of the late Mr. Bennett. Some of those funds were set aside by the Premier of this province during the time that the NDP was in government. And some of those funds called "special purpose funds" were closed out to the extent of $40 million by the present Minister of Finance. These special purpose funds were established for particular purposes — "rainy day funds," the late Mr. Bennett used to call them. Those rainy day funds, those special purpose funds, came into existence out of revenue surpluses of preceding budgets and preceding governments, including the government headed by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett). Forty millions of dollars those revenue surplus funds moved from the capital asset side of the ledger to the income side of the ledger, and were called, for the second time, revenue surplus. But those funds were, in fact, not revenue surplus — not of this government, certainly. They were a revenue surplus that came from somebody else's proper management of the fiscal affairs of this province.

I think for a Minister of Finance — maybe that is why he uses the phrase "sunshine budget" — to have taken the revenue surplus of previous administrations, closed them out, moved them over and called them a revenue surplus that he was responsible for.... If he were in private business he might well be in jail for that kind of activity. A terrible state of affairs.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: If he were; but he wasn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. member please withdraw the phrase "and he should be in jail"?

MR. HOWARD: Well, Mr. Speaker, out of respect for the Chair and your position as Speaker, I would not want to say anything that offends the decorum and the structure of this House, and I will gladly withdraw that phrase — no matter how true it is.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, sir.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's skating pretty close.

MR. HOWARD: But I withdraw it.

I'I say that the Minister of Finance did, in fact, take funds that were put in a savings account by somebody else's fiscal management, close the savings account out and put them in as a current account, and took all the glory and the credit for it. I don't know what word I can use to describe that sort of political dishonesty. If I can’t say political dishonesty, I'll withdraw that as well, Mr. Speaker. I see you getting sensitive about it. I see that I can do nothing in this House but applaud the Minister of Finance, and then maybe things will be appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that the Minister of Finance and his government took some capital assets that the people of this province had paid for out of revenue surpluses of previous administrations, or paid for out of income of previous administrations that had been budgeted for, took a capital asset in the form of three ferries, and sold them to eastern financial interests. He took the $48 million that came from the sale of those capital assets, put it onto the revenue side of the account and said: "Aren't we great fiscal managers? We are creating a surplus."

That, Mr. Speaker, with great respect, does not show the true picture of the fiscal activities of this government. In fact one of the companies to whom they sold one or more of these three ferries — I don't know how many they sold to which company — was not in the shipping business, not in the transportation business, and didn't know anything at all about the production side of the economy of this province. It was a stockbroker by name of McLeod Young Weir, Ltd., so the record shows.

Perhaps that points out truthfully what the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has said on many, many occasions. This was a bit of connivance between the present government and eastern financial interests to ensure that those eastern financial interests got a tax advantage out of the federal government.

That's how part of the revenue surplus that we're dealing with here came about. The sum of $88 million came from the capital asset side and was transferred to revenue. This is the revenue surplus, and some of that surplus came out of the revenue surplus created by previous administrations. It's like people who have a house and operate on a month-to-month basis, as most people do. They've got so much income this month and I have to expend so much money to keep alive, pay the grocery bill, the rent and all those sorts of things. In one particular month they find out

[ Page 160 ]

that their television set has blown its master tube, and they need another one. In order to pay for the new television set, they sell the kitchen stove, take the money from the kitchen stove that they've sold, add that money to their income for that month, and they buy a new television set. They say: "Hey, man, ain't we doing well! We got a new television set and it's a colour television set this time. Of course we won't be able to cook our meals for another month or two until we can sell something else in order to buy a kitchen stove." That's the kind of process that's been going on here with these capital assets.

Let's look at what the revenue surpluses were supposed to have been. They were identified so many times in budgets that I think the Minister of Finance knows full well what they are. He won't mind if I repeat them now. In the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, there was a supposed revenue surplus of $76 million and in the fiscal year March 31, 1978, there was a revenue surplus of $140 million. The 1979 estimate — we haven't got the accounts for the March 31, 1979, fiscal year yet — is $145 million. This is a total of $361 million for that three-year period. That's partly what this bill is dealing with.

I think we should look at the other side of the ledger, the income side, and see what it has contributed. Apart from the sale of these two capital assets that were the closing out of the special purposes fund and the sale of two ferries for the tax advantage of eastern financial interests, there was some income generated by the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

The B.C. Petroleum Corporation, for the edification of those who may not have examined it closely, is one of those horrible socialist ideas. It's one of those terrible things that the NDP government engaged in. It was condemned the length and the breadth of this land by the gentlemen opposite, not the least of whom was the Premier.

In the fiscal year 1976, B.C. Petroleum Corporation, a socialist venture — I shiver at the word when I mention it — generated $198 million. In 1977 fiscal year it generated $149 million. In 1978 it generated $170 million and in 1979 an estimated $195 million. From that one socialist venture alone the provincial government has had an income of over $712 million since 1975. I take that $712 million to be approximately accurate because it includes $195 million estimated for this past fiscal year.

I assume the government estimates its income accurately: $712 million from a socialist venture which the Socreds didn't like, didn't want, condemned as intrusive, and engaged in the type of debate, Mr. Speaker, that I'm sure, had you been the Speaker at the time, you would have ruled out of order.

Now we look at what the surplus was in that period of time. The revenue surplus which the minister claims to exist is $361 million. The difference between the amount of money generated by the B.C. Petroleum Corporation and the amount of revenue surplus that the government claims exists was $351 million extra. In other words, putting it all together, if this government had not been saved by a terrible, horrible socialist concept we would have had an accumulated deficit under this government of $439 million. You would have been $400 million in the hole. Saved by socialists! Saved by a beautiful concept!

HON. MR. CHABOT: Rubbish!

MR. HOWARD: I would say to my friend the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing that his declarations from his seat are probably the most appropriate ones he has made so far in this House since I've been here. If he wants to continue to transgress upon the rules of the House by so doing, that's his business. If he wants to engage in the debate on the bill, I'm sure he'll take the occasion to do that.

All of this is in the face of the heaviest level of taxation that this province has seen. All of this is in the face of an increase from 5 percent to 7 percent in the sales tax, an increase in the corporation tax, an increase in the personal income tax, an increase in the ferry rates and an increase in everything else in those first years of office to try to save them.

I would appreciate it if one individual, the Minister of Finance, who is telling us about the truths in the budget and the truths in this bill, would also tell us that kind of truth. Namely, the truth is that his government and his fiscal management, so-called, is the result of closing out capital assets that were not his doing in the first place, classifying them as revenue, and also taking all he could get out of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, a corporation which he condemned but which he embraced when he found that it had saved him.

I'd also like to mention a little bit about one of the purposes of this bill in its precise terms, which is to apply an amount of some $26 million to the reduction of the direct provincial debt. The direct provincial debt came about.... I'm not going to get into the argument as to how or why it came about, or anything of that sort; that becomes rather specious at this time. I think the truth has been laid on the table on many occasions by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) earlier today, and yesterday by my colleague next to me from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), showing that there really wasn't any need to borrow that money, that it was cooking the books.

AN HON. MEMBER: What do you know?

MR. HOWARD: I know the rules of this House, which don't permit you to interrupt in the fashion that you're interrupting. I learned that one today.

I want to deal with this thing called debt, and we're going to reduce a part of it by this bill. The fact of the matter is that the money has already been spent. The debt has been reduced by that $26 million, and this is just sort of saying: let's approve what we've done. I know that much.

MR. RITCHIE: Are you going to vote for it?

MR. HOWARD: Am I going to vote for what?

AN HON. MEMBER: This bill.

MR. HOWARD: I don't know why it is that all I hear today from members opposite is they want to know how I'm going to vote. They seem so impatient. Perhaps they'll wait until the vote comes, and then they'll discover that fact. I don't know why there's such sensitivity about how one is going to vote.

I'd ask the honourable gentleman, perhaps if I could put a proposition forward at the committee stage, how he would vote on it. That's important, because it deals with a debt.

[ Page 161 ]

A few days ago the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), in dealing with this question of debt, made some references, said that we have a deficit, we have a debt, and we're paying $20 million a year interest to service that debt. Wasn't that terrible, because that $20 million, so the Minister of Health told us, was sufficient to pay for the entire Pharmacare program for this province, or the entire ambulance service for this province, intimating that if we didn't have to pay interest on the debt, then we could provide these other social services, or so he said. And those are his words, if anybody wants to read them in Hansard.

Now let's look at what this debt question is, and how the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance made a decision contrary to and against the interests of the general public in this province with respect to the question of debt.

At one time we had this sort of debt broken down into these categories: we had a $50 million debt carrying a 9.25 percent interest rate; we had $100 million carrying an 8 percent interest rate; we had $11,447,790 carrying an 8 percent interest; we had two treasury bills issued, each in the amount of $50 million, each carrying 8 percent. That was the total. There were interest payments on that debt, Mr. Speaker, of $21.5 million. The total of the debt was, $261,447,790. That's the debt that was incurred in 1976 by this government. It incurred the debt. It borrowed the money, and it borrowed the money at those interest rates, so says the public accounts.

Then on May 1, 1978, the government took all that debt, closed it out, and borrowed the same amount of money at 9-1/8 percent. In other words, they paid off money that they borrowed at 8 percent and borrowed the same amount of money at 9-1/8 percent. Is that good business for the general public of this province? Not very likely, because I'll tell you what it cost, Mr. Speaker. It cost the taxpayers of this province, by that sort of stupidity, an extra $2.3 million a year in interest, just because you paid it off at 8 percent and borrowed the same amount at 9-1/8 percent.

Why? You had the money in the kitty to pay the debt off, so we were told. You had all this budgetary surplus around, sitting there. But they were not content to save the taxpayers of this province those amounts of interest payments. They would sooner roll the money over, borrow it at a higher interest rate, and charge the taxpayers of this province an extra $2.3 million a year, just so they could continue to perpetuate on the books of this province the myth that somebody got them into trouble. That's all it was, political immorality, a move of a political nature to soak the poor taxpayers of the province $2.3 million a year in order to pay for it. That, Mr. Speaker, is what this stupidity of debt reduction is all about.

They are now in the process of saying: "We are going to pay off that debt in ten annual equal payments, so that at the — end of ten years we will have eliminated the debt." Mr. Speaker, under the terms of acquiring that additional debt at 9-1/8 percent, the government reserved the option to pay it off at any time, and it would seem to me that a government that is so concerned about debt and fiscal management and wasting the taxpayers' money would be better served by paying that debt off and getting it off the books than they are to carry on in the way that they are carrying on. It would not be political, but it would sure as blazes....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the time provided for under the standing orders has elapsed.

I see the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan), but she has already spoken in this debate.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, the hon. member who has just taken his seat opened his debate with reference to a comment that I made in my address yesterday, referring to the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). I would say, Mr. Speaker, that at the time I certainly had no intention of any subtle undertones of the comment — it fitted in, I think, with the debate — nor did I feel at the time that the hon. member for Prince Rupert took any offence. Frequently he and many members on this side of the House have jostled in debate in this House and in conversations outside the House. Nonetheless, I listened very carefully to the member's comments. My reputation in this House is very important to me and to my family and to our party. And I felt quite concerned, and was certainly prepared to stand up in this House and withdraw, should that have been necessary. And I still am.

But I would say, Mr. Speaker, that after listening to the further comments made by that member during his address and the subsequent rebukes by the Speaker to that member regarding those comments, and after reviewing the Blues where he had a most severe rebuke in previous debate, I would just say that, had I in any way offended the member from Prince Rupert, I would cheerfully withdraw — I have a very high regard for him. But I do feel the credibility of that member's statements is very much in question.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

In reviewing the standing orders I only see provision for one way in which a member may speak twice in a debate, and that is by reply. One of the provisions is to make a correction in a statement which has been attributed to an offended member. I would wish that we could adhere to those two provisions and two provisions only; otherwise we will get into a lot of statements strictly on the basis of asking for a point of order. I would warn against this kind of procedure in the House.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it's the second time, I suppose, that we've had a bill of this type proportioning revenue surpluses. And the member who has just taken his place has quite adequately outlined the manner in which these surpluses were accrued. What I would like to talk about however, is the priorities for redistribution.

Mr. Speaker, a little bit of a malaise is setting into this government. There seems to be an infectious disease called "liberalism" spreading because the legislation is starting to get a little bit like what the federal Liberals used to do. The federal Liberals used to bring out a terrific program. They would bring it out for one year and then, by the time anyone found out about the program, they pulled it back, and then they'd push it out somewhere else, and by the time people learned how to apply for it and take advantage of it they pulled it back.

Last year in this similar bill, which was called Bill 5, there was a provision for water improvement districts to get some financial assistance. And I know that in my riding about four or five of the water improvement districts did take advantage of it, and yet they were not really the most

[ Page 162 ]

needy ones, because the ones that were most in need were not really prepared and ready to take advantage of it.

So we're looking at the way in which we should be apportioning the distribution of this surplus for things such as were included in Bill 5 last year, such as an intensified forest management program. For some of the other similar things which are held over from last year — the students' summer employment program — the extra amount is included in here, and for the accelerated highways construction program, which was also included in last year's bill.

But one very notable omission — and I think a very regrettable omission — is any provision for water improvement districts, which last year was taken up by some. There have been water improvement districts who have not had any promises made but have been led to believe that this would probably come forward again this year because the program had been successful. And with this very late sitting of the Legislature, I can assure the minister that there will be in my riding alone — and, I know, in the ridings of the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) and the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in Columbia River; I know because they are in the same regional water rights district, administered from the Nelson office — a great number of water improvement districts which had very high expectations. So I would wonder if the minister has some other piece of legislation coming down in a day or two, and if this thing was not perhaps an oversight. But perhaps something very special is considered. I really wonder, and I would hope that, when he sums up in debate in second reading.... I would wonder why such a successful and useful program — and one which also generated jobs — is being discounted, because it is something that is very much needed.

It is a service that improves not only the availability of water, but there are health aspects and many other things inherent in the upgrading of these systems. For that reason I was very disappointed to see this omission. I see the member has out, maybe, last year's budget speech. I would hope there is some inclusion there.

MR. STUPICH: I notice the minister saying in an aside that all the remarks from this side of the House were wrong. I'd like to start by saying that the bill is a snare and a delusion from beginning to end, and invite him to respond to the specific questions and criticisms of the legislation before us.

First of all, that payment of revenue surplus, 1977-78. The members who were in the House in the previous Legislature will know that the surplus was deliberately built up and added to in the following year so that the government would have massive sums to give away during the course of an election campaign; and give them away they certainly did. We'll have more to say about that at a later date.

To get on with the specific items included in section 1, the first an amount not exceeding $26,100,000 to reduce the provincial unmatured debt of $261,447,790, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) did dwell on this to some extent. I'd like to make a few points about it.

The first one is to refer to remarks of the hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) speaking on June 8. I referred to this earlier but I didn't have the quotation; now I have it. "How come they're paying interest if there was no debt? How come they're paying enough interest to pay for our entire Pharmacare program, our entire ambulance service for a year?" He's wondering how come the government is paying interest if there's no debt. Let's look at the public accounts and see whether we can find some reason for the government paying interest when we have said the debt was built up by the present administration.

Looking at the public accounts for the year March 31, 1977, we did pay interest on debt, interest in the amount of $15,606,747, money that would have covered a lot of government programs. Not entirely, perhaps, but it would certainly have helped. Interestingly enough, in that same year income from government short-term investments exceeded that expense figure. The income figure for that year was $16,494,886. Obviously we must have had more money on deposit than we had in the so-called debt, or the income would not have exceeded the expense. At least, that's the inference I draw from that.

For the year ended March 31, 1978, the figures were even more different. Expense, yes; truly there was money paid out on borrowed money — expense of $22,507,492. Again, a lot of money, and it seems a shame to waste it on dead-weight debt if that's, indeed, what we were doing. At the same time, as we were paying $22 million out, we were taking in from short-term deposits $34,896,363.

Looking at the latest figures we have available, to the end of January 1979 — that's for a period of ten months — in that period we still had this expense, this interest on this dead-weight debt in the amount of $13,788,016. But in that same period interest from short-term deposits were $41,873,547.

There can be only one reason for borrowing money and investing it in short-term deposits, and that is that if you are getting more interest on the short-term deposits, then you're paying on the money you've borrowed. Now if that indeed was the case, if the Minister of Finance was clever enough to find some place from where he could borrow money at a rate cheaper than he is getting by putting that money into short-term bank deposits, then I would suggest that rather than borrow a quarter of a billion dollars he should have borrowed $40 billion, or $400 billion, and we wouldn't need any other taxes. Let's just borrow money at this cheap rate the Minister of Finance has found from somewhere or other and invest it in short-term bank deposits, and make all kinds of money.

The alternative to that proposition is that he is, indeed, paying more to maintain this fiction of the government debt than he is getting on the short-term deposits, and he's doing the people of the province a disservice in so doing.

Section b: the hypocrisy of the homeowner grant. Every year but one during which the NDP was in office there was a general increase of homeowner grant. The first year in which this present administration increased the homeowner grant was the year when they were going into an election campaign. The increase was announced the day before they called the election. They waited all that time, and during the whole of that period they piled additional loads of taxes on local taxpayers. They shifted the load of education increasingly to the local taxpayers, kept piling it on year after year, and then at the end of that term when they were ready to call the election — the day before they called the election — they announced that all of a sudden we were able to make an increase in the homeowner grant.

Now we know how long we're going to have to wait for the next one at that rate, Mr. Speaker. And we know that

[ Page 163 ]

the day the increase in the homeowner grant is once again announced by this administration will be the day before they call the election. That's their pattern: to increase taxes, pile taxes and costs on people, then when you're ready to call the election, take it all off at once.

The next point is an amount not exceeding $25 million-plus for an accelerated highway construction program. Well, this is one area where they really do spend the money, Mr. Speaker; we've got to admit that. The financial statements for the ten months ending January 31, 1979, where we had estimated $157 million for capital for highways for the whole year.... In ten months they had spent in excess of $200 million and now an extra $25 million-odd for highways. Nobody's really against highway building; at least nobody is against it when it applies to their own riding specifically. We can all oppose it in general terms when it's going to other ridings, but we all want more spent on our own districts, that's true.

But I wonder why we have to starve such programs — and I dealt with this in some detail in the previous debate — as health programs as we have done; why we have to starve the human resource programs as we have done, as evidenced by the ten-month statement; why we have to starve the recreation programs as we have done, as is evidenced by this same ten-month statement; why we have to starve the reforestation programs, as is dealt with in the ten-month statement in two areas.

In a previous debate I mentioned how estimates have been underspent in this matter of reforestation. Last year we had a surplus allocation budget. You will remember that one of the parts of that was $10 million for reforestation. We spent only $6.5 million of it.

They are starving programs that are very important in the province. The salmonid enhancement program was starved.

The Fort Nelson extension is the next item on the list — $14 million for the purpose of the Fort Nelson extension. Well, you remember the story about the Fort Nelson extension, Mr. Speaker. You will remember the royal commission report that was commissioned by the government to tell them what they wanted to be told about the BCR. Then the report came down and said that they should cancel or close the Fort Nelson extension. The government wiffle-waffled on that for about three months and then when it decided it was time to have an election, the Premier announced that they would not close the Fort Nelson extension. Well, we're waiting for him to arrive at some new conclusion about the Fort Nelson extension. But in the meantime, let's throw $14 million into this program to show that we're using up that money that we took away from the people in previous periods.

The next one is forest management. I mentioned that earlier, but the earlier part was with reference to the estimates. This part is with reference to the special program, and I pointed out that the program is being seriously underspent in the previous year.

Accelerated recreational facilities, point (g) — $5.5 million was provided for this kind of program last year but we didn't spend it. We spent $2.7 million in ten months. Are we really going to spend this?

Mr. Speaker, it looks like a good program. But I think the members on the government side of the House, in voting for this particular bill before us right now, should realize that what they're voting for is to start building up the kitty for the next election program, that the Minister of Finance doesn't really intend to spend the $140 million that is mentioned in this bill, that the evidence before us from previous periods is that the government won't spend it, and in this bill they even say so. Because when you turn the page and read page 2, you will see that the government is already opening the door to the possibility of this money not being spent and to it being set aside for the next election period. I'll read section 2: "Any part of the money appropriated by this Act that may be unexpended at the end of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, shall not be expended after that date." It doesn't go on to say, but it might as well go on to say that it will be saved until the next election campaign when we will throw it all into this campaign that will once again attempt to bribe the people with their own money to vote the government back into office.

In an aside, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) said, when the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) was speaking, with reference to the election campaign: "But the voters didn't throw us out of office." Well, Mr. Speaker, if the government continues in the way in which it has continued and if they lose as many seats in the next campaign as they lost in the last one, then they will be thrown out of office the next time. So I suggest they change their ways, that they not continue to take money away from the people right up until the day before they are ready to call the election and then try to hand it all back in the period of a short election campaign. It worked, but barely. Next time it might not work even barely.

MR. BRUMMET: I am just going by the concluding remarks of the member for Nanaimo, who was saying that obviously the government does not intend to spend any of this money or a great deal of this money. I find, as I go through the list that he spelled out, it hard to fathom where he gets that type of opinion. I don't think there is any problem in spending $26 million to reduce debt. It should be fairly easy to write a cheque, or whatever methods are used.

MR. BARBER: They use a shovel.

MR. BRUMMET: I imagine the hon. member is going to use his shovel; he is leaving us.

I suspect there would be no difficulty in using the $55 million allotted for the homeowner grant. The people of the province will certainly appreciate that. As for accelerated highway construction, the implication is that there is an amount with no intention of using it. If it is available, I think that the backbenchers would ask for more. I don't think the government would have any problem spending more, and I am sure there are some members on the other side of the House who would ask for more.

We have had some comments about spending $14 million to upgrade the Fort Nelson railway line. There is a report that says that it shouldn't be done, or something. But let's put it in, I think the member said, just to show that we have this money to spend. I don't think any member of the opposition party would, in an election campaign or at any time in the Fort Nelson area, ever make that comment that it's really not worthwhile. The BCR line, despite that report, or whatever other reports come out, is a good investment. There is a great deal of revenue coming from

[ Page 164 ]

the north, and that line is necessary and is certainly a good investment.

If we can keep a halter on Mr. Kinnaird, so that the workers will continue, there should be no problem in spending the forest management money. There will be no problem at all in spending the money for job experience programs for young people and for recreational facilities.

MR. BARBER: Don't be sensitive.

MR. BRUMMET: I don't have any reason to be sensitive on my behalf. Since these members have done this, again showing the type of people that they are, since....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: Yes, I am upset, but not upset on my own behalf. I am upset because right from the first day of this House the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) has waged an attack on Mr. Ed Smith. He has taken shots at Mr. Ed Smith, for what reasons I don't know. There have been numerous comments, snide remarks and vicious attacks from members of the opposition. I think the past records will show that while Ed Smith was in this House, the opposition did everything possible to destroy him. And they did that, Mr. Speaker, for....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we're on second reading of Bill 7. We have had a little latitude in the debate here, but we really should be discussing the principle of the Revenue Surplus of 1977-78 Appropriation Act, 1979. I'd ask the member for North Peace River to keep his debate within the scope of second reading of this bill.

MR. BRUMMET: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was in the discussion of the Fort Nelson line that Mr. Smith's name was raised, and for political expediency again. And why it has to be continually raised.... The man was defeated in a democratic process and I don't think he needs to be maligned any further by the opposition.

However, I would like to say this on behalf of our area, since other bills here are looking after building programs — and I'm speaking of the recreational facilities program, and Bills 8 and 9 look after special building programs for the metropolitan areas. Hopefully this $5 million will go to help our area. I would appreciate it if anything can be done to expedite approvals because we do have a short building season up there.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly can support this bill. I can see that this is a good use of this money and a good investment for the people of this province, despite what the opposition members say.

MR. COCKE: And wild applause was heard throughout the precincts.

Mr. Speaker, "We want Ed," was a simple comment over here, and that is maligning poor old Ed?

MR. BRUMMET: I'm talking about the other remark.

MR. COCKE: That member is super-sensitive, and I suspect a little guilt is flowing through his veins. Tough beans!

MR. BRUMMET: Do you want Ed after what you did to him?

MR. COCKE: After what we did to him! He probably had a hand in it, and the member for North Peace River did the coup de grace.

I will get back to the principle of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, there was a time for the throne and budget speeches; we have just disposed of those two. Perhaps now we can proceed to second reading of the bill.

MR. COCKE: Having dealt with the principal from North Peace River.... And it was a great favour to the students when he came down here. I'm not suggesting, however, that it's going to be a great favour to the whole province.

Mr. Speaker, will they spend it? That is what the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was asking. He gave some specifics. Then he went on to say that at the end of the bill there's a little bit of a section that says that any inappropriate money at the end of the time must not be spent after the time limit on the bill. Naturally they put that in there, we suspect, because history tells us that they don't always spend it. The money that they don't spend will be there for another surplus another day.

MR. RITCHIE: Good management.

MR. COCKE: Good management! Now I want to deal with management. Some of the best management that I saw.... I've said this before in this House: probably one of the greatest disappointments to me was the behaviour of our Minister of Finance during his early period in that portfolio. It was not only that discredited budget that he brought in in 1976, a budget that had to be reprinted and revised, a budget that had no precedent ever in this Legislature, in all of the history of this province. Never has a budget had to be reprinted because it was so scurrilous a document and untrue that it could not be distributed across the world. I was really disappointed because I have had a long acquaintanceship with that Minister of Finance.

I recall vividly hospitals surreptitiously phoning members of the opposition saying, "Hey, we've got manna from heaven," during that period. They got unexpected money. They're not getting any unexpected money now, my friend, not a nickel they don't expect, because they're begging for money and they're not even getting the money they should get. But at that time they got millions. So did the schools. And when did this all occur? It occurred between December 1975 and April 1976, the end of that fiscal year. You had four months to cook the books, and you did a beautiful job — they trained him well as a chartered accountant — up to that point. But beyond that, I got very, very discouraged.

Yes, that provincial unmatured debt, that $261 million, Socred manufactured debt, has to be paid. But let's remember who manufactured that debt. It was manufactured by that Minister of Finance, by that Premier, and all of the accomplices in the cabinet at the time. That's what

[ Page 165 ]

happened. It's very easy going when you've got four months to do it. You put your feet up on the desk and you do a little brainstorming: "We'll shuffle a little here, we'll shuffle a little there, and we'll manufacture anything we want." They started out with $700 million, but they couldn't make that stick. They finally brought it down to a manageable sum they thought they could make stick.

Unfortunately — yes, unfortunately — they sold a lot of people in this province that bill of goods.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, they have been found out. Forty-six percent this time said: "We're not buying that anymore." Forty-six percent this time said: "Nonsense! We're not going to believe that manufactured material from that government."

Those first few months were disappointing for so many reasons, not the least of which was that we saw so many turncoats. We didn't know what was happening over there. We saw, suddenly, Social Crediters that just a few months before had been raving Liberals and Conservatives; suddenly they became something new and fresh.

They're having trouble now, a great deal of trouble, trouble within the ranks, they call it. We've noticed how the Premier has been very nervous since coming back. We've noticed him continually looking around, feeling his back to find out whether or not there is that little stiletto in there. He knows he can trust the minister from the South Peace (Hon. Mr. Phillips), but that's about all that's there.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, this may be very interesting, but perhaps you can relate it to the bill, please.

MR. COCKE: I'm describing a group who had the capacity to do what they did between December 1975 and April 1976. They showed great ability, and that's where they created that large debt.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that revenue surplus — and we've got two of these bills before us, or two that are almost identical except for different purposes — is the kind of situation that continues to bring us back to those old irrelevant arguments, those old arguments that they've even used to convince some people to run for that party. I suggest that something better could be expected front that group. They have had extreme difficulty — and I don't know what they're going to do in the future — holding things together. As the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said, had it not been for the Petroleum Corporation, they would have been down the tube.

AN HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

MR. COCKE: It's right, not rubbish. Straighten out the tobacco in your mouth. As far as you're concerned, Mr. Minister, you know well enough that if I say rubbish, you can get up and argue on the floor of this House, but you haven't got one single argument to raise and that's why you haven't got up to raise it.

Mr. Minister of Finance, you can just settle yourself back in your chair until we're quite ready to give you the floor. I noted this afternoon that your colleague beside you made mention of the fact that there was some hurry to get out of this place. I'm in no hurry and I hope you aren't either. I love Victoria, particularly in the summer.

Mr. Speaker, let's talk about the future just for a second, and revenue surplus. I wonder how they're going to raise revenue surplus when they've got nothing more to sell. They can't sell any more ferries: the federal government took care of that. They can't move the Ministry of Public Works into a Crown corporation, which they did in order to avoid that aspect of the budget.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I doubt if they can move the hospitals to a Crown corporation, but if they could, that Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) would do it. He would do anything to get out of the mess he is in.

With the Buildings Corporation, what they did is put themselves into a bind. What do you do for encores now that you've pretty well moved everything out that you can? How do you get by the next three or four years, you bunch of magicians?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

I suggest, Mr. Speaker. that the magicians' day is over. They are now going to have to be, for the first time since they've been government, fiscally responsible, and to date we haven't seen it. Now, that you're brought up sharp, the only thing you can do is to squeeze priority areas like health.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Sure, because you haven't got anything else to sell; you haven't got anything else to move into a Crown corporation. So now you have to answer for the budget that you have before you.

Mr. Speaker, they're in a very tight spot indeed. I hope in talking about these revenue surplus situations, that somebody other than the Minister of Finance gets up from that side of the House — one of those back-bench cabinet ministers who has been indicating rubbish — and puts forward an argument. If they have got something to say, they should say it on the floor of the House rather than try to get Hansard to record "rubbish."

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Hansard has difficulty with that, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, if they haven't sold it, if they haven't given it away, it doesn't exist. We've seen this ever since they've been there, and I suggest they've got nothing left to cover their tracks. From here on in we'll have no more surpluses, nor will we have any more manufactured debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: They still have a couple of trains to sell.

MR. COCKE: They can't do that, Mr. Member. No, Pierre Trudeau told them they couldn't sell any more than three.

MR. BARBER: Maybe they can sell SeaBus to Gray line.

[ Page 166 ]

MR. COCKE: Yes, they can sell SeaBus to some outfit in Seattle.

But, Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you that as far as I am concerned, I'm very, very dissatisfied with the way that we have to debate this kind of bill. First they give themselves a pat on the back and then they talk about this debt, this manufactured debt. And it's just a bunch of rubbish.

MRS. WALLACE: We've heard some interesting debate tonight, and some very revealing debate, I think, on how we arrived at this surplus and whether or not this surplus will be spent. But I want to turn to a slightly different aspect of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

We have a bill to supposedly spend $140 million on various projects, and I am concerned not only that that probably won't all be spent, but I'm particularly concerned by the fact that only $10 million of that $140 million is allocated to support our major industry in this province, which is in dire straits. Any authority that you turn to, be it management, the workers in the industry, or the professionals, you find that there are grave concerns for the future of our forest industry in British Columbia. When we have a $140 million surplus, and this government somehow sees fit to allocate only $10 million of that towards the rejuvenation of our forest industry, it leaves me very concerned about the priorities of this government.

We have a shrinking timber supply. We have had statistics provided which indicate that we've had great increases, but what they don't tell us is that those increases have been based on years when there have been great frost damage or something like that. And then there appears to be a great increase in the reforestation. I don't care how great those increases have been or how much more money we have put into the forest industry, we are still a long way behind in our reforestation program.

There are other areas that we could be involved in to encourage the viability of the forest industry here in British Columbia. It's not just reforestation. We need to do that, yes, and we need to expand it much, much more than we are at present. We're talking about 52 million acres in Canada, and we have 50 percent of the forest industry here in B.C., but we're behind. We've fallen behind radically. The B.C. Forest Service says that based on their estimates we're 82 percent of where we should be. The private companies that are concerned indicate that we're much lower than that — something like 45 percent of where we should be in reforestation.

In addition to reforestation we should be getting involved in other types of development in the forest industry, and I mentioned it earlier in another debate in this House this year. The knowledge and the technology that we have here relative to further processing of our forest product is something that we should be exploiting. We have the waste. We are wasting a tremendous amount of our forest resource. I am not going to bore the House at this hour of the night with the statistics, but we must give more consideration to our forest industry if it is to continue to be a viable industry. When I see that only 14 percent of this bill is allocated to our major resource industry, I have some very grave concerns about the priorities of this government.

I suggest that we should not only be spending a lot more on reforestation and other related forest industries, we should be looking much farther down the road. To suggest that we are not going to spend all I of this money, that there is going to be some of it left to be put away in a reserve somewhere, is a very, very unfortunate approach.

Reforestation is not a popular political issue because it is a long-term thing. You don't get the benefits from it for many, many years. But if we don't start thinking a little bit more about economics and a little bit less about politics in this province, we are going to be down the tube completely. I am very concerned about the small amount of money that is allocated in this bill for reforestation.

HON. MR. McGEER: I wasn't going to enter this debate until I heard the member for New Westminster suggest that the Social Credit government, of all things, had been guilty of financial incompetency. I can remember 1975 when we took over after three years of careless spending and financial incompetency by the man who is now the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), the man who complains bitterly about our Premier. The member for New Westminster talks about the former Premier of the province in very glowing terms. I never heard him say those things when the Premier before him sat in that chair. It seems just a little strange that the Leader of the Opposition should be accusing our Premier and this Minister of Finance of incompetency after their record in office.

Yes, it's perfectly true, Mr. Speaker, that the present government paid an awful price politically for correcting the errors of that incompetent group when they were government. I heard the member for New Westminster stand up this evening and talk about the 46 percent of the people who voted for the NDP this time as if they were on the threshold of government. I can tell you that they've reached high tide. We've paid the political price over here of correcting their errors. Now in the future we inherit our own financial competency and good management.

This province is taking off, Mr. Speaker, as a result of that. This province is going to move so rapidly in the next four years that that group over there will be shrunk so small we'I hardly notice them after the next election. Enjoy your high tide over there while you can.

AN HON. MEMBER: Call it the ebb tide.

HON. MR. McGEER: They're on the ebb now, and the debate over here proves it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the hour is late and the members are tired, so I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House when we can carry on with this interesting theme.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:59 p.m.