[ Page 5085 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Tourism estimates. (Hon. Mrs. Jordan)

On the amendment to vote 183: minister's office –– 5085

Division on the amendment

On vote 184: administrative and support services — 5085

Mr. Hall

Division on the amendment

On vote 185: operational services –– 5085

Mr. Hall

Division on the amendment

On vote 186: marketing services –– 5086

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 186 –– 5086

Mr. Hall

Mr. Howard

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Barber

Ms. Brown

Mrs. Wallace

Division on the amendment

On vote 187: building occupancy charges –– 5091

Mr. Hall

On the amendment to vote 187 –– 5091

Mr. Hall

Division on the amendment

On vote 188: computer and consulting charges –– 5092

Mr. Hall

Mr. Nicolson

Mr. King

Mr. Barber

Tabling Documents

Ministry of Human Resources annual report, 1980.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy

THURSDAY, APRIL 9, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a guest of mine, a gentleman who's been a major figure in the central interior lumber industry in the Cariboo and Prince George area for many years. Would the House please welcome Bill Dunkley.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Sometime in the next hour students from John Henderson Elementary School in Vancouver South will be in the precincts and the galleries. At this time, on behalf of the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and myself, may I ask you to join in welcoming those students.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
(continued)

On the amendment to vote 183: minister's office, $186,530.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 183 approved.

On vote 184: administrative and support services, $972,158.

MR. HALL: As you are no doubt aware, now that we are in this fourth ministry, we are developing for you a succession of amendments which deal with profligacy in the government in particular areas. The areas include travel and horrendous increases in office expenses and office furnishings. Much has already been said in debate on Municipal Affairs and on Universities, Science and Communications.

Mr. Chairman, in keeping with that central thrust, I would like to point out to you that in this particular instance there is a 30 percent increase in travel expenses. We took some pains yesterday afternoon to show you that the revolving-door principle of staffing in this ministry should not include the kinds of travel planned in a 30 percent increase. In fact, we believe it would be useful for us all to stay at home and get to know each other before we embark on any further travel. Therefore without any further delay I would move that vote 184, encompassing those three items, be reduced by $36,650.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 22

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 184 approved.

On vote 185: operational services, $5,456,854.

MR. HALL: Vote 185, operational services, includes Beautiful British Columbia magazine, and in the to-and-fro debate yesterday we on this side did not respond to some bad news. On the other hand, perhaps, in that bad news there are the beginnings of some good news about the very poor health of the editor of that magazine. I feel remiss in not responding to the remarks of the minister. I want to assure her that all the good wishes of all the people on this side of the House who have known Bert Atkins as long as we have go to him in this period of ill health, and I wonder if the minister could, certainly on my behalf and on behalf of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett), who knows him well, express our good wishes to him — in fact, from all the House — in this tough time.

This vote — a large vote — includes the operational services that are an important part of the ministry, dealing as

[ Page 5086 ]

it does with visitor services, Beautiful British Columbia magazine, educational services and with the contributing grants. However, we do notice increases again in a couple of items that we frankly cannot see justified in view of the fact there has been a decrease in staff. With a decrease in the established positions in vote 185, we cannot see an increase in subcodes 10 and 30 that we are attacking in these estimates. We are therefore proposing a modest curtailment, but enough to indicate that the time to make the cuts in the budget is before you print the book. I think those words were never better said than in the debate on the budget by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). Therefore I'm going to move that vote 185 be reduced by $45,232, which will take us right back to last year's figures.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 185 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, the House is in good humour this morning; something must be wrong.

On vote 186: marketing services, $7,249,814.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, the largest vote in the ministry contains, of course, the largest excesses. I'm sure you're not going to be particularly surprised to know that we've analyzed this vote thoroughly and see again the same pattern that speaker after speaker has discussed since the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) presented us with these bloated estimates.

We noticed, for instance, that there is a 36 percent increase in travel expense, a 49 percent increase in office expense and a 48 percent increase in office furniture. Then we come to the one that has attracted the attention not only of this House but everybody in the province, and that is a 56 percent increase in advertising. We went through that in the budget debate. We pointed out that this government is now listed in the top 40 — 1 think it is now — in advertising in the country. Their total advertising budget as shown in these estimates is well over $20 million, and that's without some of the latest moves we've seen coming along that have been discussed in other debates in this chamber.

We've therefore taken the view, Mr. Chairman, that those should be cut back to the kind of performance and expenditure that we saw last year. If restraint is the order of the day — and we've heard minister after minister tell the public to be restrained — and if tax increases are the order of the day, then we feel we should examine these kinds of inflationary increases in planned, budgeted and excessive expenditure from one year to the other. Working along those principles, this would then give us a reduction in this vote of $1,666,534, if they were doing so well last year. We're only talking about reducing travel, office expense, office furniture, advertising and publications. We're not touching salaries, either temporary or permanent, or the acquisition of machinery and equipment. We're not talking about rentals, motor vehicles, materials and supplies, or the things required to do the job that the minister talked about yesterday. We're talking about those areas in which we believe the government is deliberately over-estimating what it's going to do. We're bringing them back to task. Therefore I move that vote 186 be reduced by $1,666,534.

On the amendment.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I have listened very carefully to the member's remarks and the repetitive position they're taking in terms of reducing everyone's vote. I couldn't let this effort to try and cripple the tourism industry in British Columbia go by without comment. The member said they're not touching salaries or existing equipment. They're touching travel. I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, does the critic for the opposition not know the responsibilities of this ministry? We are a marketing ministry. If that member came into our offices on Wharf Street or in Vancouver more than about four times a year and found everyone there, he would have the right to complain. Our people must be around the world. Our brochures must be around the world in the right places at the right time to sell people on British Columbia. I can only assume that that member either was a Minister of Tourism himself without any understanding of what his responsibilities were — that's why tourism was nearly crippled under the NDP — or I must assume that he has other interests at heart. If I abdicated my responsibility as a minister to meet the tour operators and the sectors that can bring tourism to British Columbia on a team basis, and on a partnership basis with the private sector, then the opposition would have something to complain about indeed. But by then it would be too late.

I would just briefly remind the hon. member and other members who have such interest in moving these frivolous motions at this time what happened when the NDP government was in power. Mr. Chairman, you'll recall that in 1972 the NDP came into power with a surplus in excess of $457.4 million from the Social Credit administration and from the people of this province. By 1975 — after comments from the then Minister of Forests, Bob Williams, heard by the public on airplanes, such as, "We've got nothing to do but spend money and we don't know how to spend it fast enough" — without one new tourist development, without one major, new, dollar-earning international incentive or one major, new, imaginative social program, they went out of....

[ Page 5087 ]

MR. BARRETT: Where did the Royal Hudson come from?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: My, my, this must hurt.

I would conclude my comments by saying that they went out of office in 1975 — three short years after inheriting a major surplus of nearly $500 million — with a deficit of $261.4 million. In that time they spent an incredible amount of money, and I would suggest that if that had continued, as it has at the federal level and obviously would have under their incompetence, the accumulated debt of the NDP administration at the end of 1981, without taking into consideration interest rates and inflation, would have been $3.201 billion. Under the NDP administration — the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is smiling; he knows this is true and that he was saved by the Social Credit government — without inflationary costs and interest charges, that would have been a debt of over $1,333 for every man, woman and child — just on administration alone, without any capital costs. Of course, we know they wouldn't have undertaken any capital ventures. We would be out of power, and by now B.C. Rail would have absolutely ground to a halt. There would have been a $3.2 billion overdraft under the NDP.

I can only assume that the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), the delightful critic of tourism in British Columbia, is in fact now hanging his head with great concern. I'm sure he will recognize that our ministry is a marketing ministry. We must travel. We must travel within the province to serve the people of the province. All our staff must travel, and we must travel outside the province where it is necessary, in conjunction with the industry, to see this great province grow properly in the area of tourism.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I'm not at all certain that the House in its wisdom should have allowed what just took place. First of all we were treated to some creative figuring. We all know that, and I'm not going to waste the time of the House in refuting absurd charges, all of which have been dealt with before.

Let me deal with the vote and that which is contained in the amendment. I think, Mr. Chairman, if I may suggest, with the greatest of respect to you, that is what we should be here to do this morning.

Just in passing, if indeed the record of the administration as just illustrated was so vast, why did that member never once stand up in her place in the House during my estimates when I was Minister of Tourism and ask me a question? In 1973, 1974 and 1975 only two members of the opposition stood up and asked me questions about tourism. One was the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who asked me about the Royal Hudson. He wanted to know if it was insured if it fell through a trestle. Hansard is there; any one of you can check Hansard. The other one was a sensible contribution which caught me by surprise from the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who made an excellent suggestion about leisure services being regionalized, and how we were going to have the districts to deal with the leisure-services aspect, coterminous with other regional districts. All the contributions on Tourism came from the then member for Victoria, Mr. Anderson, who dealt with questions of tourism in a general way.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that when those kinds of millions of dollars that I was in charge of administering went through in 3 minutes, 15 minutes and 25 minutes, they didn't have very much to say. They didn't know. They weren't engaged in this kind of new-found interest in tourism, and that last speech is rather hollow.

Turning to the facts of the matter in terms of expenses, if we look at the expenditure for the ten months ended January 31, 1981, we will find that this saving is entirely in keeping with what the record is. In actual fact, i the minister looks at that document, she will find that the expenses of that ministry are running well behind the planned expenditure. By January 31, 1981, which was the ten-month period, they had already accumulated a total month's surplus in terms of whole dollars. They had saved a month on their operation. They'd only spent nine months' money, and they had gone through ten months of the year. So these figures that we are moving only show that these figures are padded and, in fact, in my view the next amendment will show that they probably didn't know what the figures were when the budget went through, and I will be making some remarks about it.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to you that this is a realistic amendment that takes us back to the level of expenditure for last year, a level of expenditure that they didn't even meet for ten months already. It was plotted, planned, calculated, computed and printed and not even met already. This amendment should go through, and it should be supported on all sides of the House.

MR. HOWARD: I would like to spend a few brief moments congratulating the minister on the manner in which she has handled her estimates, and for the fact that during these three days that the committee has been considering the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism the minister herself has been able to impart to the committee exactly the same amount and quality of information she provided last year when we only examined them for three minutes.

MR. NICOLSON: The New Democratic Party hasn't said that it's against tourism; we're just against flimflam in a budget. This flimflam, which we are sick and fed up with, shows that according to the details of expenditure for the ten months ended April 1, 1980, this minister's full budget has been going at a rate that is going to be underspent by about $1.2 million. In other words, her ministry is going to create that much surplus in this one vote alone, which is actually a combination of two votes from last year. In this one vote alone, the only thing that we can look at that is comparable to that from last year indicates that padding is taking place in this area.

This House doesn't object to funds being spent that are accountable. If this ministry is going to spend an accumulated one month's surplus so suddenly in the last two months of this year in the tourism industry, then we say that that money spent in haste is money ill-spent. The minister should bear it well in mind that in order to serve her whims of reorganization, some other minister's whim of consolidation and some other minister's whim of rationalization....

We're fed up with excuses; we want to see some care taken in terms of spending money from the public purse. We doubt very much that this much money is going to be spent in the ministry. We feel that this is deliberate padding and overestimation of expenditure, and we intend to pick this out as much as we possibly can. I'm sure we're only scratching the surface.

[ Page 5088 ]

MR. COCKE: I'm sure that the House Leader wouldn't want to invoke closure on a very important debate like we're having this morning.

It was an amusing situation. The minister got up and treated us to the old fairy tale — the old fiction — and her fiction wasn't even the same as the fiction that they erected to begin with. The way this government and some of its members can erect figures from out of the blue is so amusing that it almost stuns one on this side of this House. I'm thinking in terms of looking for a little bit of integrity in government.

We stated some time ago concerning the entire budget of this province — and this vote reflects our original statement — that what we saw was purely and simply an underestimation of revenues and overestimation of expenditures. Past performance tells us that the closer we get to an election in this province, the more likely that is to occur. All we ask is that the minister get up and justify the vote. She hasn't done so and seems totally unaware of what's before her — a resolution to reduce the expenditure in this particular vote. Instead of justifying the vote, she gets up and does that extraordinary tour through Alice in Wonderland and all the other kinds of fairy tales one can think of. Of course we support this resolution — this amendment — and now more than ever. There has been absolutely no justification from the minister for the figures that we see before us. All we heard from the minister was that sort of ratty, foolish speech again, only this time the numbers were changed. I wonder how many times they can change those figures and have any kind of credibility whatsoever.

MRS. WALLACE: It's a + b.

MR. COCKE: It's a + b, Madam Member, and a + b changes with the winds. If I want any lessons in mathematics, the last place I'm going to go is to the Minister of Tourism.

MR. BARBER: One of the principal reasons why the committee should support our amendment is because of the pathetic response of the Minister of Tourism to it. It may be good enough for her to tell members of the agricultural community what she thinks of their opinions — we remember that, don't we, Mr. Chairman? — but I didn't read that into the record.

It may be good enough for the minister to verbally abuse a poor girl by the name of Laurie Flevel at a Vernon high school who attempted to ask her questions about Silver Star. She insulted, humiliated and drove her to tears and away from school for the rest of the day. Her mother was provoked by the rudeness of the Minister of Tourism.... This committee won't be bullied by those tactics, even though we're familiar with them.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I must excuse that member. His ignorance is overwhelming. I would suggest that that member has just placed the name of a young lady before this House who was not abused, but who was used by the NDP. In respect to this young lady, I would ask that he stick to the truth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: First of all, hon. member, I must ask the minister to withdraw any imputation that another hon. member would say less than the truth in the chamber.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but I do wish to see this young lady protected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has no authority to rule on a matter involving someone outside the chamber, but if the member who was speaking would help out in the matter, it would be appreciated.

MR. BARBER: What I'm arguing is that this committee will not be bullied and intimidated as the minister attempted to bully and intimidate an inquiring high-school reporter who asked her questions and was driven to tears and away from the classroom. I have no idea who this girl is, other than by reading a letter that her mother sent to us and by knowing from the report in the Vernon high school of the incredibly intemperate, abusive and insulting way in which the Minister of Tourism treated this girl. This committee will not be treated this way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, somewhere along the line we must remember that we are on an amendment to vote 186. I know we've strayed widely on the amendment, both in the remarks of the minister, particularly, and in responses thereto. I would suggest to the hon. member again that if we could stick somewhat to the vote before us and a little less of the personal allusions, we would accomplish the business of the committee.

MR. BARBER: I agree entirely. It's shameful that the minister tried to drag in a poor defenceless student whom she's attacked once already and now attacks again.

One of the reasons why this amendment should pass is because of the pathetic, irresponsible and simply unenlightened response of the Minister of Tourism to the arguments put forward by my colleague for Surrey (Mr. Hall). Another reason why it should pass is because the committee now has ample proof of the utter insincerity of Social Credit when it comes to cost-cutting in this province. This opposition has, for the last three estimates — Forests; Universities, Science and Communications; and Municipal Affairs — put forward a series of amendments to reduce waste, trim fat and cut cost in the Social Credit budget we are now debating specifically in the estimate now before us. If this government were sincere in the least, you would think they might have accepted one of these amendments, if only for show to save face and to end their embarrassment at having had it pointed out time and time again where the waste, the fat and the overexpenditures lie. If they had any sincerity whatever, they would respect the traditional role of this committee, which is to examine expenditures and cut costs. But no, they have rejected and repudiated every single amendment that the official opposition has put forward. They haven't accepted one. They haven't cut a nickel from the budget. They have dishonoured and undermined the traditional role of this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I must ask the member to withdraw the term "dishonoured the committee." I must ask that without qualification.

MR. BARBER: Well, okay. They have dishonoured the process, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the term " dishonour" is hardly one that would be acceptable in any level of parliamentary intelligence. I would ask the member to consider that, please.

[ Page 5089 ]

MR. BARBER: Well, I consider the process.... I'll change the word. If you will, they have deliberately ignored the traditional role of this committee, which is to examine expenditures and cut costs. If they had any commitment whatever to protecting the interests of the public purse and reducing waste, you'd think they might have accepted by now one of the 15 or 20 amendments that we put forward in the last several days of specific estimates debates. The utter insincerity of Social Credit is another of the reasons why, in order to save face, this coalition of opportunists, Liberals, Tories, Action Canada members and car dealers should finally turn around and say: "Yes, you're right. There is some fat here and we can trim it. There is a role for the committee to reduce costs, and we will honour it. There is an obligation on the part of this House to watch public expenditures, and we will observe it." If they had any sincerity at all, they would accept this amendment, if only as some small proof of their willingness to respect the necessity to cut costs in a year they tell us is one of restraint.

For those three reasons — the pathetic reply of the minister, the traditional role of this committee and the necessity to cut costs — I ask that the amendment be supported.

MS. BROWN: In speaking in support of the amendment, I would just like to point out that the increase of $1,578,959 in the advertising and publication budget, the $83,358 in the combined travel and office expenses budget, and the $4,212 in the office furniture budget are all going to be raised through increases in taxes. I think that when we are looking at the people who are going to be paying these taxes, we cannot forget the report just released by the federal government which shows that British Columbia has the largest number of people living below the poverty line in Canada, and that that number is increasing more rapidly in British Columbia than in any other province. What we have is a government that's deliberately overtaxing poor people. We have this horrendous record of poverty. I'm not talking about people on welfare, because what the report points out is that they are working people — it's the working poor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has allowed the member some latitude in coming to the point. Again, all of us must remember that we are talking about vote 186, which is marketing services, and the amendment thereto of a reduction of $1.66 million. The member clearly is straying far from the vote that is currently before us.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in speaking in support of the amendment, I am trying to explain why I am in support of the cut of one million, six hundred and whatever the figure is. I would have cut it by more, because, according to my calculations, it should have been cut by $1,766,000. However, the other members of my caucus are more generous than I am in this regard. I am simply saying that the reason I support this amendment and this cut is that this money is going to be raised through taxation. The people who are going to be paying these taxes are the working poor. A report just released out of Ottawa shows that British Columbia has the most rapidly growing number of working poor in Canada.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, by no stretch of the imagination can the Chair permit the member to again canvass a matter which the Chair has just brought to the member's attention is far from vote 186.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, I ask the Chair, with respect, to be a little more consistent. You allowed the Minister of Tourism to refer to the alleged deficit of the previous administration, which is not the subject of this amendment, nor even true. Nonetheless, it was the subject of her rambling discourse for easily four or five minutes. The Chair permitted that. If that is to be permitted — and that was part of her reply to our amendment — surely a far more valid and far more factual argument made by my colleague from Burnaby is also in order — an argument which clearly demonstrates the need to save money in this instance so that it can be applied elsewhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I have the point of order by the hon. member. The Chair allowed the first member for Victoria some latitude in his response as well. Again, though, we must somewhere along the line delineate between what is at least related to the Ministry of Tourism, and not go into aspects of the Ministry of Finance or of social service programs that clearly fall within the purview of another ministry. If we have further discussion on the aspect of tourism, then at least we’re close to the ball park. Clearly in this case the comments are in no way related to vote 186, regardless of whether we say there's an amendment before us or not, and where that money would be used. It is clearly out of order.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, normally when you're dealing with a vote you're dealing with the responsibility of the minister with respect to that vote. However, we have amended that vote, and in that amendment we are providing the reasons for and the importance of the reduction of that vote. There are those relationships that develop outside of the vote under those circumstances. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds was merely outlining one of the reasons that we are so intensely in support of this particular amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If that argument were extended to its conclusion, we could conceivably review the entire budget speech debate on each and every estimate. That is not the purpose of committee. Whether or not an amendment is before us, there are still limitations in that we must still be specifically relevant to the vote at hand. I'm sure if hon. members were to think at all into the future as to what could happen, we could have the exact same debate that took place on the budget speech on virtually every section of every minister's vote. For that reason, we must all exercise the necessary judgment. I appreciate the points made by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke). I hope, in turn, that members appreciate the point the Chair is trying to make.

MR. HOWARD: I'm sure the committee appreciates the point that the Chair is trying to make. However, we need to look at what took place under this vote. The minister, unimpeded, uninterrupted, was permitted to go across the whole world, nearly. I don't think she touched upon the amendment.

MR. LEA: Or the earth.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, she touches the earth, all right. She's firmly planted in it. But with respect, she was permitted to proceed in an uninterrupted way with no question on the

[ Page 5090 ]

part of the Chair about where she was going. Now, because of the intrusion into the normal rules of the debate by the minister, when members of the opposition seek to counteract what she said, we're stopped. While the committee and I agree completely with the point the Chair is trying to make, I do wish the Chair had made that point right at the commencement of the minister's speech under this item, and we wouldn't have got into this fuss.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Skeena raises a good and valid point. It is always difficult for the Chair in ruling on a minister, and of course that is why a certain amount of latitude is allowed in response, but the latitude extended in the case presently before us did not in any way canvass the matters currently being referred to by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds. Hopefully I am going to place upon each member some responsibility for following, at least vaguely, the rules of the House.

Let us give the member for Burnaby-Edmonds an opportunity to continue with her debate. Hopefully she has had an opportunity, as well, to assess the points that have been made.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, I'd like a little clarification on the Chairman's remark of just a few moments ago that the Chair finds that there are two sets of rules and a little more latitude is shown to ministers than to other members of the House. I don't quite understand the Chairman's remarks. I thought that we were all equal under the rules that apply to us as legislators in this assembly. The Chairman has given me great concern by saying that there are possibly two sets of rules, one for ministers and one for backbenchers and opposition. I'd like that remark explained.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just so there will be no confusion and so that the matter can be fully brought back to committee, what I would like to do at this point is prepare something that we may possibly consider as a more fixed guide. I will bring that back to the committee.

In the meantime, I must take some exception to the remarks of the member. Certainly it is the determination and duty of the Chair to make sure that each and every member of this committee is given the same opportunity and the same rights as any other member. On that you have not only my assurance but my obligation. I would now ask the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to continue on the amendment to vote 186.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, under vote 186 the minister is planning on spending an additional $61,601 on travel expenses, an additional $21,757 on office expenses, an additional $4,212 on office furniture and equipment and an additional $1,578,959 on advertising and publications. Now this money comes from somewhere; it doesn't fall like manna from above; and, hopefully, the minister is not making it in the basement of her office. We assume that this money comes from taxing the people of this province. We are also assuming that everyone who works in this province pays those taxes.

Now part of my responsibility as a member of the opposition is to be the critic on Human Resources, which means that I speak primarily for the people in this province who have least protection from the law or from anyone else, and that includes the working poor. I am saying, Mr. Chairman, that the working poor are being deliberately overtaxed so that this minister can increase her budget under vote 186 by $1,766,529. That is unfair; that's an unfair tax burden being placed on the working poor in this province.

We are continually hearing from members of the government how wealthy this province is, how much money everyone has and how prosperous everyone is. Well, there is now a report out which refutes that; there is a report out which says that there are more working poor in this province and that that number is increasing faster than in any other province in Canada. I am saying that to overtax the working poor so that the minister can spend $1,578,959 more on her advertising budget, or $83,358 more on travel expenses and office expenses and $4,000-plus more on office furniture is placing an unfair burden on that particular group of people in our society. That is why I support this amendment.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to draw your attention and the attention of the House to a report that was done back in early 1976 by a well-known, well-respected auditing firm in this province. That report indicated that the figures contained therein were not based on any audited figures; they were based simply on the figures that had been provided to that firm by the government of the day. That report has been referred to many times by the government; it has been flown and flogged and used over the last six years in an attempt to discredit the New Democratic Party government and their financial management. Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that that government reviewed its stand and recognized that the remarks made at that time were completely ill-founded, ill-based and a political manoeuvre only. That report has been referred to over and over; we heard it today.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: We heard it with new figures, that's right — a revised edition.

I would like to talk about the Marguerite. Apparently the minister has completely forgotten or doesn't know about the Marguerite. That particular ship brought hundreds and thousands of tourists to Victoria. Yet the Minister of Tourism would have us believe that the New Democratic Party government did utterly nothing for tourism.

I would like to talk about the Royal Hudson. This venture has been very worthwhile in the province of British Columbia. Yet that minister stands up and says that the New Democratic Party did nothing for tourism. She doesn't even know the right figures in that phony report I referred to. She doesn't know about the Marguerite. She doesn't know about the Royal Hudson. What's even more evident, she doesn't know how much money she spent during the past year on this particular vote. She doesn't know that she's well underspent. She turns around and asks for $1.6 million more for the coming year than the previous year. That's what this amendment is all about. Every time the member for Okanagan North stands in her place I am amazed at the lack of information that comes forward. If there's justification for this particular increase, why doesn't she tell us? She just doesn't know. I'm convinced she didn't even know that her vote was so badly underspent this year. She has no concept of what's going on. That's why we're moving this amendment. That's why we're trying to save the taxpayers of this province some dollars.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

[ Page 5091 ]

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 186 approved.

On vote 187: building occupancy charges, $880,000.

MR. HALL: This vote again reflects something which seems to have happened right across the estimates in terms of the government's housing itself. We see incredible increases in the amount of money that will be spent to provide accommodation for government itself this year.

First of all we have the actual increase itself, from $691,000 to $880,000: an increase of some 27 percent. That, in itself, is bad enough. I happen to think that this whole thing is out of control, but that's not under this minister. An increase of 27 percent is budgeted for, predicted and acquiesced to. When we examine the statement of accounts for the ten months we find, if we extend that ten-month rate of expenditure, that they're only going to spend about $585,000 of the $691,000 that we voted for last year. So they've already got $100,000 in their vest pocket now. It really is the most remarkable way of keeping a set of books.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The reason I'm sure the minister doesn't know anything about this is that I don't think any of the ministers on the other side know anything about this particular item. I think they all trooped along to the meetings with Treasury Board and came away with the first fistful of votes, and after they'd left, each one of the ministers was presented with the last two votes in each of these estimates, namely the charges for building occupancy and the charges for computing and consulting. I don't think any one of the ministers had anything to do with it. I think they were just stuck with it, whether they liked it or not. So there's not much point in asking questions of them, because I don't think they know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Surrey has the floor and is speaking in committee. I wonder if all hon. members would be so kind as not to interrupt or make any other sort of noise.

MR. HALL: The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the Premier, who've plotted this budget together, should probably be listening more than anybody else.

The fact of the matter is that to budget an increase of 27 percent for building occupancy charges, on top of a figure which is already unspent by $100,000, strikes me as being ridiculous. It's the only word for it. No sense, no rhyme, no reason. Therefore I have no alternative — forgetting about pleasure — but to offer for your attention and support that vote 187 be reduced by $189,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. HALL: That completes a series of amendments which, had they been accepted — and even at this late date there may be some sense on the other side — would have seen the estimates in this ministry reduced by $1,951,816. That's only trimming off those planned excessive expenditures over last year that we zeroed in on: travel, building occupancy charges, rentals contained in that figure and office expenses and furnishings.

We're not talking, about salaries on this amendment. We're not talking about cutting essential services of any kind. What we're doing is taking the words of the minister over the years that I've known him and putting them down in cold, hard numerals in the form of amendments — what the Minister of Finance and the other members of the treasury benches have said. That would mean in my view that when this exercise is completed — it will be sometime in September or October, or whenever it is that we get through — we will have proven to your satisfaction that some of those tax increases that are the hallmark of this government now would have been unnecessary. That's the point of the exercise — to save the people of British Columbia from the tax increases which we don't consider are necessary. Therefore I urge support of this amendment as some small way to go towards that estimable objective.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 27

[ Page 5092 ]

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Vote 187 approved.

On vote 188: computer and consulting charges, $258,900.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, as you remember, I said in the last vote that that was the final amendment. It would have seen a total amount of money in excess of $1.9 million saved. I wanted to show you how that worked out on the exhibit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I think we've had quite a bit of discussion on the use of exhibits.

MR. HALL: I have no intentions of abusing the Chair at all. I just wanted to show you that we're keeping this record so that everybody in the House can see it. As each estimate goes up, the amount of money that we save is going to be right at the top.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On that point, the committee is reminded of Beauchesne's ruling in this House on exhibits. I'm sure all members of the committee are aware of that.

MR. HALL: I notice in this estimate again that while there appears to be a reduction — and only working from the information that is given to us — if we examine the ten-month interim financial statement and we chart that out.... Here we have no knowledge, and I don't expect the department has either, until the B.C. Systems Corporation presents its invoices, or however it charges the ministries.

It would appear as though last year's figure of some $337,000 will remain unspent to a large extent, and only about $190,000 of it will be spent, unless there is a very big program going through that we don't know about. Obviously that could be the case. We haven't moved an amendment to reduce this amount of money, because we don't have the full information. If my supposition is correct and indeed this estimate is underspent, and instead of spending $337,000 last year you only spent $192,000, there has been a sliding-in of an increase of at least $46,000. Those are the kinds of things that we consider to be creative and misleading bookkeeping — the kind of bookkeeping that this government is becoming famous for. I think it should be corrected and pointed out to the public of British Columbia that it won't get past this side of the House.

While we're going to support the vote in the absence of the performance in the months of February and March because a large program may have gone through — goodness knows something should be going through that Systems Corporation — we are very suspicious of the fact that it appears that money is well underspent.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm shocked that when a revelation such as this is brought to the House we're....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment please. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) was interrupting you with an exhibit.

MR. NICOLSON: By my leave, Mr. Chairman.

This is a pattern. At least this one ministry did have the decency to reduce its computer and consulting charges vote. It estimated $337,000 last year. It spent $160,058 according to the ten-month interim statement. In other words, in ten months it had spent less than half of what it had estimated the actual amount required would be. This, if prorated, would bring us to a figure of $192,000. So it would appear that next year the ministry, in proposing to spend $258,900, is going to be looking at about a 33 percent increase in budget on this one item alone. I think that it's absolutely incredible. We've had no explanation from the minister.

We are going to accept this year's figure, hoping that it will be a truer figure, because it at least sets some sort of an example for some of the other ministries that were enormously overestimated last year in terms of expenditures. I would expect that the minister could give an explanation of what the computer program is, what kind of a service it is providing in the ministry and what expansion of this computer programming service there is going to be that it requires another 33 percent increase over what appears to be the rate of expenditure last year.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: To respond briefly to the member's questions, I must advise you that I appreciate your comments. As you know, our ministry is making every effort to maximize the value for the dollars we're spending increasing the industry. I would remind him that our cash flow is not necessarily divided equally over twelve months, as one point.

His last question was in terms of the computer costs. This is to program in the green book and to develop a more effective — and hopefully much more responsive — research program for the ministry so that, as one example, you members may have the annual report that the critic wished for earlier.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister has said that the expenditures cannot be prorated exactly. I suppose one would expect that she is also not proposing that she's going to spend another 50 percent of her budget in two months. Since we're now well into the middle of April, could the minister tell us what appears to be the approximate total budget and underspending of last year's estimate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. Once again I will ask the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke to remove the exhibit that is presently being displayed to the committee.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what the instruction of the Chair is. I have with me some visual material that is connected with my work. I'm not displaying it; it's just on my desk as a matter of reference. I'm not aware of any House rule that is being violated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is the ruling of Beauchesne that exhibits are not used in this House. It is the opinion of the Chair that that is an exhibit, and I will ask the member to stop displaying that item to the committee. The purpose of parliament is to speak, not to display exhibits. Beauchesne is quite clear, and this committee is quite clear. I will ask the member to please put the exhibit down and not display it to the committee in the manner that it is being displayed now.

[ Page 5093 ]

MR. KING: I'll take it down and not display it in the manner in which it's being displayed now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The exhibit is still being displayed to the committee. Thank you. Now it is not.

MR. NICOLSON: I'm rising at the moment on a point of order — although I was the speaker. I note, and with respect submit, that in our standing order 1 it says: "In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed as far as they may be applicable to this House."

I take it from our standing orders that where our standing orders are silent, we refer to the practice in the House of Commons in London. In quoting Beauchesne, I have difficulty finding how that complies and how it is connected with our standing orders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member brought that argument to the committee two days ago. I think the records will show that the Chair's ruling was quite explicit that exhibits are not allowed in this House. I'm sure the member is aware of that. That is a citation from Beauchesne. Our records from only two days ago will indicate that that was the ruling of this committee.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, under standing order 9 it says: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order, subject to an appeal to the House without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable to the case."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The operative word in that case, hon. member, is "authority." I have cited the fifth edition of Beauchesne. The committee chairman two days ago cited the same authority. On that note, I will ask the member to continue on vote 188, the vote that is presently before us.

MR. NICOLSON: I would just like to ask for some information, Mr. Chairman. Is Beauchesne a summary of practices which have arisen in the House of Commons of Westminster or Northern Ireland?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not here to answer questions. I simply cited the authority, as the member asked me to. Now if we could proceed with vote 188, the committee would be well served.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, if I were to cite the Lok Sabha or the House in Sri Lanka, it would not comply with standing order 1. I don't know how we continue to do this. I'm not going to take it any further. I don't think there's any point in trying to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Dewdney rises on a point of order.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, I merely ask that the rules of the House be obeyed. You've made a ruling. Let's have the ruling. This argument bores us to death. I'm getting tired of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling is that exhibits are not allowed. It's clearly in our Canadian rules of order.

On the same point of order, the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, the exhibit you find so offensive is still displayed on an empty desk. If it offends the House, I think the Chairman should ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove it and turn it over to the Chairman for his disposal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we have ample authority. If the members to my left could remove the exhibit, the committee would be very well served. Could that be done, please, by a member.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. There's no point of order. The exhibit will have to be removed.

MR. BARBER: A point of order is always in order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I haven't finished yet. I was asking that the exhibit which is now on display in this committee be removed.

MR. BARBER: By whom?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the members do not need to comply, then I will ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to remove the exhibit from the display of the committee.

The first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, for the Chair to be perceived as fair it must be observed as being consistent. Regarding this point of order, I wonder if the Chair could read into the record or provide for this committee the decision taken by the Chair when Mr. Gardom, member for Vancouver–Point Grey at the time, brought a leg-hold trap into this House. I wonder if the Chair, to be consistent, could provide us with the record of the day in regard to the complaints that presumably were made by the member who just spoke about the exhibition of a leg-hold trap. Briefly, I wonder further if the Chair could read into the record the decision of the Chair when the Minister of Forests, Mr. Waterland, brought into the House an exhibit, namely a log, which sat on our desks all afternoon unprotested by any member of this committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee Chairman has heard all of those arguments. The ruling is that in this committee there will be no exhibits. I think the committee understands that quite clearly. On that point the ruling of the Chair is that there will be no exhibits. The only business before us at this point is vote 188 of the estimates of the Minister of Tourism. If there is any further debate, I wish it to be relevant to this item before us.

MR. BARBER: Continuing on the point of order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order, unless you wish to introduce a new one. Is the member introducing a new point of order?

[ Page 5094 ]

MR. BARBER: I believe it is new. It is both the point of order stated earlier of consistency or the lack of it in the Chair's ruling and the fact that the particular poster being displayed now is not precisely the same poster that was displayed two days ago.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you cannot comment on inconsistency of the Chair. That is most unparliamentary. The Chair has ruled, not inconsistently but for all members of the committee, that no exhibits will be allowed.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. BARBER: What about Waterland's log and McCarthy's Smile button?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. On vote 188.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, it may not be commented upon but it certainly has been observed that when ministers bring logs and buttons into the House as exhibits of their new policies or their acts, that apparently is okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not on vote 188, hon. member. Will the member please speak to vote 188. The Chair has made a ruling for all members of the committee on exhibits.

MR. GABELMANN: One-sided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not one-sided. It is to all members. It is most unparliamentary for a member to comment that the Chair is being one-sided.

Interjection.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! That is most unparliamentary. Will the member for North Island please withdraw.

(Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, on March 17 the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) had a display on every desk in this House and you did not order it withdrawn. I will not accept your biased rulings.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The member will withdraw unequivocally the allegation of bias towards the Chair. Will he member please withdraw.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will ask you one more time to withdraw unequivocally the statement that the Chair is biased, or the Chair will have to take further action.

Will the member please withdraw the statement that the Chair s biased.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, for me to withdraw something that is a fact would make a liar out of me.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee has to report that the member for North Island refused to withdraw an accusation of bias to the Chair and refused to obey a decision of the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. member for North Island if, having had just a few moments to reflect, he is now willing to withdraw any accusation of bias against the Chair.

I would then order the hon. member for North Island to withdraw the accusation of bias against the Chair.

The member then leaves the Chair with no other alternative but to take the steps provided for in standing order 19, and perhaps the member would also review standing order 20.

I name the member, Colin Gabelmann.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I move that Mr. Gabelmann, the member for North Island, be suspended for the service of the House for three sitting days.

MR. SPEAKER: You heard the motion. Those in favour say aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Opposed if any.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the ayes have it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division is called.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is: "I move that Mr. Gabelmann, the member for North Island, be suspended from the service of the House for three sitting days" — as moved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 21

[ Page 5095 ]

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

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I submit to you that under standing order 50 the proceedings which we have just concluded were improper, not sanctioned by the rules and should be voided. In substantiation of that, standing order 50 says: "All motions, except the motion to adjourn and the previous question, shall be in writing, and signed by the mover before being debated or put from the chair." In this particular instance, I'm advised that the motion was orally made but was not in writing when it was put from the Chair, and was not available for that purpose. I submit to you that the whole proceeding is completely improper, if not illegal. I ask the Chair to examine that question and so rule.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on a point of order.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the course of the motion was put verbally; it's the only way we have to put motions in this House. It was duly signed. Mr. Gabelmann's name is in the motion, signed by myself before I made the motion.

MR. HALL: On a point of order, in view of the minister's answer, do I take it then that there are a number of proforma motions already typed out, with blanks for the names?

MR. BARRETT: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that standing orders provide this particular protection, because this is not an action of the Chair; it is an action of the House. In this instance, a government minister has initiated the action to expel a member, not the Chair. For the protection of members when such action is made because of a member, not the Chair.... It is, therefore, a member who is determining whether or not the House should vote on whether or not there's been a breach. That action was initiated by a cabinet minister. To avoid charges of a spur-of-the-moment political motivation, that is why the standing order provides that the motion must be submitted to the Chair and read from the Chair, in writing.

That was not the case. The minister moved the motion. Then there was the vote before it was read from the written motion. It was politically motivated on the spur of the moment. It violates the spirit of the standing order which protects members from politically motivated motions.

Mr. Speaker, I stand in defence of the Chair, and in defence of the fact that there may be disagreements with the Chair, but to protect the Chair this standing order is there to clearly focus on where the motion started from — and the political motivation. In this case there has been exposure that it was a government decision, made in verbal form, then submitted after the first calling of the motion. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government has made a serious error in our standing orders, and leaves the impression that the Chair initiated that, which is absolutely incorrect.

I submit that the best way to handle this would be for the government to come to its senses and withdraw the motion, rather than lay itself open to abusing the standing rules of this House for political purposes. That, indeed, is what can be interpreted if they don't withdraw this motion.

MR. SPEAKER: I'll accept an opinion from the member for Burnaby-Willingdon.

MR. LORIMER: I'll just suggest that section 50 seems very clear. There was certainly no motion presented to the table prior to the time the verbal vote was taken. In my opinion, it's the duty of the Speaker to void the transaction that has just taken place, due to the fact that the standing rules of our House have not been followed.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: I would just like to read the second sentence of standing order 50. I realize this was not a debatable motion, but I think the meaning of the sentence is still clear. "Upon the motion being moved, it shall be read by Mr. Speaker before debate." One would expect then that it would be read by Mr. Speaker in all instances before a motion is put.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Those are all the opinions? I will then take into consideration all the matters raised and reflect on them. I will come back to the House with an opinion that will perhaps satisfy the House. Not only that, but it may well provide the precedent by which all future procedures in this regard take place.

But, hon. members, the Chair must accept responsibility for proceedings in this House. The Chair is not aware, since the report was not made by the Chairman, of the reasons by which we have arrived at this point. The Speaker was called into the chamber, and the report was simply that there was a disregard for the authority of the Chair. Sometimes a Chairman elects to give some of the background; but the germane part of it is that there was disregard for the Chair.

In this particular instance the phrase uttered was that the Chair was biased. Following that, it is the Chair's responsibility to give the member who was offending, who perhaps made a statement during a time of heated debate an upon reflection may well wish to retract that statement.... At that point it is the Chair's responsibility to ask for a retraction, not a retraction of all the statements that led to the accusation of bias, but simply a request to show his regard for the institution of the Chair itself. This was done. The member refused. The Chair then orders a withdrawal. That was refused.

The naming process has nothing to do with the reasons for us arriving at this place; the naming process has to do with disregard for the Chair — according to standing order 19. Hon. members, this procedure was followed.

The Chair was deeply engrossed in reading standing order 19 to be sure that things were done in an orderly fashion. I also read standing order 20 and suggested to the member that he may wish to reflect on it. I then looked at some of the authorities, which I had to flip through very quickly, not wishing to delay the House, and then I followed through the instructions which I have before me here. I think all of that is very acceptable. When I put the motion, I had a finger in every page, being sure that it was proper. When I completed the motion, this piece of paper — the motion paper — was lying here. I cannot tell you at precisely what moment it arrived, but I do believe that the spirit or the intention of the entire procedure was followed to the letter. If there are any errors at all, I will accept responsibility for those errors.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, since you have indicated that you wish to reserve decision on points of order raised by opposition members, I would ask leave of the House that the

[ Page 5096 ]

rules be suspended and that the last motion not be put in force until we hear your full ruling.

Leave granted.

MR. LORIMER: I'd like to help the Speaker out. Watching very closely the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources' (Hon. Mr. McClelland's) preparation of a written motion, I can advise the Speaker that the motion was presented to your desk after the division bells were rung.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify whether or not there was a signed motion available at the time that I put the motion, there was.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It was in my hand at the time that I made the motion. That's the only normal way that a motion can be made, and that's the way motions are made in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Before they're voted on.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, and this one was. Mr. Speaker, the motion was handed to the Clerk before the vote was taken, and handed to the Speaker, and that was the scenario that was taken.

MR. SPEAKER: Okay, hon. members. I think I have all of that information. According to the leave which was granted, I will reflect on it and bring a decision to the House, at which time.... According to the motion from the Leader of the Opposition as I understand it, the motion will not take effect until that time.

The committee did not rise; I then call on Mr. Chairman....

The hon. member for Skeena — on a point of order?

MR. HOWARD: I move that the House do now adjourn and stand adjourned until 2 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the procedure.... In order to be flawless and in order not to get into another procedural discussion such as we've just concluded, we must return to committee.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
(continued)

On vote 188: computer and consulting charges, $258,900.

MR. BARBER: I was speaking before points of order were raised. I move the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Divisions in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the copy of the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of Human Resources.

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:26 p.m.