[ Page 6097 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Alleged cutbacks in homemaker service –– 6097

Mr. Lea

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Hall

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Finance estimates. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On vote 86: minister's office –– 6099

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Ritchie

On vote 87: economics and policy division –– 6106

Mr. Stupich

On vote 88: Treasury Board staff –– 6106

Mr. Stupich

On vote 89: revenue division –– 6106

Mr. King

Mr. Levi

Mr. Stupich

On vote 90: office of the comptroller-general –– 6109

Mr. Stupich

On the amendment to vote 90 –– 6109

Mr. Lauk

On vote 91: treasury and administration division –– 6110

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lauk

On vote 92: government agencies –– 6110

Mr. Stupich

On vote 93: Purchasing Commission –– 6110

Mr. Stupich

On vote 94: Provincial Capital Commission –– 6111

Mr. Barber

On vote 95: interest on the public debt –– 6116

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Barber

Mr. Cocke

On vote 96: contingencies (all ministries) –– 6117

Mr. Stupich

On vote 97: building occupancy charges –– 6117

Mr. Stupich

Mr. King

Second Reading of Bills

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada (Bill PR401).

Mr. Ree –– 6119

West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill PR402).

Mr. Ree –– 6119

Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 7).

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6119

Mr. Nicolson –– 6120

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6120

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Development Corporation consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6120

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: It's my pleasure to welcome to the chamber members of the B.C. Central Credit Union. We have with us Mr. Terry Sankey, the chairman; Mr. Del Taylor, first vice-chairman; Mr. George Viereck, second vice-chairman; Mr. Eugene Kaulius, a member of the executive; Mr. Peter Podovinikoff, chief executive officer; Mr. Aj Gill, the chief financial officer; Mr. Harry Buddle, the manager, services division; and Mr. Richard Thomas, the executive assistant. Would the House please welcome these fine gentlemen.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today we have representatives from the joint councils of the city of Armstrong in the district of Spallumcheen. I would ask the House to extend a warm welcome to His Worship Mayor Marvin Kirton of Armstrong and His Worship Mayor Hans Blattner of the Spallumcheen municipality, along with Alderman Carmen Anderson and Betty Atkinson of Armstrong, and Fred Findlay and Dave McCourt of the district of Spallumcheen.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Kamloops.

[Applause.]

MR. RICHMOND: And I haven't even said anything yet.

MR. LAUK: Enjoy it while you can.

MR. RICHMOND: I assume this is the freebie.

In the gallery today are several students from the FDA Elementary, a small private school in Kamloops. They are accompanied by some of their parents, and their teacher Ms. Ruth Fritz. I would like to ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. HALL: In the precinct today are 15 students from Ontario who are visiting Cunningham Simon School in Surrey as part of an exchange program. They're all in wheelchairs, Mr. Speaker, and they're visiting disabled students in Surrey and are here for a full day. I hope that any members who leave the chamber for some reason or another during the course of the day and see any of the students from Ontario will stop and have a chat with them, talk about British Columbia and all of the good things we have in this province, and welcome them to our fair province today.

MR. KEMPF: In the gallery with us this afternoon is one of those great entrepreneurs from the north, Mr. Lloyd Gething. Lloyd is very active in the mining industry and, in fact, is in the business of mining coal in Telkwa in my constituency. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

MR. LAUK: In the members' gallery today is a classmate of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) and myself, the mayor of the city of Cranbrook, His Worship Mayor Tyrone Colgur. Would the House welcome him today.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Because the first member for Vancouver Centre, myself and the mayor of Cranbrook went through law school together, may I join in the welcome and point out to members that the mayor of Cranbrook happens to be the finest cooker of a steak in this province. I survived law school on his cooking.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to have the House join me in welcoming Reverend Ron Lindsay from the city of Vancouver and the constituency of Vancouver Centre. I'd also like to welcome a group of students from the Grandview Elementary School in Vancouver and their teachers Lanny Young, Mavis Bredom and Elizabeth Blott. On behalf of the first member for Vancouver Centre and myself, would the House wish them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, saving the best till the last, I'd like the House to welcome some very dear friends of mine who have come all the way out here from Toronto: John and Mary Cook and their daughters Debbie and Karen. I remember when I used to carry these young girls around on my shoulder many years ago, and now they are beautiful young ladies. I'd like the House to bid them welcome.

Oral Questions

ALLEGED CUTBACKS IN HOMEMAKER SERVICE

MR. LEA: My question is to the Minister of Health. In answer to questions yesterday, the minister stated that volunteers and relatives of B.C.'s ill and elderly will have to fill in some of the gaps caused by cutbacks in homemaker services. The Prince Rupert homemakers service has been told that cuts must take place at the personal-care level: service to elderly people who are not able to shop for themselves or keep themselves clean, in some instances; those who live alone and in some cases have lost touch with society and their community. In the words of the director of the Prince Rupert homemakers service: "We provide services to many elderly people who live alone, who may have no family. The very fact that we are providing services means that the family is not there to help, in many cases." Has the minister decided to reconsider his answer of yesterday, and assure the elderly people in Prince Rupert who live alone that they will receive adequate care?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm rather surprised that someone has responded to a statement made yesterday, unless it had been prepared in anticipation.

The people responsible for delivering personal care take into consideration the needs of the individual by way of assessment, as I said yesterday. In some instances some of those services which are provided to the individual may be deemed to be no longer required. The emphasis certainly is placed upon the care of the individual. The member for Prince Rupert cited several functions of a person who would be assisting, and those identify an area of priority.

There are approximately three and a half million hours of service to be provided in the current year. Those people responsible for delivering those services will, to the best of their ability, assess the needs of the individual. There will be many cases where individuals will require more hours of care than they are presently being provided. I would expect that to occur. In other situations there will be the opportunity for the

[ Page 6098 ]

assessor to determine that perhaps fewer hours may be provided to an individual, thereby providing the opportunity of serving a greater number of people, albeit perhaps for a shorter period of time than they may desire or than possibly someone feels they may require.

As I said yesterday, approximately 22,000 people will be receiving this level of care. We do not have the capacity at this time to provide all the care that may be requested. We are attempting to provide the highest level of care for the greatest number of people based upon the assessment of the individual. We realize that we are going to fall somewhat short of perfection.

MR. LEA: The Prince Rupert homemaker service has been told to cut back almost 5,000 hours this year — that's from 25,230 hours in 1980 to 20,818 hours in 1981. I've been reliably informed that this means that unless those presently receiving service die, no new clients will be admitted into the program.

Has the minister now seen that it's his administrative decision that's causing severe hardship? Has the minister decided to provide adequate funds for the homemaker service now that all of this information is coming in? It's not coming in from us. We are only the carriers. It's coming in from the homemaker service and the people who direct that service in the field.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate the comment from the member for Prince Rupert that they are carrying messages to the Legislative Assembly on behalf of others. We have received similar communications from those people who are involved at the agency level. This is where most of the information is being obtained.

The people who are responsible for the administration of the program have advised the agencies that they should attempt a target level of so many hours. There is a difference in the total hours which would be identified as target and that which may have been provided last year within their specific responsibility. As I mentioned previously, that is to provide some flexibility to provide hours of service to new clients, rather than just sustaining those clients at the present level, because there is going to be a change in the mode of clientele. There will be some who will be entering the program and receiving services. Others will be leaving the program. But the level of hours will be approximately the same as the previous year. The cost will be increased by 35 to 45 percent. That occurs because of the change in the rates. The rate has increased by approximately 35 percent. The hours will be about the same, but there will be additional requests from perhaps 15 percent more clients. We are attempting to maintain approximately the same level of service, but the individual agencies who have the responsibility of handling the caseload have been asked to consider aiming at a target, thereby allowing us some flexibility in providing services for those new clients who are coming on stream.

As I mentioned yesterday, it is a good program providing good service to a large number of people. But I emphasize it will never achieve the expectations of all. I think we do have a responsibility to permit those people who are responsible for delivering that service to have a degree of assessment capability, determining where the priorities are.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Powell River and Sunshine Coast homemakers have been told to cut back their hours of service from 111,000 hours in 1980 to 93,000 hours in 1981, a reduction of 18,000 hours a year. Has the minister decided to intervene? Will you meet with the society with a view to increasing those hours, or at least bringing them back up to the level of last year, and reversing this heartless policy of your government and your ministry so that these people will not end up in overcrowded extended-care facilities — facilities that hardly exist in my riding due to the policies of your government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we must delete the argumentative phases of questions; but a section of the question is in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, the people responsible for administering the program, I would presume, have been in contact with that organization. At least I'm sure the organization has made such a request. It might save a great deal of time if I had a chance to meet for a few minutes with the person writing all the questions.

MR. LEA: We hear you don't even meet with the guy writing the answers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a credit to the commitment of the provincial government, with respect to this particular program, that citizens in the area mentioned by the member for Mackenzie will be receiving at least 93,000 hours this year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Leader of the Opposition says it's much better than none. Going from the 1975 base of zero, yes, I agree with you.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It is obvious to the Chair that when a question with a certain degree of argumentation in it is allowed, it distorts the purpose of question period. Let's have a question and an answer. The Minister of Health has the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: In response to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), and to the question he asked, I categorically reject his statement that it is a heartless program.

MR. GABELMANN: In Campbell River the Homemakers Service has been cut back about 600 hours per month, from over 2,200 to just over 1,600. I don't intend to ask the minister the same question, because we'll get the same non-answer.

What I do want to ask the minister is what he is going to do about the situation that exists in that area; between September 1980 and February 1981 no long-term care assessor existed because of the cutbacks in the health program. Assessments were done only by a social worker on an urgent basis. That has meant there is a long list of people who have not had an assessment for long-term care programs of any kind. They are now faced with having to do a reassessment of those people who are on long-term care programs in order to

[ Page 6099 ]

meet the cutbacks that have been imposed by the provincial government.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. GABELMANN: What can the people in Campbell River who are running long-term care programs on a voluntary basis through the Homemakers Service — many of the people who work in this program are doing it on a voluntary basis, as well as those who are paid — expect from the government, when they don't even have the facilities to do the kinds of assessments that are required, to meet the cutbacks that have been imposed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I look forward to reading that question in the Blues, because it was long and a bit convoluted. If I understand what the member was asking, what he is recommending is that we further add to that layer of bureaucracy that yesterday other members asked we remove. I'll have to read it to find out precisely what you're asking.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a supplementary question. I want the minister to answer to the House how the people in the Campbell River area in the long-term care assessment program are supposed to do an assessment of those people who are in the in-home program now, in order that there can be services cut back to meet the requirements, while they still have a backlog from last year in the overall long-term care assessment program.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: If there is a lack of capacity in numbers of personnel required to perform that function, then the way to resolve it would be to increase that capacity. I presume that would mean assigning more people to the task. I will inquire with the long-term care management to see if that's possible.

MR. HALL: Greg Boorman, the long-term health care administrator for Surrey and White Rock, has said that the Health ministry has not kept pace with increased demands for increased home service, and that the minister has provided his district with roughly the same amount of money this year as last year and at the same time expects more people to be served. We've been asking the minister if he has decided to change his decision. He has replied "no," a number of times.

In view of Mr. Boorman's accusation that the minister has reneged on earlier promises and that these cuts will cause ripples throughout all the other health services, why has the minister reneged on the promises he made to Mr. Greg Boorman?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who?

MR. HALL: Mr. Greg Boorman, the long-term health care administrator for Surrey–White Rock.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The second member for Surrey has a distinct advantage if he knows about that which he speaks, because I don't know when that meeting took place, what statements were made, or what it is you're speaking about with reference to reneging. I'm sorry.

MR. HALL: A Social Credit Party member, Brian Hayes, who is also the director of the Surrey and White Rock Community Homemaker Association, said that he warned the minister last week that it would be political suicide to cut back in-home health-care services to the elderly. Can the minister confirm that Mr. Hayes gave him that warning?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I possibly know Mr. Hayes, but I couldn't identify him in this room. I did not meet with Mr. Hayes last week. Perhaps he's communicated in some way. The member for Surrey seems to know all of this inside information. I'm not sure who's providing it to you, but maybe I could speak to that person later and find out what else he knows or thinks he knows.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I didn't want to bring this up during question period, but during question period I heard a clacking noise, which was disruptive to the question period, emanating from either the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) or the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) or from that direction. It sounded like a looseleaf….

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Somebody said it was a rubber band. Somebody said it was the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Would the member please state his point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: The point is that I'm surprised that if others did not know of this…. It seemed to start up when one of our members would get up and start asking a question. It seems to have been a deliberate affront to the House and to Your Honour. I would ask if His Honour would request from that side, which was the source of the noise, to have that member have the guts to stand up and apologize to this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. Hon. members, I commend to the House the practice which is first laid out for us in our standing orders: when a member stands to speak, he shall not be interrupted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 86: ministers office, $176,348.

MR. STUPICH: For about two and a half hours yesterday afternoon we had quite a good exchange, I thought, of fairly short comments and questions from this side of the House and responses and answers from the Minister of Finance, up until the last nine minutes. The Premier rose at nine minutes to six and said that he had no intention of speaking in this debate, and then went on for nine minutes to prove that he had no intention of speaking in this debate.

Interjections.

[ Page 6100 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm just not able to get all of the comments, and I suppose it's not necessary that I do. If they want to speak up, then I'll try to respond. But it's not my estimates right now; it's the Minister of Finance that we're supposed to be doing. I just don't know whether I should be listening or trying to avoid them.

In any case, yesterday the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) raised a question. I thought it deserved an answer from the Minister of Finance. I recall asking a question sometime last summer about what the Minister of Finance intended to do, could do or might do about the increasing rate of interest. At the time I think he said that the Finance ministers were going to have a meeting with Bouey, the governor of the Bank of Canada, and that this would certainly be discussed. I know that the question of Bouey attending a meeting of first ministers did come up, and there was concern that Bouey had not attended that meeting. But it is my understanding that there was a meeting last summer when the Ministers of Finance were going to meet with Bouey, and although I believe I was assured in the House that the Minister of Finance from B.C. was going to attend that meeting, he then did not attend the meeting. I think it's passing strange that the Minister of Finance from B.C. has not even met the B.C. representative on the board of governors; I just think it's strange. I wonder whether either one is avoiding the other, or whether it's something that they put on the back burner until there is more time for it. Or does the Minister of Finance for B.C. really believe that B.C. has no input to make other than through the first ministers' conference? I would like some comment from him as to his interest or lack of interest in this whole question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the specific meeting of Ministers of Finance to which the hon. member for Nanaimo referred occurred last year. The member is correct in recalling that in debate or in answer to a question in this House I indicated that I would be in attendance at that meeting. May I say at the outset that I think it is important that Ministers of Finance or provincial treasurers, as the case may be, across the country should discuss the question of interest rates and the national economy. On that particular occasion I confess, Mr. Chairman, to having been unwell immediately in front of the conference. I wanted to go; I said I would go, and I was unable to attend. There have been two meetings of western Finance ministers in recent weeks, as the member would know: the first in Victoria in May; and most recently in Edmonton just one week ago. We obviously discussed the economy at that particular point of time.

In addition, all ten provinces — through the Ministries of Finance or treasury departments — will be in Victoria later this month. The date is June 24, 25 and 26 for a meeting of the ten provincial Ministers of Finance, and I think there is doubt about the attendance of one minister. Clearly, the economy will be a very major item on an agenda of about six agenda items. I would think that the economy will be about the first. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, it is correct to assume that I, as Minister of Finance for British Columbia, am content to leave the question of the economy or the question of high interest rates and the hardship which they work to the first ministers, although the subject has been more fully and accurately addressed in more detail at meetings of first ministers.

It is correct that I have not met with the representative or the member of the board of governors of the Bank of Canada who resides in British Columbia. If the member opposite considers that to be an oversight, then I will accept that criticism. I have not met with him; however, we have had contact with the Bank of Canada and will continue to do so — directly or indirectly. However, I think that in a number of instances it is more appropriate for the premiers of the provinces, the first ministers, to have contact with Governor Bouey. I believe that we can have a more direct and effective contact with our federal counterparts — when I say ours, I mean the provincial Ministers of Finance — with the federal Minister of Finance, with the federal president of the Treasury Board and others who have a financial responsibility at the elected level in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I just have one brief question for the minister. Could the minister advise the House whether he or his government has ever requested the federal government that they be consulted surrounding the appointment to the Bank of Canada? Have you ever requested to be brought into the process so that you could have some input in terms of the kind of person you wanted to sit on the Bank of Canada board? Would you please answer that question?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I believe that that has been the case. I would refer the member to three documents. It's not appropriate to table these documents, because they are public documents. One, admittedly, is some four and a half years old; that is the B.C. position on the constitution of Canada; secondly, the 1978 brief to the task force on Canathan unity; and thirdly, among others, the presentation to the first ministers' conference by the Premier of this province in very late 1978. That also has to be seen in the context of the attempt of the first ministers to meet with Governor Bouey at a time when there was similar concern about interest rates and other aspects of the Canadian economy. The history of that attempt is well known and, again, is a matter of record. My answer to the member is that I believe I am correct in saying that that point has been made in the past.

MR. LORIMER: I would like to discuss with the minister three problems of a somewhat local nature; two of these deal with the disabled rebate from the gasoline tax about which we have been in communication for the last few months. The matter was turned over to the eligibility committee, and the request by the two constituents to whom I am referring was turned down. In my opinion, under the regulations the definitions of "handicapped" are very narrow. They could probably be looked at by the minister with the idea of making these regulations a little more generous.

In the case of David Wray, he has very minimal use of his legs; he has hand controls in his automobile; he has a fused left knee, a plastic right knee, and walks slowly with his crutches. In his case, I would suggest that any reasonable person would consider him "handicapped," as referred to in the regulations, although he may not fit completely within the definitions set out. However, I suggest that a generous examination of those definitions would allow this person to fit. He receives a Department of Veterans Affairs pension of 50 percent. He is unable to use buses. The only way he can move about is with his vehicle. I would like the minister to take another look at this particular case, along with the case of Geno Bianco, who was injured in an industrial accident and receives compensation equivalent to what a person would

[ Page 6101 ]

receive if in fact his leg had been amputated below the knee. He had been advised that he should go through with amputation procedures. The matter has been discussed but Mr. Bianco — for cosmetic reasons, I suppose — prefers to have his useless leg attached. If he went through with this operation he would qualify for the exemption. But because he hasn't gone through with the operation the eligibility committee has said that he's out of luck. Now, if he wants his tax return, all he has to do is have the operation and he would get it without question. It seems like nonsense to me.

There's another case I would ask the minister to look at. I want to say that the minister did reply promptly to my letters dealing with these two cases; I have no criticism of that. I only criticize the answer. I wrote to the minister just a week ago about the third matter but I haven't had a reply. This is in connection with the Social Service Tax Act and dealing with the Pacific Vocational Institute, in which they buy equipment for training purposes — motors and machinery to be stripped by the students, rebuilt and so on. Under the regulations there are sales tax exemptions for school purposes. It would seem to me that in this particular case the equipment is being used solely for training purposes. The motors and so on are not being operated on the roads or for any industrial or commercial purpose. They are merely there for training the students how to take a block apart, or whatever, and put it together again. When the application was made by this institute, it was accepted by a Mr. R.C. Sheridan, the inspection supervisor of the department, as a refundable tax which could be refunded. That was in March of this year. In May this decision was reversed by the same inspector. I would ask the minister to take a close look at this one as well, because it would seem to me that something that is being used for educational purposes, and not for industrial, commercial or private purposes, would qualify under the regulations as an exemption for school purposes. Maybe the minister has an answer to that last question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon has identified four specific cases which are of concern to him, two of which I have dealt with in reply in writing. The third is being looked at right now under a separate heading or category — the question of sales tax charged on items for educational purposes. I'll examine that one. I don't think the member expected an answer today.

With respect to the eligibility committee for the gasoline tax rebate for disabled persons, first of all, I don't think there is any argument that an eligibility committee is appropriate. No matter how carefully one draws legislation or the regulations which flow from it, you cannot possibly foresee every single case. There are going to be some instances where, in fact, all the care in framing the material and the regulations has been taken, but someone will be just beyond that point. I believe very much in the use of eligibility committees not only in this context, but in a number of contexts throughout government. There you can request a group of men and women to focus their attention on a specific situation, and you can give them terms of reference.

Incidentally, I don't accept the suggestion that the terms of reference are narrow. I think they are more broad than ever. We can argue the point as to whether they should be even broader, but at least we give to an eligibility committee, such as the one which functions in this case, the opportunity to exercise some discretion. I would like to think that they have been encouraged to exercise that discretion in the broader sense rather than the narrower. In other words, if they have any doubt at all, they should rule in favour of the individual who considers himself or herself to be aggrieved.

What we will do is this: as we have a little more experience with this, we shall review the decisions made by the eligibility committee and determine if there is in fact a pattern. In some instances, however, requests have come in for the gasoline tax rebate from people who, in the view of the eligibility committee — and, frankly, in my view — are simply not entitled to it. They are not themselves disabled. They have some responsibility with respect to assisting disabled persons. First of all, I would like to see us address ourselves to those who are disabled, who have a very genuine circumstance with respect to the gasoline tax rebate. Then we can consider additional broadening if possible and if financial circumstances permit.

I think that answers the member's questions. I am pleased he does write to me as these individual instances come to his attention. because then we can examine them. But we should also examine them in the whole, and we shall be doing so.

MR. LORIMER: I want to point out that I have no objection to an eligibility committee. That could well be the right way to go. I'm not talking about that matter.

It seems to me that in the two particular cases I cited it is strictly the person who is handicapped or disabled that is making application. Secondly, my information is that both are getting refunds from the federal tax rebate system. If they qualify under the federal regulations set out federally, then I suggest to you that it might be a wise thing to determine whether or not the regulations we have should be brought into line with the federal ones, or at least some consideration be given to determining whether or not the guidelines are as they should be.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll reply very briefly. No, I didn't want to suggest that the particular cases you had drawn to my attention were from other than disabled persons, but I was expanding in the response.

I don't think there is a disagreement in terms of the eligibility committee activity; I think it's a useful one. Previously the decision was made by the commissioner of tax. He is supposed to be as tough as he possibly can; that is his job. That's why we moved to the eligibility committee to permit a second look. I thank the member.

We've had some limited experience with the eligibility committee. I undertake — and it would only be natural that we do so — that we review their decisions for or against and that we review their experience in the course of the next several months, towards the end of this year.

MR. RITCHIE: I will be very brief. I have a matter which has become rather a severe problem in my constituency. It concerns the application of sales tax to a particular piece of farm equipment. I have on hand a number of letters from some of my constituents complaining quite severely about this thing. I have spoken to the minister in this regard, and there is the possibility that there may be some relief next year.

However, I wish to convey to the minister that the relief is required this year, and the reason is very simple. The problem this could create for this small distributor known as Fraser Valley Loader Sales Ltd. Is further aggravated by the high interest rates of today. This operation could be under very severe financial restraints if they are bound to not only keep

[ Page 6102 ]

up to the high interest rates required today…. In that particular business, where you have to carry a fairly large inventory of expensive equipment, this tax becomes intolerable.

I believe that our minister should reconsider this decision on the basis that if there is a possibility it could be changed next year then I would say the possibility is with us now, and of course the effects of such a change would be quite dramatic to this small businessman.

I know that no matter where you go you're going to find this particular piece of machinery known as the skid-steer loader. In this particular case it's known as a Bobcat. It was originally designed by a turkey producer because of its ability to operate in small quarters for cleaning buildings. You will find this piece of equipment on many jobs other than agricultural, just as you will find many tractors that were designed many years ago being used in highway and industrial work. It would be totally unfair to decide that this does not qualify simply because someone who does not understand agriculture or agricultural equipment decides that it's not a farm tractor.

I could go on and on and talk about different types of self-powered farm equipment that could be considered tractors but someone behind a desk who doesn't understand it will tell me, as they have already done, that it's not a tractor because it's not designed to pull. This machine is a tractor and it's designed for a farm job. The fact that it's used in other places should not cause this loss of tax benefit. I would say too that it's very simple. It states that equipment such as farm implements, farm machinery and farm tractors may be exempt. I would submit to the minister that this would qualify under any of those categories, but more importantly, if there is a possibility of it being changed next year, for gosh sakes, do it this year and save the business of this small businessman who cannot afford this sort of penalty on top of the penalty he's having as a result of the federal high-interest-rate policy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the member for Central Fraser Valley, who has raised this question with me previously. I'm pleased that he has raised it the debate on my estimates. I cannot undertake for the member today that such a favourable decision would be forthcoming this year. That is not to say that we shall not examine it again, particularly in view of the fact that he has raised it in the House. However, whether that decision can be made this year or not with respect to a specific piece of equipment — Bobcat being a commercial term; loaders being the more generic term — we do have to work on the list of the exemptions of sales tax in several areas, not the least of which is agricultural. That list could be altered quickly, but I think we might make some mistakes. For that reason I wish to err on the cautious side, take just a little longer and bring the list forward by regulation for the next budget year. We may make some significant changes or we may make relatively few changes. It's an old list and it deals with a number of implements — I don't think they would fall under the heading of equipment anymore — which I am informed in my own constituency are simply not only no longer used on a farm but no longer seen on a farm. However there may be some instances that while these are not used in a modern mechanized farm — say in the Fraser Valley, the Saanich Peninsula or the Okanagan — they may still be used in some smaller family farms in more remote and rural areas of the province. We require care in altering that list which has been in place for a good number of years.

Having said that generally, the specific point which the member has raised deserves very serious attention. I cannot promise a decision this year. I do promise a very careful review. I trust the member will find that acceptable.

MR. RITCHIE: At this moment I'm not calling for a change in the list. I suggest that it would be wrong to do so, because it requires a lot of attention, considering the fact that we have such silly things on there such as hen specs and turkey saddles. What I am saying to the minister is that this machine does qualify under the categories of farm equipment, farm tractor or farm machinery. I have letters from a number of people who purchased this piece of equipment who are quite prepared to sign a document stating that in fact this is used solely for agricultural purposes. That should be enough. At this moment my major concern is not the change or the revision of the list, nor can we wait until next year. I'm asking now that this be looked at again, and a favourable decision be made in order to help this small businessman who I'm sure would be under tremendous pressure if he were forced to pay this very healthy penalty as a result of this misinterpretation — in my opinion — of what should or shouldn't qualify.

MR. STUPICH: There is a question I raised a couple of times yesterday, and the minister missed it, perhaps by design. I don't know. If that's the case, I'll move on to something else. But I'll try it once more and see if I do get a response. I was referring to the background papers, page 49, table 2: estimate of the implicit subsidy received by B.C. consumers of natural gas, 1981-82. This table shows that the implicit subsidy runs somewhere between $59 million and $424 million depending on the calculation. I asked the minister if he had some rationalization of this. He did go on at some length, during the course of his remarks in response to another question, to say that he believes in the user-pay principle. Certainly there are occasions when that is not appropriate at all. In the case of most human services, the one who is using the services is the one who is least able to pay. In this instance, I don't think that can be the answer. I wonder if the minister has any rationalization as to why the taxpayers generally should be subsidizing these natural gas consumers this way. Does he has any plans for doing anything about it, or is there some reason for maintaining this subsidy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry if I did not respond to that specific point yesterday. I think I did brush past it or touch on it. The question is essentially before the British Columbia Utilities Commission at this point, and then will be before government as a whole, not just the Ministry of Finance.

In table 2 on page 49 of the background papers, as I indicated yesterday, we are attempting to identify all tax expenditures and all aspects of provincial finances. That is not to say that the Ministry of Finance accepts or agrees with all of them, but rather this should be seen as a background and working paper. Again, in line with my determination that the budget itself and the material which is filed with members of this House on budget day and subsequent days is as complete and as full a record as it can possibly be — full disclosure of a variety of programs and costs which exist within the structure of government in British Columbia — I intend to continue to pursue that particular course of action.

[ Page 6103 ]

With respect, I don't think it's a matter of whether or not I agree with the implicit subsidy. It's a question of my insisting that that kind of information should be shown in a document called background papers. Frankly, I feel that the point could be more effectively canvassed with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), inasmuch as it relates to policy.

The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) is not in his seat at the moment, but he made the point with respect to a specific piece of equipment. I attempted to point out that we are examining the full list, in concert with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, as the committee would expect us to do, obviously. I commit to the member — I see he has returned — that I shall examine this most seriously with the officials in my ministry. I think he knows that the matter has been tested in court. I will have to have a report quite soon as to exactly what the position of the Ministry of Finance might be or should be as result of that decision.

I commit to review this year. I cannot commit to accede to his request this year; I'm sorry that I cannot do that.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to interject a cautionary note. I would just suggest to the minister that the more exemptions he allows, the more pressure he will get for more exemptions. My own approach to this would be rather to improve the farm income assurance program so that it would not be necessary to add to the list of exemptions for agricultural purposes. I'd rather get away from the list completely. However, that's his problem, not mine.

I'd like to refer to a statement on page 35 of the budget speech: "Responsible budgeting requires that government expenditure stays within our ability to provide services without borrowing." The minister needn't look that up. What he should look up is page 25 of the background papers. To some degree the government has been able to maintain services without borrowing by creating additional Crown corporations that do borrow. So it has been shifted from one pocket to the other, if you like. On page 25 there is a six-year projection showing what is going to be borrowed under various headings. But we can't determine from the breakdown of the headings just how much is borrowing that previously would have been included in budgetary expenditures.

For example, included under item one, education and health, is British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority. That item used to be included in expenditures under estimates in the Department of Education; the capital amount that was spent on universities and colleges used to be included there. This is a new financing authority. I'd like to know — in the years in this table — how much of the figure shown under the title "education and health" may be attributed to the British Columbia Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority.

In the same way, under item two, urban development, there are three new authorities: Urban Transit Authority, British Columbia Place and Transpo '86. These are all new institutions. The total figures in that second line are all items that are new under this administration, and would all have been included under budgetary expenditures in previous administration. Therefore, in saying that they're getting along without borrowing, by producing this table the minister is admitting that these would have represented government over-expenditures, further revenue or whatever. B.C. Hydro is not a new one. But under item 3 — other Crown corporations — is British Columbia Buildings Corporation. The capital expenditures for the old Department of Public Works were included under budgetary expenditures.

There are three other Crown corporations under this heading. BCDC has been around for some time. B.C. Rail has been around for a long time. But BCBC is a new corporation. I ask the same question. How much of the borrowing in the years shown here may be attributed to the new Crown corporation?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

If the minister doesn't have all that information now, I'd like him to say to me that if I put the question on the order paper, he'll answer it. I'd like him to say that he'll also answer the question I put on it about how much cash he has on hand at the end of March. If he'll give me his assurance that he'll answer those questions, then I'll be quite prepared to put them on the order paper.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I made notes yesterday when the member opposite was inquiring with respect to questions on the order paper. If I may say so, I think I've answered a number of questions. I owe the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), who is in the House but not in his seat, an answer to a question. That one has been on the order paper for quite some time. I concede that point. There are five other questions on the order paper remaining unanswered. The last three carry the numbers 49, 50 and 52. In other words, they've not been on the order paper for very long.

Yes, if the member for Nanaimo chooses to put those questions on the order paper, I will answer them at the earliest possible opportunity. He refers to the other one with respect to our cash situation at the end of March. That question can be answered quite quickly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Quite quickly. A matter of days. Okay?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I didn't intend to smile in derision or anything like that. I accept the minister's response that he will answer. I'm quite confident that he will. Mind you, I'll remember if he doesn't and I'll remind him on another occasion.

On page 6 of the budget speech it says: "When the economy needed selective stimulus, an extra $353 million was appropriated for new or enhanced programs." I'd like the minister to comment on some of these new and enhanced programs, and the amount they put into the economy.

On page 65 and page 66 there is a list of the new and enhanced programs under the heading "Special Purpose Funds." One of these new programs was the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund, out of which was spent $0.2 million. Others were the B.C. Place Development Fund, out of which $1.7 million was spent; the Downtown Revitalization Fund, out of which zero was spent, the Energy Development Fund, out of which $0.6 million was spent; the Forest and Range Resource Fund, out of which $27 million was spent; the Fraser River Crossing Construction Fund, out of which $10 million was spent; the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund, out of which S1.3 million was spent; the Northeast Coal Development Fund, out of which $6.5 million was spent — I'm curious as to just how that was spent, but that's not my

[ Page 6104 ]

question at the moment — and the Provincial Computerization of Libraries Fund, out of which $1 million was spent. That's total expenditures of $47.4 million.

I'm wondering how the minister rationalizes the actual expenditures of $47.4 million with his budget statement to the effect that an extra $353 million was put into the economy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I will answer that question in just a moment. In my last response I neglected to point out that under Education and Health — the member dealt with this under the heading of borrowing — it is in the post-secondary area where, some three years ago, we introduced that as new. There's been tremendous growth in the borrowing requirements for post-secondary. The member shakes his head, as though he's doubtful. I said post-secondary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two universities — isn't that post-secondary?

HON. MR. CURTIS: That would fall under the heading, but that's not the full list, as the member would know. So tremendous growth necessitated that activity.

With respect to the special purpose funds and the utilization of those funds, in every instance which the member for Nanaimo has read, and in every instance which is shown on the last pages of the budget in the appendices, those funds are to be utilized in the manner described and prescribed. However, I think the committee should realize that a significant amount of lead time is required before some of these projects can actually get underway. I think it's safe to say that generally speaking in the first year, after a decision has been taken with respect to a particular development, something in the order of only 5 or 10 percent of the amount would be spent on planning and start-up design, or whatever it may be. In spite of best efforts, and in spite of the enthusiasm of ministers who are anxious to see a particular project proceed, with the odd exception it takes a considerable length of time for us to achieve start-up. I would again point out that this is a forecast of transactions and balances for the year ending next March 31. There could be a variation….

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, table F1 is identified, Mr. Member.

MR. STUPICH: I'm looking at the figure under March 31, 1981.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I see the first column. However, in some instances, in the other columns which deal with 1981-1982, we will see some progress, more in one or two than in others, for the reason which I've indicated. The money is there and is to be utilized as soon as it is practicable to do so. I would think that there would be a significant change in some of the fund listings in the course of this fiscal year ending next March 31.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't quarrel with anything the minister said. But he did say in the budget speech that when the economy needed selective stimulus — and he's talking about the year 1980 — an extra $353 million was appropriated for new or enhanced programs. It didn't really stimulate the economy in 1980 to set aside in various pockets $353 million and spend only $47 million of that. The only stimulus to the economy was $47 million, not $353 million — that's my point. The rest is still in the bank. It's one of the questions waiting on the order paper. The minister will answer that question now, and we'll find out that the amount sitting in the bank at March 31, 1981, will be in excess of $1.2 billion. But we'll wait for the actual answer.

I have one direction I want to pursue under the minister's salary, and this is the last one. Perhaps the minister will be relieved to hear that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: You're enjoying it? Well, so am I. It's a very good exchange, I think, and it's the way the estimates should go.

In any case, yesterday the minister went to some lengths to assure us, and "categorically and absolutely" denied that the government is trying to hoard money for any purpose, whether for northeast coal or for the next election or whatever. He was very firm on that. He has absolutely no intention of creating a surplus, or having a fortuitous surplus occur in the year 1981-1982. I expect to be able to remind the minister about that next year. But at this time I would like him to pursue his categorical denial just a little further.

Looking at the budget again, on page 60 — the natural resource revenue — I ask: is the minister really telling us that his estimates for 1982 are going to be as low as they're printed on this table? The revised estimates for 1981 for minerals, which includes petroleum and natural gas as well as revenues from other minerals…. In spite of all the glowing reports as to how well mining is doing in the province at this point in time, especially up until May 14 — we were told how well mining is doing — yet the minister shows that he expects to collect $14.3 million less in the year ended March 31, 1982, than he expects to collect, according to his revised figures, for the year ending March 31, 1981. He expects his total from mineral revenue will be not much more than 60 percent of his revised estimate for the year ended just two months ago. Is he really telling us now that he believes that to be the case? Or does he now admit that revenues will be higher, but that unfortunately expenditures will also be higher and the net effect will be no surplus?

I want to hear from him now, and I want to hear him tell us whether he expects these revenue figures to be anywhere close to what the actual figures will be.

Under logging tax, his revised estimates for the year ended March 31, 1981 — revised fairly recently, I would expect; probably in February, just about five months ago — are $45.5 million, but his forecast for the following year is $17 million, something like 35 percent. Is it really that bad?

Timber sales. Revised estimates are $341 million, but the estimate for the year we're in right now is $190 million. Is it really that low? That's roughly 55 percent.

Other lands and forests revenue is pretty well the same. In total, the revised estimates for the year ended March 31, 1981, for these two sections in this general fund revenue by source are $978 million, almost $1 billion. But in the year we're actually in, having gone two and a half months through this year, the total is only $624 million. I know these things happen and that things change, but is the minister telling us today, in light of what he said yesterday, that he expects his

[ Page 6105 ]

revenues to be very close to these figures, or is he saying that other expenditures are going to increase and take up the slack so that he'll end the year with a break-even position?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm going to refer to quarterly reporting, and I trust that no members of the committee will groan, because I won't take very long in making that reference. The fact is that I think the introduction of quarterly reporting by my predecessor Minister of Finance in '76 is an excellent step. It means that the people of British Columbia and those who are sent here as their elected representatives don't have to wait for a 12-month period to elapse to find out how we're doing.

The first quarterly report will be available towards the latter part of July, as the quarter ends on June 30. It usually takes something in excess of three weeks for that report to be out. We are examining the revised forecasts now in preparation for the first quarter.

Obviously we're still in that first quarter. I remain somewhat pessimistic in terms of revenues. I don't think the pessimism which was reflected in the budget…. Nothing has altered to change that pessimism in terms of provincial revenues and the revenue-expenditure squeeze. There are ministers in this government right now who will tell you that I am continuing to express concern about the expenditure side of government, because of what we see not happening on the revenue side. This is the contradiction we face in British Columbia. Having decided that we would not go into a deficit in this budget year, we planned for a balanced budget. That was canvassed very thoroughly in the budget debate, and I won't bore the committee by repeating those principles. Nonetheless, the province has prospered, but provincial revenues versus expenditures have been placed in very serious difficulty. They wouldn't be if we had simply accepted the easy way out and headed for a deficit.

U.S. housing starts have a significant impact, and other Ministers of Finance have taken their place in this chamber in similar debates in the past and pointed that out. The committee does not need a lecture from me on the importance of housing starts in the United States. In terms of the forest industry, we based our figures on 1.4 million starts annualized in the U.S. The latest information, again annualized, suggests that it's down to about 1.2 million. Those figures have to be accepted in the context of a healthy peak period which saw two million housing starts in the United States in a 12-month period. That's a very significant loss of revenue to the province, and this, coupled with a slight drop in the price of minerals — not dramatic, but a slight drop, which is again well known to the committee — plus the natural gas problem, all suggest to me that we approach the budget document and the numbers in the budget with a very realistic attitude.

So I trust I've answered the member for Nanaimo's question. In terms of provincial revenues and expenditures we have yet to see reason for enthusiastic optimism — or optimistic enthusiasm, whichever you prefer. If it changes, the people of British Columbia will hear of it very quickly through our formal reporting and through other statements which I would be obliged to make from time to time.

With respect to how 1980-81 ended up, Mr. Chairman, we hope to release the preliminary final report for 1980-81 at about the end of July, along with the first-quarter report for this year.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to hear that we can look forward to an interim report. We didn't get one at all last year until we got the Public Accounts. It used to be the practice to issue interim reports, and I'm pleased that this will be revived.

In light of the minister's concern about expenditures and about the pressure in trying to balance the budget, I wonder if he could tell me why it's necessary to increase his support staff by 50 percent — from four up to six?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member, Mr. Chairman, is referring to my own staff? Well, I actually have fewer individuals in my office now than I did as Provincial Secretary, and there was that change-over period which occurred in late 1979. I believe that it is important for my office to function very effectively and, yes, it has increased. In 1980-81 it showed a staff of five and now it shows a staff of seven. I think it's important to deal not only with the percentage increase but also with the number increase, but I have fewer people in my office than I did when I was Minister of Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think if I were the Provincial Secretary I would be arguing that the Provincial Secretary has a lot more need for support staff than the Minister of Finance. The support staff is going from four to six, not from five to seven — because the minister himself is one of the five and one of the seven. So his support staff is increased by 50 percent. However, having in mind again what the minister said about how tough things are this year and the concerns that had been raised by many members on this side of the House about the way in which long-term care has been starved, I'm going to repeat the argument that has been raised by many of my colleagues and made by others, and that is that it is the wrong time to be increasing such things as travel expense and office expense. I therefore move that vote 86, the minister's office, be reduced by $10,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

NAYS — 29

[ Page 6106 ]

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

Vote 86 approved.

On vote 87: economics and policy division, $1,429,563.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I've heard no explanation from the minister. Nothing has come out to justify an increase in travel expense of about 35 percent. Office expenses have increased threefold. Office furniture and equipment have increased two and half times. I therefore move that vote 87 be reduced by $53,887.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 29

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

Vote 87 approved.

On vote 88: Treasury Board staff, $1,891,402.

MR. STUPICH: The minister is to be complimented. He's cutting down on the bureaucracy. The number of staff members is going from 40 down to 39. In spite of that, office furniture and expenditures are almost doubling. Of course the item for government propaganda is going up by almost 50 percent. That amount of $9,850 would provide, let's say,600 hours of long-term care. I can't move that motion, but I can move that this vote be reduced by the sum of $9, 50.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 29

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

Vote 88 approved.

On vote 89: revenue division, $18,718,431.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of matters that have come to my attention that I want to raise with the minister with respect to the provincial sales tax, and the minister may have some advance warning on two. One is with respect to motorcycles not being included in reduction of sales tax based on fuel consumption. It's a small point, but it is felt by bikers that they're being discriminated against vis-à-vis automobiles. I see no reason why that policy of encouraging gas or fuel conservation should not be applied across the board, and I would appreciate the minister's comment on that.

The other question relates to churches in the community. They now have to pay the 6 percent tax for the first time. It's classed as an institution building, etc., and they now have to pay 6 percent tax on fuel oil. Of course, this makes a considerable difference to church organizations at the community level which mainly exist on voluntary contributions, and in some parts of the province this weighs very heavily, depending on the climatic conditions. In the lower mainland it's not a major factor; in the northern part of the province, where there are long and extremely cold winters, this is an additional burden on churches, and it's inequitable in the sense that it doesn't apply evenly across the province. Now the same can be said for domestic consumers, but it always has been held in the past that churches were a little bit different in terms of their contribution to the community and to society generally, and the fact that they are largely funded and operated by volunteers' donations in the community. So I would appreciate the minister's response to the proposition of removing that 6 percent sales tax on fuel oil for churches.

There was one other point I wanted to raise too, and it escapes me at the moment. I think I raised the question of the classification of farmland with the minister before. The Ministry of Finance has something to do with it when the land is classed as residential rather than farmland. That's based on a formula of production. I raised this last year with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), as well as with the Minister of Finance, I believe. Once again I say to the minister that while it's true that senior citizens or handicapped persons can defer their property taxes until such time as they're deceased and the estate is probated, many senior citizens do not wish to do that, particularly those who had been close to the land and hold some rather large acreage. What I advocated on their behalf is that where farm produc-

[ Page 6107 ]

tion is reduced because of old age or because of a handicap, the classification of residential be forgiven for those two categories: for handicapped people and toward driving farmland into use. The Ministry of Finance has a role in this, and I would appreciate a response from the minister as to whether or not he has had any discussions perhaps with his colleagues in cabinet to give this proposition any further consideration.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the questions raised by the member under vote 89 — motorcycles first. As a former rider and one who would like to return to the sport in a very quiet way at some point….

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, and a very small lightweight machine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member called me a yahoo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not like the Satan's Angels. A Yamaha.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, a Yamaha.

Mr. Chairman, this is under the category of exemptions. We have added bicycles to the exemptions this year after representations were made in this House and outside. We have the sales tax differential on automobiles, to which the member has referred. I think I can only say that we'll look at it. Your colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) spoke about exemptions in the agricultural industry just a few minutes ago and pointed out a way he thought we should proceed rather than have exemptions. There are varying points of view. Some motorcycles are probably not fuel efficient. That one I think would fall under the heading of the kind of thing that we review continually. Last year — my first full year as Minister of Finance — we kept a file on a variety of suggestions which were made by members and the people we serve. We pulled that list together towards the end of October, into November, and we look at it very carefully.

Sales tax on fuel oil consumed by other than residential properties was a significant move with respect to the exemption for residential purposes. I would have to look for confirmation. I think that that would apply to the residence on the church property, because that is in fact a residence — the manse, the rectory or whatever it may be called. I'd have to check that particular point. With respect to places of worship generally, I hear what the member has said. I can't commit at this point. Again, it would have to be reviewed in the context of next year. I will say to the member that I have had some correspondence on this particular point. We would have to examine that.

I have pretty well the same answer with respect to the farmland residence — the place of residence on land which is officially categorized as a farm. I will undertake to review that. I could be mistaken. I don't think the member raised that in my estimates last year. I recall that it was raised in the discussion of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), and I don't deny the responsibility that we have within the Ministry of Finance. I'll undertake to review that as well.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his undertakings to have a look at those areas that I have mentioned.

The other thing that has come to my attention — quite frankly, I wasn't aware of it until today when one of the visitors from the Armstrong area who is also a car dealer in that municipality brought it to my attention — is that they are now allowed a flat rate for the administration of the sales tax collection: $85 a year, He points out that they have contributed some $20,000 already in sales tax, and yet they are restricted to an $85 ceiling in recovering their costs for this service. This seems highly arbitrary to me. It seems like a double standard. In the votes that we have moved reductions on, the government is justifying increases by saying: "Inflation is going on. The costs of administration are going up every year, and therefore we need some latitude." But here they're not prepared to extend the same criteria and the same standard to the business community. This is a small town and a small dealership, and to restrict them to $85 seems to I me to be punitive and a double standard. Surely if the government's costs are going up, as is reflected in the budget, then at least they should provide some kind of an escalation; certainly the costs of labour and accounting are going up for the small business community too. I would appreciate the minister having a look at that one, because it seems highly arbitrary and unfair to me.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think this particular point may be somewhat misunderstood, not necessarily by the member but by the business community. First of all I think we've introduced an element of equity in the commission paid on the collection of sales tax which has not existed previously, because while we have imposed a maximum for some retailers, we have significantly increased the commission paid to the very small businesses and those which are put to an administrative expense in collecting the tax — small ticket items particularly, where a lot of information has to be collected and reported on. We have done what has existed in other provinces in the majority. It's not something very new. While the money is collected in trust for the public of British Columbia, a fact that cannot be denied is that the business concern involved has the use of that money until the reporting and transmission date has arrived. I don't think that should be overlooked.

Yes, there was a change in commission structure. It was alluded to at the time of budget. and I think that what we have done is in the interests of equity. I'm not surprised that members on both sides of the House have received complaints; I've received a number of complaints myself. The firms which collect the sales tax hold it for a minimum of 30 days. We've spoken in these estimates about high interest rates. We don't collect the interest; we simply collect the money which has been collected in trust. I think it has to be seen in that perspective. I appreciate that there will continue to be concerns about it.

MR. KING: Just to comment very briefly, I would disagree with the minister on that point. It seems to me that it's not equity when one says it's a flat rate but we're providing benefit to the very small business enterprise. Perhaps the very small business enterprise does not have the volume turnover or the volume of sales that would justify the supply, accounting and remittance of perhaps $50,000 or $100,000 in sales tax revenue to the government. I suggest to the minister that the cost of accounting and administration is commensurate with the amount of revenue that is dedicated to the province. I suggest it would be more equitable to phase it

[ Page 6108 ]

on the basis of the amount of tax owed rather than a flat ceiling for all concerned, because that's not reflected in their accounting costs in that fashion.

MR. LEVI: The question I have does not relate to the Systems Corporation. On Saturday an individual came into my office and handed me an envelope which was a general mail-out from the Social Credit Party soliciting something ' He said to me: "I don't know how they got my address." He then asked me whether it was possible that because he was in business and was making and returning Social Service Tax Act money that that list might have been made available. He specifically asked me: "Is that list made available to anybody to do mail-outs?" That's why I'm asking the minister, because in the past we have had situations where government lists have been made available to people. I said: "In the minister's estimates I'll specifically ask." Is the social service tax mailing list, with which you are constantly communicating with people in business, made available to anybody other than your department?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Bearing in mind the importance of being entirely accurate in this House, I cannot say absolutely no way, but I can come as close as possible to that. Certainly I would be astonished and extremely angry if I thought that lists of individuals and firms such as those who must report to us were put to any use other than that for which they are intended. I feel very comfortable in telling the member that I cannot concede that that would be the case, and if it were, some heads would roll — and I say that very seriously. We are in an era now — and this has nothing to do with my vote — where it seems that lists of names can be obtained from a variety of sources. I just want to be very sure that they are not obtained from any area within the Ministry of Finance. I can't contemplate that that would be the case now or has been the case. I would take it most seriously, perhaps even more seriously than the member who has raised the point.

MR. LEVI: Well, he was doing real good until the very last statement. This individual saw it as a serious matter, and I treat it as a serious matter. That's all. You don't have to come in with a chippy last remark. It's inappropriate, especially coming from you — you're such a nice guy. You've covered yourself very well; you're not sure.

I said to this individual: "Why do you raise the social service tax?" He said: "Because of the way the address is laid out." I asked him to bring me in one of the…. He hasn't done that, because I had to leave on Sunday morning; so I didn't see it. He raised a very legitimate question. The other thing he is now going to have to pursue is who has got his list. I know that Industry and Small Business Development has a list that they mail out. He's not on that list; I asked him. This is a very legitimate inquiry from a very concerned citizen.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to suggest that the member wasn't serious in raising it. I was attempting to say that I would view it, as minister, even more seriously than he has in bringing it to my attention. Occasionally we lose contact in exchange. If it has happened, I would be extremely angry. I doubt very, very much…. In fact my officials have indicated there is no way. I can't say with absolute certainty that it hasn't happened. I would be extremely angry if I knew that it had.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, when we were discussing Bill 13, and specifically section 26, I told the minister that I would ask him under his estimates what the effect is on revenue of striking out $50 and changing it to $75, with respect to the homeowner grant. I just thought I'd give him some time to look that up.

I'm going to be brief, but I do want to make a couple of comments. I was hoping that the Premier would be here for a short word on the Social Service Tax Act. We certainly can't hold this minister responsible. He was not the one who said the sales tax rate would never be increased, but his predecessor did. The Premier, during the height of an election campaign, assured the electors that if they voted Social Credit the social service tax would not be increased. But, as I say, that's not this particular minister.

[Mr. Levi in the chair.)

The Corporation Capital Tax Act, again I say, is not a tax on income; it's a tax on debt. It should be done away with.

MR. KEMPF: Who brought in that legislation?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I hear the parrot saying the same thing as he has said with respect to this discussion for several years. It's apparently the only remark he can think to make with respect to this presentation. I admit that an NDP administration brought this in. I have no apologies to make for that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I didn't say anything on the subject at the time. What I'm saying right now is that I think it is a tax on debt, not a tax on income, and it's inappropriate. We should do away with it completely. That's my position; that's the position of the NDP.

The parrot from Omineca keeps saying: "Who brought it in?" I can only say to him that the government now in office certainly hasn't hesitated to tamper with other legislation that the NDP brought in, in particular the Land Commission Act. They've tampered with all kinds of legislation. They made some changes here; they increased the exemptions. But they haven't done away with it.

I think I'll let it go at that. I think the minister is going to answer the question that I asked about Bill 13.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Nanaimo raised a point in debate on Bill 13. We have the information. First of all, some 50,000 homeowners now pay the minimum tax in British Columbia on their residential property. The cost to those 50,000, as a result of the increase — that's the best way to express it — is an additional $1 million. It is relatively insignificant. I indicated at the time that it just seemed appropriate that a $50 minimum per year for property tax on one's own home should be increased. I would think that governments in the future will raise it again.

I think those are the two numbers the member wanted: 50,000 pay it and the additional cost to them or the additional revenue to government, whichever way you wish, is $1 million.

MR. STUPICH: I could almost hear the minister saying, "What's another million?" but I didn't. He stopped short of that. I won't accuse him of that.

[ Page 6109 ]

I just have one more remark with respect to vote 89, revenue division. Once again it's the remark I made earlier. With as much pressure as there is on government revenue and as much pressure as the minister is under to increase expenditures in many areas, we find that travel expense, under the revenue division, has gone up almost 100 percent, office expense has gone up by $43,845 and office furniture has gone up by $19,000, which is a 50 percent increase. The total of the figures I've mentioned add up to $275,700, which would provide approximately 1,400 hours of long-term care. I therefore move that vote 89, revenue division, be reduced by $275,700.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

(Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 29

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

Vote 89 approved.

On vote 90: office of the comptroller-general, $6,014,700.

MR. STUPICH: This will not take very long but on this vote I do want to say that the staff is going from 201 up to 204. That's a very nominal increase in the number of bodies. Yet we find the travel expenses almost doubling — an increase of $108,000. Office expense is going up 50 percent by $92,500. Office furniture for these three extra people is going to cost an extra $92,000. These figures added together would provide some 1,500 hours of long-term care. I therefore move that vote 90, the office of the comptroller-general, be reduced by $292,360.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the opposition wishes to move a variety of motions, to cut where they think cuts should occur. I must point out that this one corrects what I consider and the members opposite know well — to have been an intolerable situation in working conditions for staff in the comptroller-general's office.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm speaking of staff, Mr. Member. You can interject or you can speak, obviously. But members know that very close to this building we have had individuals who have worked in intolerable conditions which I was not prepared to see continue — windowless rooms, poorly circulating air, absolutely foul conditions. That's why you see office furniture up in this vote, and increased expenditures. The members who are interjecting now know the kind of. conditions that these people worked under for a number of years, resulting in a very severe turnover rate. That turnover rate led to less efficient government. If they want to go on the record voting against better conditions for public servants then that's fine. Let the record show it.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister, by getting up and defending against this amendment has admitted by his silence on the other amendments in his own ministry that the other amendments at least had the kind of merit that should have encouraged the back bench of the Social Credit party to vote for them. I think it's skeptical and cynical for the minister to stand up and defend this one vote and say it is justified. By saying this one is justified, he is saying that the other estimates we were disputing were unjustified. We've heard this old saw before. To say you need $90,000 for office furniture and equipment is utter nonsense. We know it and the public knows it. They're being overtaxed to provide stuffed chairs and extravagant surroundings for the minister. That's what they're doing. We only remind you that there were $69 million worth of spending cuts proposed by this opposition so far. This is the first time a minister has stood up to defend against an amendment to reduce the expenditure. That's true. Why didn't you get up and defend yours?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, nobody was listening.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: If that's the best the government can offer a junior minister to defend a few votes…. My colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has pointed out that these spending cuts could represent the kind of money that would be required to keep homemaker service in this province. There is $69 million being thrown away on government propaganda, expensive office furniture and travel. We know one minister that commutes back and forth to the mainland for lunch. They are an extravagant, profligate government who have turned their backs on ordinary people and people who need homemaker service in the province of British Columbia.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

[ Page 6110 ]

NAYS — 29

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

Vote 90 approved.

On vote 91: treasury and administration division, $19,355,921.

MR. STUPICH: I'm particularly interested in his vote, having heard the minister's explanation with respect to the office of the comptroller-general. As the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) pointed out, if that was a special circumstance, what about all the others?

Looking at this one we see travel expense going from $25,700 up to $416,000 — that's an 18-fold increase. Professional and special services are up by $114,000; data systems up by $1,874,000; office expense from $77,200 up to $604,000 — eight times. Office furniture is up from $25,660 to $182,000; propaganda up by $67,000; materials and supplies up by $64,000; rentals $50,000; acquisition, machinery and equipment $200,000. The total is $3,470,912 — approximately 173,000 hours of long-term care.

I therefore move that vote 91, treasury and administration division, be reduced by $3,470,912.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK: Yesterday the Premier made certain comments about the profligate Liberal federal government. Surely on this vote all members will be sobered enough to took carefully at the waste and extravagance of the government opposite. The Premier of this province, who has the unmitigated gall to stand in this chamber and condemn the federal government — rightly so — for their profligate waste, today sits quietly signing letters while we're desperately trying to cut back on these extravagant estimates on behalf of the taxpayer. Let the record show that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I act on my own in this House. I don't know what you do, Mr. Member.

The member for Nanaimo has read off a number of figures. I would refer the committee to the total of vote 91 and to the 1980-81 figure — the last fiscal year and this fiscal year — bearing in mind that there are increases in recoveries, and they will see that there is already a reduction on this vote of some significant amount of money. I interjected when he was making his presentation, asking for the total. We have a total last year of $22,012,000. We have a total this year of $19,355,000. The efficiency has already been built in, as it has in vote after vote presented to this Committee of Supply.

MR. STUPICH: As the minister pointed out, the net is lowered, but the gross figure is $13 million higher before including this item of recovery from investments. The minister is spending a great deal more in this department. The amendment says that he is spending $3,470,912 more than he should be at this time when his need is so great.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 29

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

Vote 91 approved.

On vote 92: government agencies: $10,315,580.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, government agencies: travel expenses are up by $149,000, office expenses by $135,000 and office furniture by $68,000. If I had it in my power, I would move that the figures be increased even more. I think I can speak for everyone in the House when I say they're doing a terrific job. I have no intention of moving an amendment for this vote.

Vote 92 approved.

On vote 93: Purchasing Commission, $2,243,696.

MR. STUPICH: I don't feel quite the same way about the Purchasing Commission. I note again: travel expense is up $7,500 and professional and special services — a new item — is $35,000 more than nothing. That's substantial. Office expense is up by $3,000 and materials and supplies by $4,000 — a total increase of $49,500. That is approximately 2,500 hours of long-term care. I therefore move that vote 93, the Purchasing Commission, be reduced by $49,500.

[ Page 6111 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I wonder whether you had satisfied yourself that the bells were working correctly. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has not been here for several votes. It has been the practice in this House sometimes that we've allowed a little extra time. But perhaps the rumour is correct that he's been asked to a return dinner at the Empress with a group of seven New Zealanders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a valid point of order, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, not only is it not valid, but it's a contemptuous point of order to the Chair and to the House. I think it should be dealt with seriously — maybe outside of the House — and if it's repeated, then you should take action in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if every contemptuous or illegal point of order were dealt with by the Chair, the chamber at times would be empty.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 28

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

Vote 93 approved.

On vote 94: Provincial Capital Commission, $803,546.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, are the meetings of the Provincial Capital Commission open to the public?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, no, they are not at this time.

MR. BARBER: The government appointed Michael Young as chairman of the Capital Commission on December 30, 1980. Mr. Young, of course, was the defeated Social Credit candidate in the last provincial election, so it was an appointment made by a government that said it wouldn't appoint partisan persons to fill high government posts. Mr. Young is also a former alderman and a former mayor, and he is currently a lawyer in Victoria. It is a matter of public record that he was one of two defeated Social Credit candidates in Victoria in the last provincial election.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

However, Mr. Young, whom I personally like and respect even though he's a Socred, has not managed to get this minister to keep a commitment that this minister, I gather, made a year ago. Mr. Chairman, I want to read into the record two letters and ask why this minister has refused to honour what I understand was a commitment to open up the meetings of the Capital Commission to the public of Victoria and of the province of British Columbia as a whole. On June 17, 1980, I wrote to the then chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission, Ev Brown, and asked that the meetings be opened to the public. The letter itself is brief and said as follows:

"I'm advised that on your agenda for the meeting of June 24, 1980, there will be put a proposal to open your meetings to the public."

This proposal, parenthetically, was initiated by the city of Victoria.

"I write respectfully to urge you to approve such a motion. The reasons for this are self-evident and sound: public confidence in the commission would only be enhanced by an open-door policy. Such a policy would win the unanimous support of the official opposition in the Legislative Assembly.

"Some advice has apparently been offered that the commission requires the consent of the minister in order to open its meetings. Such 'advice' is clearly incorrect. My office has carefully reviewed the Capital Commission Act, RSBC, 1979; there is no statutory requirement whatever to seek the minister's permission to open your meetings ; in fact the law is silent on this question. The matter is clearly discretionary. I urge you to take the initiative, open your meetings and thereby take the entire population of greater Victoria into your confidence as you continue your work on their behalf. Sincerely…."

I signed it myself. I got a reply to that letter of June 17 on July 2 from Mr. Giles, who was then the acting chairman of the commission. He was and is the chief executive officer. What did he say? He said as follows:

"Dear Mr. Barber:

"On behalf of the chairman, who is presently absent on vacation, this will acknowledge and thank you for your letter of June 17, 1980. The commission has reviewed this matter in a very positive manner, and the general tenor of the discussion was thoughtful. Certainly all members are well aware of the implications of change in the work of the commission. A subcommittee of the commission has been formed as a conclusion to the discussion on this matter and has been requested to present all of the implications for consideration by the commission at its next meeting. This will allow exploration of the options which obviously extend from a simple retention of the status quo to a complete opening, primarily in order that a decision may be reached on those items which require in-camera treatment and how those may be dealt with.

[ Page 6112 ]

"Be assured that your comments will be given full consideration. Thank you for writing.

It's my information, Mr. Chairman, that the majority of the members of the Provincial Capital Commission wish to open their meetings to the public. It is my information that those same members wish to hold in camera those few questions dealing with personnel matters and land transactions. I don't object to that at all. It is reasonable and proper that those aspects of the commission's agenda be kept private. However, there is no excuse for what I am advised is the political interference of this minister in ordering the commission to continue dealing in secret, to continue holding its meetings in private and to continue refusing to take the people of Victoria into its confidence. If it were otherwise, the minister would have ordered otherwise, and the meetings would be open today. He is in charge, after all. The fact that the meetings remain closed is a reflection of this minister's closed-door policy. If he had an open-door policy, the meetings would be open. There is no other logical way to explain the position that the Capital Commission finds itself in.

Let me reiterate that I agree that those matters concerned with personnel and land transactions should be held in camera. There is no dispute on that. But the minister should know that one of the reasons his predecessor Mr. Bawlf got into so much trouble with the Capital Commission, with Pan-Pacific and with the ridiculous squirrelly schemes that were dreamed up in the first go-round on the Victoria convention centre is because of Social Credit's traditional obsession with secretiveness. I'm aware that the minister called a meeting of the new board of directors — yet to be announced — of the Victoria convention centre. I believe it was held on May 20. I want the minister to tell us who was at that meeting. I want him to tell us who he intends to announce as his appointees to the board of management for the Victoria convention centre.

I want to tell the minister that although he may think he holds these meetings in private, eventually — and usually quite quickly — they are known to us. The minister is not — may I put it charitably — well advised to continue in the footsteps of his misguided predecessor who got into such hot water that the whole board of Pan Pacific had to resign. The president had to resign, the organization was discredited and the whole project was delayed by six months. I urge the minister to revoke the order that I am advised he gave to the Capital Commission — that its meetings may not be opened to the public, period. I observe to the committee that if the minister's policy were an open-door policy, the commission's policy would be an open-door policy too. The commission remains closed because the minister refuses to have it opened. It's as simple as that. He runs the show. Mr. Giles and the members of the commission are under no illusions about who's in charge politically. The minister is. I don't object to that, because someone has to be accountable to this House. But I hope the minister isn't going to stand up now and pretend and try to deny that he has no say in whether or not its meetings are open. He does have a say. He runs the show. He writes the budget, hires the staff, appoints the members and he's in charge. I hope he doesn't try and persuade this committee that he's not in charge of the policy which says whether or not the meetings are open to the public. That's just not believable. We're well aware that the minister is in charge of the whole show. We think part of that show should be open to the public.

On June 17 of last year I asked that the meetings be opened to the public and received what I took to be a very favourable initial response from the acting chairman. I will repeat: "The commission has reviewed this matter in a very positive manner," he said to me in his letter of July 2. What's happened between July 2 and this year, Mr. Chairman? Have the meetings been opened? No. Have the people of Victoria learned who's going to be in charge of the new convention centre? No. They've learned just now — because I've now disclosed it in public for the first time — that the minister called a meeting of persons. I gather there were 9, 10 or 11 of them there on May 20 or thereabouts. He asked them whether or not they'd be prepared to sit on the board of management of the proposed Victoria convention centre — once again operating behind closed doors, not learning the lesson of why his predecessor, Mr. Bawlf, was so heavily criticized for his mishandling of this. Sam Bawlf got defeated, in part, for that reason. The secretiveness helped defeat him, because the people of Victoria resent it. They reject it, and they reject a government that tries to impose it.

The Victoria convention centre is to be administered in part by the Capital Commission. The Victoria convention centre is a good and necessary thing. We supported it two years in a row by a unanimous, recorded vote in this House. I support it strongly. But as one of two MLAs for Victoria — my colleague, the other member, very strongly supports this position — I urge you to open up the meetings, let people attend and find out what the Capital Commission is doing. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to be afraid of. If you've got nothing to hide from the public, you've got no reason to keep the public out. If you do have something to hide, I think we'll inevitably find out about it. We found out about the conflict of interest at Pan-Pacific. The president had to resign; he did a dumb thing. I hope we don't have to find out something similar because of the obsession with secretiveness of Social Credit.

Why wasn't the meeting of May 20 open to the public? Why haven't you told us that you invited some people to sit on the board of management and you held a little meeting? Why didn't you tell us that? What's the matter? What's the big interest in being secret about that? What have you got to gain from refusing to tell the people of Victoria about these things? The only thing you've got to gain is votes for the NDP, because every time you do this stuff the people of Victoria reject you more and more.

A year ago I put a private member's bill on the order paper. After today's debate I will put the same bill back on the order paper. It's an amendment to the Capital Commission Act. Although I will not debate the bill, I will inform the minister of its contents — that's legitimate. I am telling him that that particular bill has been widely supported by the political leadership in Victoria. The particular bill which I've put forward calls simply and clearly for public tender for any contest of public bid in excess of $5,000. It calls for open meetings. It calls for disclosure. That's all there is to it. It's a simple principle, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's an ancient principle, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

Why won't you open up the Capital Commission? You've had a year to realize what went wrong a year ago when the Pan-Pacific situation blew up in your faces, you lost face and the whole project was delayed unnecessarily by at least six months because of Social Credit bungling and this squirrelly scheme that they had worked out with this group of businessmen in Pan-Pacific. The businessmen were perfectly sincere, I have no doubt. They were perfectly earnest in what they were trying to do, I have no doubt. They made mistakes; they

[ Page 6113 ]

paid for them. The president resigned, and the society fell apart. Does the government have to pay for the same mistakes again? And, finally, do the people of Victoria have to pay?

Why hasn't the commission been opened up? Why isn't it open today? If the government's got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to be afraid of. If the meetings were open, the people of Victoria would have a lot more respect for the work of its commission and our commission. So I call on the minister to defend his policy of refusing to open the meetings to the public. If he says it's not his policy, then I call on him to reverse the policy and open the meetings today to the people of British Columbia.

Secondly, I ask the minister to tell us who was at the meeting of May 20 or thereabouts. What are their qualifications, and how many of them have accepted his proposed naming of them to the board of management of the Victoria convention centre?

Thirdly, I ask the minister to be willing to open the meetings of the board of management of the convention centre, as well, from the beginning. This too is an important principle which the people of Victoria, I believe, insist upon. I think it's one of the reasons Social Credit did so badly in 1979. It's one of the reasons they continue to do so badly in Victoria, where the people have a conservative and honourable tradition of demanding public access to public documents and public places, and the public forum that should be theirs. That includes the Capital Commission.

I've waited for a year and said nothing until today in this estimate for the minister to announce an enlightened, open door policy for the Capital Commission. I haven't said a word since then. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for the minister to recognize the errors that his predecessor made, and to correct them. If he does, he'll get credit and praise for it. If he doesn't, he will continue to be discredited, as he is increasingly discredited by those who recognize the standard Socred pattern of doing everything possible behind closed doors, until the very last minute when they spring it on an uninformed and unsuspecting public. It's just not good enough. You blew it before with Pan-Pacific, Mr. Minister. Don't blow it again this time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This debate will go on as long as the members opposite wish. I will refrain from responding to some of the hyperbole we have just heard with respect to vote 94. I did not set up Pan-Pacific; The member knows that. PanPacific was in place when the responsibility for the Provincial Capital Commission shifted to me. I think the way in which the Pan-Pacific Society was finally found to be inappropriate was inevitable, and I say that quite frankly.

If I were now to receive a specific request from the Provincial Capital Commission for my view with respect to open meetings, the response would be as I gave it last time. If I were to receive a specific request now or my opinion was sought…. The member is correct on one point: it is not within my power to insist that the meetings be open or closed. If I were asked for the opinion, indicating that the majority of that commission wished to meet in open, then fair enough. I have no great concern about that. I have not received such a request in recent months. I think my opinion was canvassed last year prior to the retirement of Mr. Brown, and I believe I discussed the matter with Mr. Giles at that time and it was agreed it would be deferred until a new chairman was in position.

In his opening remarks the member for Victoria has, of course, cast an unfortunate shadow on a very fine British Columbian and Victorian of some note, Mr. Michael Young. Yes, he was a candidate for the Social Credit Party in Victoria, and there is nothing to be ashamed of in that respect. However. In developing his theme the member neglected to point out that he was an alderman of the city of Victoria for a number of years and mayor for a number of years.

MR. BARBER: I said both. Were you listening?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to debate with this member. I listened quietly, without interjection, and now I hear interjections.

Mr. Young has also shown a very strong interest in heritage matters in British Columbia and serves on the Heritage Advisory Board. I make no apology at all to this House or the people of Victoria for the appointment of Michael Young as chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission.

It should also be observed that we have another new member, Dr. Stewart, who was unanimously agreed upon by the mayors of the three Saanich Peninsula municipalities — Central Saanich, Sidney and North Saanich — to give us further representation. I think that is an important step forward.

There was not one reference at the May 20 meeting to the possibility of individuals present at the meeting serving on the board of management.

MR. BARBER: Were they not invited for that purpose'?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It cannot be clearer than that. There was not one reference at that meeting, or in inviting people to attend that meeting, that this would lead to an appointment of one, or some, or all of them to a "board of management" of the Victoria conference centre. In the event that we proceed with the project and that we establish an advisory committee or board of management — whatever phrase one uses — then it may well be that some of those who attended that meeting would be welcome to serve on the board of management, along with others who were not at the meeting. The purpose of the meeting was expressed in a letter which I sent to the individuals who attended, and that was to bring in people who had not previously been involved with the conference centre. Another person who was present, and who remained silent throughout the evening, was the Deputy Minister of Finance. I don't intend to ask him to serve on the board of management.

The description of a meeting in secret is really attaching an importance to the meeting which it does not deserve. I turned to a number of people in the community, inviting them to come at my request. At that time the proposal for the convention centre was discussed and outlined by the chief executive officer of the commission and by the architect for the project. Questions were asked by some. One or two others did not ask any questions. Opinions were expressed at the end of the evening, and I thanked them very much for attending. It was very useful because those who came had not been involved in any way, to the best of my recollection and knowledge. A board of management, should it be established, would include people, some of whom were at that

[ Page 6114 ]

meeting if they choose to accept, and some of whom have never been involved with the conference centre at all.

Again, it is unfortunate that the member embarks on an attack, because the strength of his argument is lost in that kind of attack. I do not insist that the Provincial Capital Commission continue to meet "in secret." If the commission writes and says they've thought about it again and they want to meet in open, then so be it. I would agree with that.

MR. BARBER: The minister has a remarkable view of political leadership. Apparently his idea of serving the public interest and serving the public's right to the information which belongs to it is to allow a commission, whose members he appoints, whose chairman ran for his party in the last provincial election and can be presumed to hold the same political philosophy — whatever that might be — of the minister….

MR. KEMPF: It sure isn't socialism.

MR. BARBER: Fair enough, it's not socialism; I don't suppose it's nazism either. So what? What are you talking about? The point is that this minister has a very bizarre and primitive notion of political leadership. If he were willing, he would see the public interest in his own — shall we say — advising of the Capital Commission that they should open their doors to the people and that way earn the respect of the people. But the minister is content to allow a board which he appoints, which is subservient to the interests of this administration, to continue — he says — to do its own business.

I was informed otherwise. I was advised that the members of the Capital Commission wanted to open it and were refused permission to do so on the pretext that they couldn't do so without the consent of the minister. The minister says that's not so and I take his word for it. In turn, I take him up on his word and ask him today to write to Mr. Young and tell him that it is your opinion that the public interest would be served by opening the meetings of the Capital Commission to the public. Tell him further that that I the unanimous opinion of the whole Legislature, because I speak for our guys and they speak for the same policy. That policy is public access to public agencies — pure and simple. If you don't say that to the Capital Commission, which is your creation and your servant, then you cannot turn around and tell us you're exercising any kind of leadership at all. That's not leadership. That's neglect. It's abandonment of your responsibility to open it up to every aspect of public scrutiny and debate.

The minister tells us that the meeting of May 20 was not couched in such language, when invitations were issued, that the individuals who received them thought they were to be appointed to the commission. I am informed otherwise.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The minister says I'm wrong. I take his word for that, too, and I ask him to answer my other question. Who, by name, apart from Mr. Bell, was at the meeting? Who was at the meeting? What were the names of the individuals who were invited to attend the meeting to discuss the future of the convention centre in Victoria, some of whom may serve on the board in the future? Is there any reason to keep that a secret? I ask the minister again, Mr. Chairman. Who was at the meeting?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, within the course of the next few days I will contact each person who attended the meeting and ask if they would object to my providing their names to the first member for Victoria, and that's an undertaking. I did not invite them to a public meeting; I invited them to an informal meeting. A chairman was not elected. I told him the Deputy Minister of Finance was in attendance, but he did not participate. The bulk of the meeting involved the chairman of the Capital Commission, the chief executive officer, and the architect for the project, Mr. Merrick. I feel that rather than my listing names in Committee of Supply — and I would remind the member that's where we are — I will contact each individual, other than those I mentioned. They were there in an official capacity, and I feel I would have no problem identifying them. If the individuals who were present have no objection to my releasing their names, I will do so as quickly as possible to the first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I can't imagine why they would have an objection, Mr. Chairman.

I received another letter from an engineering firm in Victoria concerned about the way in which the work attached to the construction of the proposed convention centre was allocated.

I've never been satisfied with the answers I've received from the government. I've pursued it in a couple of different ways and I'll pursue it now. The letter was received by me on January 23, 1980. It was dated January 21, 1980. We've been looking at this for some time as well. It says:

"Re: Victoria Trade Centre.

"I would like to thank you for telephoning me the other evening, suggesting methods of protesting what I consider to be an unjust appointment of design consultants on the above project.

"Our firm" — Spratt and Associates Electrical Engineers Ltd., 2659 Douglas Street — "was invited to attend an interview for consultant selection with Mr. Giles, a Mr. Brown and the architect, Mr. Paul Merrick. Mr. Merrick was apparently appointed, without competition, by the former Minister of Deregulation, Mr. Bawlf. Several architectural consultants in Victoria I have talked to feel that this is such an important project for Victoria and for Victoria architectural firms that their firms should have had the opportunity to compete and be selected as designers for the facility."

Mr. Spratt, who has his diploma in engineering, continues:

"Several of these architects have also told me that they were quite surprised at the selection of consultants — electrical, mechanical and structural — since they felt that some of the consultants were, in their opinion, not capable of the type and quality of work required.

"I do not know if your staff can do anything to affect the design team for this project. However, the old-boy, former government employee connection that is evident to me in this project must be eliminated in future projects, and I hope that you and your office could and would be influential to stop it. If you require any further information…

Yours sincerely,
E.C. Spratt, REng.
Spratt and Associates
Electrical Engineers Ltd., Victoria."

[ Page 6115 ]

Mr. Chairman, this is a reputable firm, and those are serious complaints. This is a reputable gentleman, and those are serious criticisms. Once again, we see that Social Credit has embarked on a scheme where they did not go to tender, where the meetings were not open to the public so that there was any information provided when it should have been, and where one architect alone — in this case an acquaintance of the former minister — was given the job and there was no competition.

I want to ask the minister if he's prepared to reverse that policy. I want to ask the minister if he approves of the former policy which saw the design for this most important public building being given to Mr. Merrick without public bid, tender or competition of any kind whatsoever.

I'm not questioning Mr. Merrick's professional qualifications. I'm not competent to. Mr. Spratt makes comments that I'm not competent to make; I simply read them into the record. I don't know whether or not it's true that these people are more or less able to do the job. I do know that there's something wrong with a policy that results in a letter like this. I do know that there's something wrong with a government that has such a policy.

My questions to the minister are two-fold. First of all, do you approve, Mr. Minister, of the policy that saw Mr. Merrick appointed without public bid, tender or competition of any sort? Secondly, if you do not and you take into account the criticisms by the architectural and engineering firms of Victoria, with which I'm told you are familiar, are you prepared to announce today a reversal of that policy and a new policy which opens these aspects of the construction enterprise to public tender, bid and competition?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Before I respond, I wonder if the first member for Victoria would give me the date of the letter again, if in fact he did.

MR. BARBER: I did before. I'll do it again. It was written on January 21, 1980, and it was received by me on January 23, 1980.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not sure that I'm aware of that letter, but I will certainly search the files. Mr. Spratt has made some comments with respect to the competence, it would seem, of the architect. I wonder if he raised this through his professional association. I have no knowledge. The member opposite who's raised the point indicates similarly that he has no knowledge. It would seem to me that that's one way in which the matter could be brought to the attention of the commission.

I think there was a competition for the electrical. I'm going from memory.

By his question, the member has asked me to do what I was earlier accused of doing. I would be guided in terms of competition by the Provincial Capital Commission. I will certainly share with them the member's remarks as recorded in Hansard and will ask them if they share his concerns. Then I would be very much guided by their view of the way in which the project should proceed, if in fact it does proceed.

MR. BARBER: If the convention centre does in fact proceed?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, if in fact it does proceed — it's tough with interjections. We have recently received a request from the commission to proceed to a tender call. That matter is before me now. I'm simply saying that if we do proceed and if we authorize the calling of tenders, then obviously the competition for the construction of the facility will be carried out in the traditional way. I don't think we can have it both ways. I don't direct the commission. I respond to what the commission wishes. The member has said that it's my commission, as if I established it. It's been here through three governments. As a matter of fact that member served on it. Clearly if construction is to take place with the Victoria convention centre, that will be by competition.

MR. BARBER: I'm quite startled by the minister saying "if the construction is to proceed." It's been my understanding that it was on the basis of a bill passed unanimously and an appropriation endorsed unanimously in this Legislature that construction of the Victoria convention centre was going to proceed, period. The minister has now said twice "if construction proceeds." Is the minister advising that the government is reconsidering its commitment to the Victoria convention centre? I don't understand why you've said twice "if construction proceeds." Obviously it has to; otherwise we have no centre.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm very cautious in debate. I think I have to be. I have to be responsible in debate. We are going through the process of very careful analysis of a project such as this. I think it's going to proceed, Mr. Member. I feel quite comfortable that it is. It isn't before the government now for a yes or no decision. I simply said that if it proceeds or goes ahead, it will go by competition. There's no dramatic signal there for the member or for the committee.

MR. BARBER: Unfortunately part of it has already gone ahead and that's the design. That was my criticism earlier. Mr. Merrick, who may or may not be competent — I don't know — was chosen without bid, tender or public competition of any sort. Sam Bawlf picked his acquaintance, Mr. Merrick, on the basis of what, I don't know. I asked the minister whether or not he supports that policy. Apparently he doesn't, and that's good. I hope that mistake isn't repeated. It's another of the reasons why Pan-Pacific got into so much trouble. I appreciate the candour of the minister's comments. Of course, inevitably Pan-Pacific would fall apart, because it was a basically unsound arrangement. No one supported it except one minister. Certainly the city of Victoria didn't support it.

I wonder if the minister could tell me whether or not it's correct, as I was advised about six weeks ago by an employee of the commission, that the project in Victoria is currently $2 million over budget. The current best estimate of the actual cost of constructing the building, according to the revised plans, is now $2 million over budget.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the last question, I can't confirm that, because that's one of the reasons that we are within the commission and without — on my desk — analyzing the design versus costs. There are some wild estimates as to what the project would cost. We really won't know until tenders are open, I think that any canvassing of the amount by which it may be over estimate is not productive at this point in time. I have no way of knowing. I do know that

[ Page 6116 ]

we are in a very satisfactory period of employment for the construction trades in greater Victoria. That would be of concern to anyone involved in a project private or public. That's great for the industry, for those employed in it and for those who provide employment in it through their investment capital. That's of concern. What would the situation be by the time the tenders are back and work proceeds? That's so hypothetical. At that point in time we would have to analyze the situation with the commission as we find it.

I'd like to have a copy of the letter which the member has read into the record. The letter is a year and a half old, give or take a month or so. I don't recall a similar letter being sent to me. If the files show that such a letter has been sent, that's fine, but I just wonder why a letter critical of the process which had been taken up to that point in time had not been sent to me — not by the member, but by the complainant. It would have been helpful to have known of his concern or his firm's concern.

Vote 94 approved.

On vote 95: interest on the public debt, $16,924,299.

MR. STUPICH: I wonder if the minister could tell me what rate of interest is being paid on the public debt at this time, and to whom the debt is owing. Maybe I'll ask the minister another way: is it true that the interest being paid on the public debt is 9 1/8 percent and that the money is owing to the superannuation funds and other trust funds, as is reported on page B18 of Public Accounts? I'd like the minister to confirm that that is still the case.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would need a few more moments than have been available at this point in time. The reference in Public Accounts would be correct.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I did have a bit of an advantage there, because I knew what I was going to ask and he didn't. Can I just say that in previous years it's been our policy to simply vote against this particular item, but in this case I prefer to move an amendment, because I want to keep this item before us and I want to be able to use it.

I've heard one or two members on the government side of the House — and I think the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is one of them, not the Minister of Finance — say that when the NDP arrived in office, there was a surplus of approximately $500,000.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Five hundred million.

MR. STUPICH: I'm sorry, $500 million. It was the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing.

I've looked through Public Accounts for the year ended March 31, 1972, and tried to come up to some figures that would add up to $500 million. What I can find is a revenue surplus of $98,557,814, and special purpose funds — which can be made available and are made available — of $350,786,000. If you add those two figures together, you come up with roughly $450 million. I don't know if that's the figure they are thinking of when they say $500 million, or what.

HON. MR. CHABOT: It was identified by an order-in-council, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the surplus that was turned over to the NDP government in September 1972, was clearly enumerated in an order- in-counciI passed on September 15, 1972, and it was $500 million.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Now, as I've said, I'm not looking at orders- in-council; what I'm looking at are Public Accounts, and I've tried to come up with figures that would add up to somewhere near $500 million, as I've said. And that, of course, would be available in cash. The revenue and surplus account of $98 million and the special purpose funds would also be available in cash or investments — near cash — totalling $449 million. That was at March 31, 1972, the last issue of Public Accounts under the outgoing Social Credit administration. Looking at the same figures for the last complete year under the NDP administration the revenue surplus was $143,738,453 and the amount in special purpose funds at that time was $538,381,764, a total — if we're looking at those figures — much in excess of $500 million; a total of $682,120,217. Even if we go to March 31, 1976, by which time the Social Credit administration had been in office for four and a half months and had blown a lot of money that I intend to talk about a little later, we find that by taking the revenue surplus account of $261 million, which was in a deficit position at that time, and the special purpose fund balance of $552,289,975, which was still there even though they had wiped some of them out, the combined figure available at that point in time, even after three and a half months of Social Credit administration, was still $290,842,185.

As I say, I want this figure before us. I want this item in estimates. I want to be able to go round the province and tell people that this administration is robbing the superannuation funds of roughly this amount of money — $16 million. They've taken from the superannuation funds; they've borrowed the money from those superannuation funds paying 9 1/8 percent interest at the same time as they're investing funds in short-term deposits and earning at least 18 percent. That's 18 percent that could be earned by those superannuation funds if the government hadn't borrowed this money from those pension funds. They're robbing those funds, It's called book-cooking, financial chicanery, political juggling, political jiggery-pokery, or whatever.

The Premier himself, when he read out the Clarkson, Gordon report, said in his introduction to that report that they asked Clarkson, Gordon to do a full and complete investigation of the public accounts of the province and all the Crown corporations, and gave them five weeks to do it. He prides himself on being a very successful businessman. He knows that you can't do that kind of a job in five weeks. The Clarkson, Gordon report itself identified the areas in which the government intended to spend money and said with respect to each one of those areas that it was a political decision whether to have the Crown corporation borrow money or to have money transferred from public accounts. It was all a straight political decision to do that. As I say, we're following this political decision by robbing the superannuation funds of interest they could be earning if they were to invest those funds in short-term deposits, as the government is doing, to the extent of over $1 billion — robbing them of some $16 million or $17 million, bringing that into revenue and using it for other purposes, at the same time as the superannuation funds are not getting that money. I therefore move, not so we get rid of this, but so we do keep reminding

[ Page 6117 ]

ourselves of the kind of political chicanery this administration is responsible for, that vote 95, interest on the public debt, be reduced by $16,924,289 — money which rightfully belongs to the superannuation funds.

On the amendment.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I'm absolutely astonished that the members opposite should want to dwell on this particular vote, because every last one of them over there…. Well, there are a few who are a little wet behind the ears and don't really know what happened from 1972 to 1975…. I came in in those days just after the socialist experiment in the province of British Columbia. I know where this vote came from, and they know too — they know perfectly well. I want to know how much that official opposition wants to reduce this vote of $16,924,299 to pay the interest on debt that their administration ran up in three and a half short years — in the 1,200 days of the socialist experiment in the province of British Columbia, just want to know from the Finance critic opposite how much he wants to reduce this vote. Nothing, I would say, Mr. Chairman, because they all know how this chamber came by it. They incurred a $260 million debt in three and a half short years. They took a province that was debt free — as far as direct debt to the government was concerned — in 1972, and when we came into office in 1975 we had a $260 million legacy to the socialist experiment in the province of British Columbia. And they have the audacity to stand in this chamber and reduce debts….

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, to save the member for Omineca further embarrassment, I wonder if you could read him the amendment which we are currently on. It answers his question entirely. Would you read it to him for his information, Mr. Chairman?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, I want it put on the record exactly how this vote was incurred. Those socialists over there talk about home care. Do they realize for one minute how much home care $16,924,299 would buy if it wasn't incurred in this province? That would buy 22,565 hours of home care, if it were not for that debt that was incurred by the socialist experiment in this province.

MR. COCKE: I think the member for Omineca made the best argument for the support of this amendment that anybody could possibly make. It was very difficult to follow his verbosity. His logic is such that I'm sure his constituents fail to follow it from time to time, but that's precisely why this resolution was put forward. We're talking about waste, on one hand, and a totally immoral act that occurred months and years ago. The debt was incurred by the present government, not by the opposition. They rear this straw man every year. We're suggesting that the member, naturally disturbed by headlines that appeared in this evening's paper about the fact that there are those in our society who are being neglected by this government…. We're saying that money should be used for their care. A good argument was raised by that member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question on the amendment is that vote 95, interest on public debt be reduced by the sum of $16,924,289.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

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

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wondered why the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) didn't rise on a point of order and explain why the Premier is AWOL for this vote.

Vote 95 approved.

On vote 96: contingencies (all ministries), $12,600,000.

MR. STUPICH: I just have one question. I'm reading a sentence from the budget: "Early last summer I imposed a freeze on hiring and on all new consulting contracts." I wonder if the minister can tell us how many positions were not filled because of that freeze on hiring so that we can relate it to the saving.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sure that would be appropriate under this vote. It should be observed that the contingency figure is down significantly this year over last year. This covers all ministries. It deals with salary increases for those who move through the system.

MR. STUPICH: I couldn't think of any other place to do it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It would have been an interesting point to canvass. I think it would have belonged more properly under my salary vote. I look to the Chair to rule. I don't believe that it would be dealt with in this vote.

Vote 96 approved.

On vote 97: building occupancy charges, $4,257,000.

[ Page 6118 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I do have one more amendment to move; once again it would represent some 70,000 hours of home care. Referring to my notes here I see that at this point in time — including the amendments I have moved today totalling some $22,515,498 — amendments that were moved previously in the Ministry of Environment in excess of $10 million; the Ministry of Human Resources in excess of $5 million; Industry and Small Business Development, $1.5 million; Transportation and Highways, $5.5 million; Education, $833,000; Energy….

HON. MR. CHABOT: Is that debate relevant to this vote, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister raises a valid point of order, and I would ask the member for Nanaimo if he could possibly conclude his remarks on vote 97.

MR. STUPICH: All afternoon, in moving amendments relative to various expenditures under the Ministry of Finance which total $22.5 million, I have been referring to something that might have been done with some of this money, rather than wasting it in the way the government has chosen to do. It is with respect to building occupancy charges again, which is, I believe, one of the areas in which the government has been wasting money. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) has provided for an increase in long-term care in the amount of $50,880,000. We know it's not enough to do the job. We know that it would save money to spend more money on long-term care. The total amendments we have moved to date total almost $70 million. That is 40 percent more than the increase in long-term care.

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

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Chairman, my point of order is this: on several occasions in this chamber, you as Chairman have told the members opposite where to put that rectal thermometer, and I wish you'd do it again, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, that member has used that kind of language in this House before. I ask that Mr. Chairman remind that member that there are certain references and unparliamentary expressions that should not be used in this chamber. It lowers the decorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a valid point. Hon. members, in regard to the point raised by the member for Omineca, the previous ruling of the Chair regarding graphs, displays or whatever was one under very different circumstances, and it came after a prolonged exhibition of a particular chart. The ones in the cases recently involving charts are proper ways, in the Chair's estimation to use charts in the House, if a chart is going to be used at all. I would ask the member for Nanaimo to continue.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to refer to my speech notes. I therefore move that vote 97, building occupancy charges, be reduced by $1,429,000.

I'm pointing out again that with the amendments we have moved in this ministry of $22.5 million, and total amendments of $70 million — in this year when the minister had told us he was having trouble raising money and has had to say no to ministers — we believe this money could have been much better spent. But all we can do is move reductions in areas where we think that too much is being spent. We have to leave it to the government to move the increases. But we do sincerely put forth these reductions as ways in which the government could be spending our money more wisely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment on how appalled I was to hear the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) refer to this cut in lavish government expenditure as irrelevant. I want to tell you that there are thousands of senior citizens around this province that are lacking in proper home care today, who do not consider this cut irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, this is a significant amount of money, $22 million, that is cut from the excess….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at present we are on the amendment to vote 97. The Chair has allowed considerable latitude during debate, and I would ask the member to deal with the amendment before us on vote 97, building occupancy charges.

MR. KING: Precisely, Mr. Chairman. The amendment you have before you is part and parcel of the total $22 million the opposition has moved that the minister's luxurious surroundings be trimmed by. I suggest that when the government is admonishing the electorate to show restraint at the bargaining tables across this province, and when the senior citizens are in fear that their home care is in jeopardy, that is when this government should be leading the way and showing some leadership rather than the profligate waste that we see reflected in all the estimates this year.

I challenge all of those members on that side who give lip-service to the proposition of holding government spending within reasonable bounds to stand and support this amendment. We hear many brave speeches out there, but when it comes to the crunch and the opportunity is before them to stand and be counted in this Legislature, let the people of the province of British Columbia know how each and every single member on that side voted.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

[ Page 6119 ]

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

Vote 97 approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we move to bills in the hands of private members. Second reading of Bill PR401.

AN ACT RESPECTING
MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY AND
MONTREAL TRUST COMPANY OF CANADA

MR. REE: This is a private bill submitted by the Montreal Trust Co. which, in essence, asks for a transfer of various trusteeship and agency business from the Montreal Trust Co. to a wholly owned subsidiary. It is caused to be incorporated federally as the Montreal Trust Co. of Canada. The effects of the bill will not relieve the Montreal Trust Co. of any liabilities it has with respect to the trusteeship of any funds or properties of which it is named or any actions for or against the corporation. It authorizes the registrar of titles, upon the filing of the bill, to transfer properties presently in the name of the Montreal Trust Co. to the name of the Montreal Trust Co. of Canada.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill PR401, An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada, 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: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill PR402, West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981.

WEST KOOTENAY POWER AND
LIGHT COMPANY, LIMITED, ACT, 1897,
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, like the former bill, this bill has been considered by the standing committee on private bills and has received the unanimous consent of that committee.

In essence the bill provides for a reorganization of the capital of this company which will allow it to do a certain amount of equity financing in the future, thus relieving it of a certain amount of present debt financing. High interest charges at present on this debt make it rather costly for the company.

One of the main aspects of the bill will be to clarify whether or not the company is subject to the Company Clauses Act of 1897. This bill was proclaimed on the same day as the Company Clauses Act of 1897 and it has always been questioned whether the company was subject to that law. Giving effect to the bill presently before the House will clarify that the company will now be subject to our present Company Act, and it will be able to operate with a memorandum and articles of association, as do normal companies of the province. In essence, it brings the company up to date. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

Bill PR402, West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment Act, 1981, 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: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE (ALL TERRAIN)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, in 1972 the present ATV act was introduced primarily to control the dramatic increase in the use of snowmobiles throughout the province. These are still the only off-highway vehicles under the provisions of the existing act. Since that time, off-road motorcycles, four wheel drives, and other recreation vehicles have been increasingly causing concern. The problems associated with this growing form of recreation include environmental damage to range, grasslands, wildlife habitats, parks and recreation sites and private land. In addition, there are problems associated with noise, conflicts with other forms of recreation, lack of identification of vehicles and the increasing numbers of juveniles riding trail bikes in urban and rural areas.

The Environment and Land Use Committee acted on these concerns raised by groups such as the B.C. Cattlemen's Association, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the Outdoor Recreation Council. In 1978, ELUC approved a policy paper outlining approaches to resolve these problems. One of the recommendations of the policy paper was to replace the unwieldy enforcement procedures presently available by vehicle registration system for all off-highway vehicles. This bill will provide the following capabilities:

1. A ticketing system for easier enforcement.
2. Enforcement officers with powers and protections necessary for carrying out their duties and stopping and ticketing offenders.
3. The ability to establish compulsory insurance coverage if required.
4. Updating and removal of redundant and unused sections of the act.

As mentioned earlier, these amendments are the result of he tremendous growth of off-highway vehicles and the resulting problems of unmanaged dispersed use of these vehicles, which have been brought to the government's attention over the past several years. These amendments were made in consultation with the motorized and unmotorized groups in he province. They are strongly supported by them as well as he RCMP, regional governments and other provincial government agencies. I intend to introduce new regulations under this act which will pertain to all off-highway vehicles used for recreational purposes off the highway. In addition he regulations will specify details regarding the registration of all such vehicles as well as certain specifications regarding vehicle equipment such as mufflers, brakes and lights.

[ Page 6120 ]

MR. NICOLSON: In moving second reading I wonder if the minister could indicate to the House whether this is going to prohibit my under-age child from operating a motorbike on our own private property.

HON. MR. CHABOT: In reply to that, this legislation is put in to protect abuses that have been identified on private land and on Crown lands as well. It wouldn't be subject to the problems that you have identified about the use of your own private land. Certainly it's not geared to offend the usage of your land by your juvenile. It's to ensure that your juvenile does not offend, trespass or destroy the habitat of other private lands.

I move second reading of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have no idea under what authority members presume to interrupt a member who has control of the floor of the House.

Motion approved.

Bill 7, Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Amendment Act, 1981, 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. Phillips tabled the British Columbia Development Corporation consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1981.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity to correct a statement made today in question period. Would leave be required? It is my own.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister makes a statement.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: During question period today I inadvertently advised members of the House that the homemaker service would provide approximately 3,500,000 hours this year. The correct figure should be 5,300,000 hours.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.