[ Page 6543 ]

CONTENTS

Tabling Documents

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, first report.

Mr. Stupich –– 6543

Crown Proceeding Act statement for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 6543

Oral Questions

Use of vessel Queen of Prince Rupert. Mr. Lockstead –– 6543

Mr. Leggatt
Mr. Lauk
Mr. King

Orders of the Day

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

Report and third reading –– 6545

Financial Administration Act (Bill 27). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 41 –– 6545

Mr. Stupich

On section 43 –– 6546

Mr. Stupich
Mr. Howard
Mr. Lorimer

On section 54 –– 6547

Mr. Stupich

On section 60 –– 6548

Mr. Nicolson

On section 62 –– 6548

Mr. Nicolson

On section 63 –– 6549

Mr. Nicolson

Financial Administration Act (Bill 27). Report and third reading — 6550

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9: Premier's office –– 6550

Hon. Mr. Bennett

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Lauk

Mr. King

Mrs. Wallace

Tabling Documents

Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services annual report, 1980

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 6568

Erratum –– 6569

Appendix

Amendments to Bills –– 6569

MONDAY, JULY 6, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Visiting our province, and with us in your gallery, sir, this afternoon are four citizens of that great sunny state of California: Mr. Nicholas Watry, Mr. Michael Light, and their wives, Elizabeth and Jane. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: Visiting us in the gallery today is an old friend, Alderman Les Garrison, and a friend, Monica Woldering, from Coquitlam.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We have in the members' gallery today an international visitor from Ottawa, and I would ask all members to welcome Mr. Valentine Fomitchev. who is the first secretary of the embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in our national capital.

HON. MR. McGEER: In your gallery this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, we have a visitor from Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. Miss Deirdre Daley was at college with my daughter and has heard so much about our House, and I know the members won't want to disappoint her.

MRS. DAILLY: In the gallery today are two young men on their first visit to the B.C. Legislature from Burnaby North. Their names are Tom Erskine and George Finlayson. I ask the House to welcome them.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is Mr. Larry Selby from Cranbrook, British Columbia. I would like everyone to welcome him.

On behalf of Ernest Hall, Chairman, Mr. Stupich presented the first report of the Public Accounts and Economic Affairs committee, which was read as follows and received: Report number 1, legislative committee room, June 30, 1981.

" Mr. Speaker: Your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs begs leave to report as follows:

"Your committee. chaired by Ernest Hall, has held ten meetings. Officials of the auditor-general's office including the auditor-general Mrs. Erma Morrison, officials of the comptroller-general's office including the comptroller-general, as well as various ministry officials assisting the comptroller-general appeared before the committee.

"During the meetings the committee reviewed the report of the auditor-general for the year ending March 31, 1980, and made inquiries as to matters reported therein by the auditor-general, the comptroller-general and various ministry officials. As well the committee received a presentation from Mr. Jean-Pierre Boisclair from the Canadian Comprehensive Auditing Foundation relating to the section on the comprehensive audit in the auditor-general's report.

"Upon request to the Chairman of the public documents committee, it was resolved that in accordance with the Public Documents Disposal Act approval be given to the destruction of various public documents, as listed in the submission to the public accounts committee for 1981, insofar as the following ministries are concerned: Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Education, Health, Human Resources, Labour, Lands, Parks and Housing, Provincial Secretary, Environment, Attorney-General, Industry and Small Business.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Ernest Hall, Chairman."

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, by leave, I move that the rules be suspended and the report be adopted.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the statement for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, in accordance with section 15 of the Crown Proceeding Act, Revised Statutes of B.C., 1979.

Oral Questions

USE OF VESSEL
QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary, who is responsible for protocol. Can the minister advise who requested the use of the Queen of Prince Rupert for the junket of the Premiers to take place during the Premiers' meeting in August?

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Mackenzie continues.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I was wondering if the minister, who is responsible for protocol for this government, would be good enough to reply to that very serious question. Who requested the use of the Queen of Prince Rupert?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, as the member well knows, this minister does not have specific responsibility for the ferries of this province.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, those who have questions will have an opportunity to ask them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I will then direct that same question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. Can that minister tell me who requested the use of the Queen of Prince Rupert for the junket of the Premiers during the Premiers' meeting in August?

HON. MR. GARDOM: First of all, in response to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, it's not a junket under any circumstances. What the Premier is providing is an opportunity for the Premiers of our country to see what British Columbia truly looks like. We're proud of that, I hope you'll be proud of that, and I hope you'll be totally supportive.

Interjections.

[ Page 6544 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Will the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) please come to order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I'll try one more time. I will ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways if he will answer my question. Can the minister advise who requested the use of the Queen of Prince Rupert for the junket of the Premiers to take place during the Premiers' meeting in August?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know who asked for it, but I know the board of directors of the B.C. Ferry Corporation, that I'm a member of and which is responsible to the government, acceded to the requests. We're delighted to do so to show off our province.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Since it's quite obvious the Provincial Secretary and the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations don't appear to know what's happening between the governments of this country, I will direct this question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. How many days will that vessel be out of service? One, two, three?

HON. MR. FRASER: The flagship of the B.C. Ferry fleet, the Queen of Prince Rupert, will be out of service for one northbound trip only from Port Hardy to Prince Rupert to accommodate very important people of Canada.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question to the same minister. If the purpose of the trip was to promote the B.C. Ferry service, why were the Premiers not invited to travel on a regular public sailing? Are you ashamed of the regular sailings? Tell me, why were they not invited to travel on a regular sailing?

HON. MR. FRASER: To answer the member for Mackenzie, the Queen of Prince Rupert was offered to took after these very important people along with their staff and, I might say, the press. I said before that it's the flagship of the fleet. We want to show off the finest and largest ferry fleet in the world. That is the proper vessel to do it, rather than a regular run.

MR, LOCKSTEAD: It has been brought to my attention that the vessel will be out of service for three days. So I ask the Minister of Transportation and Highways if he can confirm that the cost of operating the Queen of'Prince Rupert from the time it is taken out of regular service to the time it returns to regular service is going to be $106,198.

HON. MR. FRASER: The figure used by the member for Mackenzie sounds like socialist arithmetic, which I never pay any attention to. I know that it won't cost that much. As a matter of fact, I look on it as an investment, not at all as a cost to the province of British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the same minister, who sees this as an investment and not as a cost. Could the minister advise the House how it is an investment in the promotion of the B.C. ferry service to throw tourists and paying passengers from B.C. off the regular service? What kind of reputation does that give the service'?

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member who just asked how it is an investment, I think it is all investment to show off what we have in this province. These people are all friends of ours, and we want to show what a great ferry fleet we have. To answer the other part of your question about throwing tourists off, I would remind you that in two short years, during which your party opposed it, we have increased the capacity on the north run by two and a half.

Interjections.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, this will be a lengthy explanation.

Your people opposed the Queen of the North going on that run. It is on the run, supplying two and one half times the capacity we had even in 1979. Regarding this one trip that the Queen of Prince Rupert will miss, no tourists…. They were all advised long ago that we're picking them up either the day before or the day after. They were told about this in April, so you're a little late.

MR. LEGGATT: Perhaps the minister would like to check these facts to see if they're correct. This ferry travels at the busiest time of year, and it's traditionally been at capacity, so when it was removed from service, you removed a capacity ferry. That's the loss of 80 cars and 450 passengers and the additional revenue loss of $28,000. In view of that, Mr. Speaker, why can't our poor Premiers take a public service and see what the ferries are really like?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's observations, but he really doesn't understand. We haul lots of tourists and lots of people. But you know, that one trip alone will be a great saving, because we have huge losses on every trip we make….

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. FRASER: It's all on the public record of the B.C. Ferry Corporation. You just voted for a $63 million subsidy for this. Maybe we'll have a saving by having a short run from Victoria to Vancouver.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Time is fleeting.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is to the same minister.

Given the same logic that he has expressed in the House, surely we should be taking it out of service three or four times, and to make even bigger savings. You're still stuck with the problem of failing to promote that service to the north by throwing B.C. paying passengers to the wolves in favour of the Premiers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. What is the member's question?

MR. LAUK: I'll tell you what the member's question should have been, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is so concerned about saving money, what is he going to do to make up the $22 million loss by their stupid decision to do away with the Marguerite last year? Is he going to pay it out of his own pocket?

[ Page 6545 ]

Well, seeing that he won't answer, I'll ask the question to tile Provincial Secretary. Would he advise if movies will be taken of this trip involving the Premiers of Canada?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: They're going to have a still on board? That may save some money, but not for the medical service.

Could the Provincial Secretary answer the question? Are Douglas B. DeHeal and his group going to be on board, making movies of the Premiers' visit here?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As has already been stated by the minister responsible for ferries, the media have been invited to attend this function, as I'm sure they'll wish to do. Obviously, pictures will be taken.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the Provincial Secretary can direct his mind to a very simple question. Are Doug Heal and his group going to make movies of this extravaganza for later use?

HON. MR. WOLFE: I'm wondering if the member does not want to have any kind of representation or pictures taken. I can't answer that question of how Mr. Heal's office proposes to cover the event, but I'll be happy to take it as notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. In question period, only one member has the floor. That's the questioner. The same rules that usually apply in debate would apply in question period: he's not to be interrupted.

MR. LAUK: Can the minister assure the House that any films taken by Mr. Heal and any other government service at this visit on board the Rupert will not be used at a later time by the Social Credit Party for election purposes?

HON. MR. WOLFE: As has been clarified on many previous occasions, there would be no publicity of such an event for election purposes.

MR. KING: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The ferry service has announced that the Ferry Corporation will absorb the cost of the trip, because it gives a chance to spread the word about B.C. Ferries across Canada. Could the minister explain to the House, why cancelling a potential full booking and thereby inconveniencing thousands of tourists from B.C. and around the world contributes at all to the promotion of the B.C. Ferries service? Can he explain that to the House, please?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member I would say to the first part of your question that we're proud to show off the B.C. Ferries fleet and we will absorb the cost to the B.C. Ferry Corporation. To the second part, no tourists or passengers will be inconvenienced by that fine vessel the Queen of Prince Rupert not making one northbound run.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE (ALL TERRAIN)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1981

Bill 7 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 27, Mr. Speaker.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

The House in committee on Bill 27: Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 20 inclusive approved.

On section 21.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. which is a further clarification. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 28 inclusive approved.

On section 29.

HON, MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. That again is a clarification which is appropriate. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 29 as amended approved.

Sections 30 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure that I understand this. As I read section 41 it gives the cabinet tile authority to borrow any amount of money that it may want to borrow without coming back to the Legislature.

HON, MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, I would not agree with that observation by the member for Nanaimo, because section 41 commences: "Where this or another act confers on the government authority to borrow money, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may…authorize the Minister of Finance to borrow money…." Therefore any act which has a borrowing limit would apply here, and the borrowing limit would be part of that authority. I certainly assure the member that that is not the intention, with respect to unlimited borrowing authority in section 41.

Sections 41 and 42 approved.

On section 43.

[ Page 6546 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll try again on section 43 with the same question. This section would appear to me to give the cabinet the authority to borrow whatever money it may want to borrow without coming back to the Legislature.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Section 43 is temporary borrowings. I realize that the hon. member for Nanaimo will have had in opportunity to assess that which is intended here. Bearing in mind that we are updating an act which is many decades old, there may — I hope not — occur an opportunity in the future when some temporary borrowing is required. I think that the interests of the Legislature — if I may express a personal point of view — are well cared for by the fact that that temporary borrowing must be reported to the Legislature.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not quarrelling with the section before us. I just want to make sure I understand it. In legislation already passed in this House, the government has increased its borrowing power this term by some $4 billion. I want to make sure that I understand here that what the minister calls temporary borrowing is for a period of one year, and that it gives the minister, by recommendation to the cabinet, the authority to borrow as much money as he thinks is required for as long as one year without coming back to the Legislature — no limit at all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to section 43, that is correct. Subsection (1) says the L-G-in-C may authorize the Minister of Finance of the day to borrow for a period not exceeding 365 days. It is therefore to be seen as a temporary borrowing, which, again, is the section heading. There is no reference to the Legislature in this context; but later there is a report to the Legislature that a certain amount of money was borrowed for a given number of days.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, this is the procedure that the federal government embarked upon some years ago which has got that government into the silly position of currently borrowing millions upon millions of dollars every Thursday of every week throughout the year, primarily for refinancing — the treasury bill approach of the federal government. This lays the groundwork for this government doing exactly the same sort of thing. It's not a question of whether or not that's reported to the Legislature. The federal government reports every Thursday what their treasury bill sales are. All that is accomplished there. I foresee the same thing happening here. We will get into the same kind of procedure if this carte blanche is given to do this sort of thing. If you  borrow 180-day treasury bills, or you borrow 360-day money, you can roll that over every year, every six months or every three, months, whatever the case may be, and get yourselves….

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: You can. The bill before us permits that type of operation to take place. I think we can't embark upon a condemnation of the federal government for this procedure — justified as that is — and yet now ask the Legislature to embark upon exactly the same course.

HON. MR, CURTIS: I differ from the interpretation of the member for Skeena. This is temporary borrowing. There's no question about it. The treasury bills — the borriwngs which occur weekly, or very often at any rate, as far as the federal government is concerned — are not reported to Parliament in quite the same way. This is where there is insufficient money for the continuation of government activities in special circumstances. The authority is then given to the L-G-in-C to authorize the Minister of Finance of the day to obtain a temporary loan and then to report on that. I would think that at the time of the report there would be considerable debate in the Legislature or in a committee.

We were silent on this point to a certain extent, although I will refer members to section 30 of the existing Revenue Act where a similar provision is shown, without, however, some of the safeguards which have been built into the new section. If the members opposite would like to took at section 30 of the Revenue Act, which is existing legislation…. I'll read it very quickly, if I may, Mr. Chairman:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, in addition to all other money authorized to be raised or borrowed by any other act, and in anticipation of provincial revenue, may borrow or raise in the manner and at the time he deems expedient, by the issue and sale of treasury bills or notes payable out of the revenue within the fiscal year in which they are issued, money that is considered necessary to meet the lawful expenditures of the province for the fiscal year."

Section 30 (2) says:

"A recital or declaration in the order of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council authorizing the issue and sale of bills or notes under this section to the effect that the amount authorized is necessary to realize the net sum required to be raised or borrowed is conclusive evidence of that fact."

On the contrary, we have strengthened the authority given to the Legislature in this particular section, adapting it for the Financial Administration Act. There is existing legislation which would have permitted the same.

MR. HOWARD: Which, I think, is probably no justification for continuing the practice.

I think the minister is in error in suggesting to the House that there will be ample opportunity to debate whatever borrowings may take place under this section when the borrowings are reported to the House. The minister knows there is no opportunity to debate a particular report. The opportunities for debate are limited to subject matters then before the House. An annual report of a department or a report under this section will not become the subject of debate per se in the Legislature. That opportunity may arise under the minister's estimates, or in a budget debate, which is a wide-ranging, all-inclusive type of debate, which usually results in passing reference to a number of subject matters. But no opportunity will exist to be able to specifically deal with the borrowings contemplated under this, to identify and demarcate them by saying: "This is what you're debating, and we want the Legislature to pay attention to this particular subject and vote upon it." The opportunity, as I said, might occur under the Minister of Finance's estimates, which is a kind of wide-ranging debate.

We foresee in this that all the government is seeking to do is move in the stupid direction that the federal government has been moving in for a long period of time — that is, a lot of short-term borrowings on a rollover basis. I know how abhor-

[ Page 6547 ]

rent borrowing is to the minister and to this government. They want to hide it in everybody else's jurisdiction — all the Crown corporations and the like. Still and all, this lays the groundwork for an abuse of the financial responsibilities of government and of this ministry. I don't think the House should have anything whatever to do with this particular proposal before us. It's just fraught with too many difficulties for the future. There's too much opportunity for abuse — too much chance to put this province directly into debt, in addition to the indirect debt that this government has got us into over the years, to put us into the position of being able to engage in a regular, recurring set of short-term borrowings simply to retire debt that may be coming due on any particular day. It's completely analogous to the procedure followed by the federal government in its treasury bill program.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would refer to section 42 — not for debate purposes, but to assist members of the committee — wherein there can be no rollover of the debt which is dealt with in section 43. So in that respect the situation is not analogous to the one in Ottawa. I will be happy to discuss this at length with the member in committee, or with other members. I can't imagine a financial administration act in a province which does not allow for some temporary borrowing. In examining this, we….

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I am concerned about borrowings by governments. There's far too much borrowing by governments for operating purposes. We have thus far managed to avoid that, and hopefully we shall continue to avoid that in British Columbia, and not run into debt in order to carry out the operations of government in any given fiscal year. But there could very well be those occasions — a disaster, an economic disaster…. There could be any number of reasons why the government would have to borrow on a temporary basis in order to continue the operation of government.

This has the sort of controls that I think should be built in. The member and I disagree on that. I feel that the controls are quite tight. Again, they are tighter than in the legislation which has existed for a number of years.

MR. STUPICH: I suppose, had it not been for the previous legislation which we have dealt with and discussed. where the government has vastly increased its borrowing power, we perhaps wouldn't be quite so concerned about this one. We wonder just what is going on here with all this need to apparently be ready to borrow a lot of money. I can appreciate what the minister said, that it's not too different from the legislation already on the books. But I would remind the minister that this House used to sit from seven to nine weeks a year and then adjourn until the next year. But now we are in continuous session, in the sense that when we do adjourn we adjourn to the call of the Chair and can be called back at any time. I would think that if any emergency does take place in the province it should be something known to the members of the Legislature, it should be information available to the public, and the government should not give itself the unlimited power to borrow money even for 365 days on top of all the other borrowing authority that it has arranged for itself in this session.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Chairman, what concerns me about this section 1 is that the government hasn't been able to control its borrowings, and the debt of the province, through its Crown corporations and so on, has doubled in the last five years. We've seen an increase in borrowings of a great amount in the legislation so far this year, and here's another area where borrowings can be substantially increased further. It is because of this that there is great concern regarding this particular section, as far as I am concerned.

Section 43 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 23

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

Sections 44 to 53 inclusive approved.

On section 54.

MR. STUPICH: In section 54(2), we read: "A statement of the public debt outstanding…and of all borrowing transactions…will be included in public accounts." It has been the habit of this administration not to table public accounts until just about one year after the end of the year in question. Tabled accounts for the year ended March 31, 1980, were tabled in the House in March 1981. So I take it from that that the government is not obliged to provide us with this information in this detail until public accounts are tabled, which could be as much as approximately one year after the end of the fiscal year in question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Actually, Mr. Chairman. It would be by December following the end of the fiscal year or the commencement of the next session. I would think that in practice it will occur most often in December of the calendar year following the fiscal year which has ended the previous March 31.

MR. STUPICH: I think that means then, Mr. Chairman, that the details of money borrowed. say in April, would be revealed to us in December of the following year. That's the

[ Page 6548 ]

worst possible situation, I realize, but it could be money borrowed in April and the details reported in December of the following year.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, but with the exception of the temporary borrowings, which are dealt with in section 43 — reflecting back there — which must be reported in a much tighter time-frame.

Sections 54 to 59 inclusive approved.

On section 60.

MR. NICOLSON: This section departs from the previous Revenue Act inasmuch as what it is doing is allowing for recovery of public funds which may have been collected — and I guess the most obvious example would be sales tax — and not remitted to the Crown. I don't suppose anyone would argue with that or perhaps even with some stiffer procedures. But I note that in part (1)(b) it also applies to people who have received public money for which they are accountable to the government and have not duly accounted for it. In other words, somehow the government has paid out money, supposedly authorized by the comptroller's office, and the money has been paid out on the basis of some voucher, I would expect. Then in retrospect it is discovered that the voucher was not adequate and they have tried to recover some of the moneys. By order of the minister the government can…. It need not even be signed, but it would be treated as if it were signed by the minister. It can be certified to be a debt of public moneys, and a copy of the account stated by the Minister of Finance and certified by him is evidence that the amount stated in it is due and payable with interest.

Well, even that, of course, is not too much out of keeping with the previous Revenue Act, but this instrument then goes on to become evidence in a later section. The upshoot of it is that compared with the old section 26, I suppose — and section 26 refers back to section 25 of the Revenue Act — it means now that the Crown will be able to use this as evidence and garnishee from a third party.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, no, that comes later.

MR. NICOLSON: I know it comes later, but it builds up here because these are the people to which these later sections shall apply. As I say, I have to rise on section 60 because I think it is a completely different matter where people might be collecting public funds. People are collecting sales tax. If you come up with a different figure on the amount of sales tax that should have been remitted by a certain date, if they've been holding it back. If they've been putting it into short-term investments or some other misuse of the funds, that's one thing. But the government is also saying that where they've paid out a voucher, obviously — I can't imagine why they would pay something out if there wasn't a voucher submitted, if it wasn't authorized by the comptroller — then, on review, they find that they are in disagreement, they are going to create an instrument in this particular section which in subsequent sections will enable them to recover without recourse to the courts. In other words, they could….

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, no.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, they can require a third party to make payment to them. I would like the minister's explanation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member, the third party, I think, with respect, we should leave until a later section — section 63 is one which comes to mind, and there is an amendment in that section. This deals with evidence. There was considerable discussion in the drafting of this legislation. This is evidence only, best evidence; it is always rebuttable. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, there is no intent here to circumvent the normal procedures which would be available in all of this when discussing it, first of all, conceptually and then looking at it in terms of legislation. We wanted to walk the very fine line between what is properly money due to the Crown, the public's money, and the interests of the individual, the safeguarding of the individual who is required to handle public money.

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that we have covered both sides of the question quite well but if it errs, I think it errs on the part of the individual. That amendment which comes later — and I shouldn't speak to it — is yet another indication of that.

This is not the final, absolute finish, the end of it. It does go to court, Mr. Chairman.

Sections 60 and 61 approved.

On section 62.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, here the time that is given…. If a person is ordered to supply a proper voucher, they are given not less than 14 days after the date of service of the direction on them. I think that 14 days, if it is a small outfit that is providing service to the government, where the head of the company might have left…. Or it could be a store, a little electronic repair company servicing some Ministry of Highways with communications equipment in Nakusp, B.C. I use that example because I had an example where the government took over a year to pay a voucher to a little electronics firm in Nakusp, B.C., and here the government tells the small business person to supply this form within 14 days. I just say that if that person happened to be in a vacation period — caught, perhaps, sometimes during Christmas holidays and various other times in the year — I think that 14 days is cutting it a little bit fine. I would think that 30 days would be a lot more reasonable. Fourteen days is fine for a big supplier, but not for some small company.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I hear what the member has said. It is permissive. The Minister of Finance may direct this person to deliver this account, statement, return, whatever it may be, within not less than 14 days. Frankly, in earlier drafts, we were looking at less time, Mr. Chairman. I think one draft, as I recall, spoke about seven days — not less than seven days. We could argue as to whether it should be 10 days, or 21 days. It seemed to me that 14 was about right. I wanted to guard, again, the individual, in terms of an over-zealous administrator in government who would say: "We want it right now; you must have it here within 48 hours." We don't want that. This is, however, a document which belongs to the Crown….

Interjection.

[ Page 6549 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: "A statutory obligation," my colleague the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) interjects. With respect to money being paid to a supplier, I would remind the member that, of course, we now pay interest on overdue accounts. That's a new policy which was introduced last year. That overcomes the difficulty to which he alluded there. We could debate whether it should be not less than 14 or 21 days. Frankly, after very careful consideration, seven days wasn't enough. It seemed that 14 would be about right to require this to be returned, again remembering that it's permissive.

Section 62 approved.

On section 63.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to section 63 standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

On the amendment.

MR. NICOLSON: The amendment still doesn't address the problem that I see here. It says: "Where a demand is made on a third party under this section, the Minister of Finance shall in the same manner and in the same time notify the debtor." That means the there shall be notification to the debtor as well. That's okay; I'm in favour of that: but it certainly doesn't answer my objections, which I'll debate after.

Amendment approved.

On section 63 as amended.

MR. NICOLSON: Having created a debtor under section 60 — the debtor that I'm talking about is the person involved with vouchers and providing service for government, not being a collector for government — then the Minister of Finance may demand of a third party who might owe money to this person "that the money…"

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, like a bank or something.

"…payable by the third party to the debtor be, in whole or in part, paid to the Minister of Finance on account of the debtor's liability to the government. (2) The third party shall pay the money demanded under subsection (1) to the Minister of Finance forthwith…." That is a departure from the previous Revenue Act, where you created evidence to support a proceeding for recovery, but a person had a little bit more due process of law. Obviously if one looks beyond to section 64, it says: "Nothing in this Act affects or abrogates the right of the government or any other person to institute any civil or criminal proceeding…."

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay. This means that if the government have decided that they aren't happy with the voucher, they then create a debt against this person which is due and payable with interest. They can then issue an order to a third party to recover those funds. That's it. That's the person's day in court. Then if the person wants to do something about that, I suppose, the person would have to go to the courts to recover. It would appear to me that for most of these things the government is saying: "We've made a mistake. We paid out some money."

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, this is a debt.

MR. NICOLSON: How else do you pay out to people except with vouchers and so on? "We must have paid you too much. We weren't satisfied with the first voucher, even though it was screened by the comptroller. We paid it out. Then we're saying that on review we aren't satisfied with this voucher. You supply us with a better one. If we don't like that, we're going to recover the money from you." I'm talking about where you'd be recovering money under this section. This person is put on to the defensive, and the government puts them at jeopardy. Having had that money withdrawn from them through a third party — something that is owned to them — then the government says: "If you don't like it, take us to court and sue us." I just cannot support this section 63.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member and I have a difference of opinion with respect to just how this section would work. I think that the Crown must have access to a third party. I would suggest that it is not simply because the government has made a mistake. This is indeed common practice. For the government of the day not to have this access to third party I think would be a disservice to the public of the province, whose money is in question.

The third party is likely not to be some individual, but could very well be a major corporation. I think someone interjected, "a bank." We want to be able to get to the Bank of Montreal — I don't wish to single them out in the example — or a major Canadian bank and say: "We have to access this money, and we're notifying you. We have to access; it's owing to the Crown." I would commend to the member the need for this kind of procedure.

MR. NICOLSON: The minister then is not arguing that this is simply a rewriting of the old Revenue Act. He is saying that this is new legislation, right?

HON. MR. CURTIS: This is new.

MR. NICOLSON: It is new. Thank you.

What I think would be at least a little bit more fair would be that the Crown could perhaps order that the funds from a third party be held, pending the government initiating some sort of a civil — or criminal, I suppose — suit. But what you are doing here is taking the money, and you say that the Crown doesn't have access. Well, the Crown does have access if they want to go through the same routine that any other business would have to do, and that is to go to the courts. Where you've been taken, you go to the courts.

How far is this going to extend ? Are you now going to allow all major corporations to apply to a third party without going through the courts?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. We're dealing with government here.

MR. NICOLSON: This is a different kind of law for big government. I guess I understand what you understand this to be, and I disagree.

[ Page 6550 ]

Section 63 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 18

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

Sections 64 to 116 inclusive approved.

On section 117.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 117 as amended approved.

Sections 118 to 175 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 27. Financial Administration Act, reported complete with amendments.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave of the House now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 27, Financial Administration Act, read a third time and passed.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed, I would ask leave to table a report of the ombudsman of British Columbia, Special Report No. 3 to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia: the Cuthbert Case.

Leave granted.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

On vote 9: Premier's office, $664,544.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, before I start into the substance of my estimates, I would say that last week I on behalf of the government and the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of his party had an opportunity to express the regrets of this House and, I believe, all British Columbians on the passing of Terry Fox, and to send our regrets and our sympathies to his family.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

As you may be aware, Mr. Chairman, Terry Fox ran a Marathon of Hope, and that Marathon of Hope struck the hearts of peoples not only across our country and within our own province but around the world. He ran the Marathon of Hope to raise money for cancer research. As you know, at that time — in the fall of 1980 — our government, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, donated $1 million to cancer research through the Canadian Cancer Society. Earlier this year, while Terry was still living, we were able to set up a living and continuing memorial for Terry while he was alive, and one which will now best express what he set out to do — conquer not only cancer but all disease. We set up the Terry Fox Medical Research Foundation centre in British Columbia to assist in a very major way not only the fight against cancer, but all disease. As its first project, the centre will be undertaking major initiatives in the field of cancer research.

Today on behalf of the government, but for the people of B.C., I wish to announce a further commemoration in honour of the memory of Terry Fox. As you know, Terry fought his fight. He shared that fight with us in his Marathon of Hope. That became his mountain to climb. Mountains are a symbol to all of us of daring to try, and of things that must be conquered. While that was his mountain to climb, we felt that nothing would be more fitting at this time in British Columbia than to name a mountain in honour of Terry Fox. This mountain which we are designating Terry Fox Mountain is located seven miles north of Valemount, B.C. It's eight miles east of Tête Jaune and 200 miles north of Kamloops. It is visible from the Yellowhead Highway, It is in the Rockies in the Selwyn range. It's 13 miles southwest of Mount Robson. Had it not been a practice that has been ruled against, I would have brought pictures and maps showing the location of this mountain, and showing the committee its majestic grandeur. They are and will be available to members of this House, not only to see pictures of the mountain but its location on a map. They will be made available to members of the media during my estimates, for locating and viewing the mountain.

I'm sure all members of this House would agree that, along with the continuing memorial of the Terry Fox Medical Research centre, now Terry Fox Mountain will put in place in a geographic way a reminder for all time of this outstanding

[ Page 6551 ]

young British Columbian and Canadian. Today it's my pleasure to announce Terry Fox Mountain in the location I've just mentioned.

Dealing quickly with my estimates, Mr. Chairman, you will find out that one of the largest items is for travel. A large part of that cost is the increased interprovincial meetings, and interprovincial and federal government meetings that have taken place over the last few years, and which will substantially increase in the year 1981-82. As the incoming chairman of the Premiers' conference for this year, I would expect that the travel requirements will be more onerous than they have been in the past, in consulting with my colleagues across the country on a number of items important not only to governments, but to the peoples of each province, of each region and of the country as a whole. As such, I not only expect a number of interprovincial meetings but, as projected, a number of federal-provincial meetings and conferences as well. Let me say that during this last year, and in fact leading up to last September, while it did not detract from the ability of this government through our ministers, officials and advisers to deal with the problems of the economy, to make suggestions and to consult — I know that's been dealt with in the estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development and the Ministry of Finance........ I wanted to say that a large part of my travel was connected with the constitutional proposals of the Prime Minister and a request for consultation with the provinces that required a good deal of travel and a good deal of public attention.

I did want to make the point that…. It has probably been canvassed in the estimates of other ministers, as I say: Industry and Small Business Development. Finance, those social services ministries that must continually meet with their counterparts and with the federal government to negotiate or discuss what is and has been, and hopefully will be, a very good ongoing relationship.

However, I would like to get back to the constitutional discussion, Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as it strikes at the very heart of our country. I don't think there is a Canadian in any part of this country who, deep down, doesn't want to see the constitution in Canada. I don't think there is a Canadian who wouldn't want to see an end to the endless debate and divisions that have been caused during the constitutional discussions. I don't think there is a Canadian who does not want us to succeed in preserving the strong federal system which we have in this country.

What must be made clear, Mr. Chairman, is that a federal system is distinct from a unity state; a federal system calls upon a partnership between governments, and in this case it is provinces and the federal government. That was the concept of the country, a country that started not just in 1867, but in the 1840s with the marriage of what was Upper and Lower Canada, or what was called in assembly Canada West and Canada East. It was from discussions following that, in 1864, that led to Confederation among four provinces in 1867.

As you may be aware, Mr. Chairman, six provinces were involved in those discussions in a very real way; the two provinces that did not choose to join at that time, of course, were Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. However, four founding provinces did, in fact, create a federal system in which distinct powers of authority, distinct areas of ownership were given to the provinces or were retained by the provinces, whereas in the national interest distinct powers were given to the federal government, and in some key areas there were concurrent powers where there was a concurrency of jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments.

Since 1867 and with the resultant joining, either by acts of the Canadian parliament or by agreements such as with the Crown colony of British Columbia or Newfoundland, we have now arrived at a country of ten provinces within a federal system. It is interesting to note that as much as we take our federal system for granted and the uniqueness that it has, it is important to remember that Canada has developed differently because of this federal system than other parts of North America. In fact, it was that very wish to be different, that very wish to build on the strengths of our differences, whether they were regional, whether they were geographic, or whether Canada was going to develop on the strengths of allowing our people to be different as well…. We did not develop the melting-pot philosophy of the United States or their strong, centralist attitudes.

We have in this country a history of recognizing the various ethnic origins of the people who make up Canada, and in our multicultural policy — that is now defined as a multicultural policy but is a very fact of Canada's uniqueness and diversity — we build on those strengths rather than asking people to submerge them. And so it was that a federal system allows us that same opportunity on a regional and a provincial basis. There can be differences; and the provinces have a unique partnership arrangement with the federal government. For 114 years our country has been served very well.

However, from time to time in its history there have been attempts to not only bring the constitution to Canada — it has never been here; we are under the act of the British government — but there have been attempts to change and make easier the ways in which the federal and provincial governments can work together in arriving at solutions which require agreement. As you are well aware, Mr. Chairman, under the present constitution the provinces, in their own jurisdictions, have been and will continue to be able to make changes to the provincial constitution without agreement from the federal government. The federal government in turn has been able to make changes in those areas in the constitution within the federal jurisdiction, and in the future they will be able to do that. Where we need agreement, and where much of the controversy has been created, is in those areas in which there must be agreement between provincial and federal governments. That is where one government is either surrendering or wishes to intrude — in the national interest, perhaps — into the jurisdictional area of the other. I must say it has been possible since we've become a country for federal and provincial governments to conclude such agreements. I say that only to bring to the attention of this Legislature that in the past it has not been impossible for federal and provincial governments to work together in areas requiring agreement.

What do we have before us today? We have before us a situation, Mr. Chairman, that requires the goodwill and more than just flag-waving patriotism to resolve. It is going to be very difficult to resolve the present constitutional debate. For what we have now is a departure from the practice and convention of the country, in which up until now, through every Prime Minister and all of the Premiers, it has been necessary to achieve agreement amongst them all before making an intrusion into the power of one or the other — particularly, as it would be in most instances, a federal intrusion into the provincial power. I would say the proposals that are before the Parliament of Canada and before the

[ Page 6552 ]

Supreme Court of our country, as initiated by the Prime Minister, defy the tradition and convention that has served this country so well.

The difficulty is, Mr. Chairman, that it has created divisions where there should be no divisions, because those divisions perhaps are both inside and outside the country. It has created a strain on the government in Great Britain: the possibility that they will be asked to make a decision for Prime Minister Trudeau, on an agreement he couldn't achieve within our country.

Is there an alternative'? I think there is. At this time let me say that British Columbia has, from the beginning, tried to be a part of the solution and not a part of the problem leading to the constitution.

I would like at this time to pay great credit to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations of this government, the Hon. Garde Gardom, who, during this past….

MR. MACDONALD: He looks tired.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The second member for Vancouver East says he looks tired, and he should, because during this last year he undertook on behalf of our government a mission in which he called on governments all across this country in an attempt to try to bring them closer together to end the deadlock and to find a way out of the confrontation which was developing. He didn't do it with a lot of fanfare. He did it because, politics aside, he was concerned about the future of our country, and where that confrontation was heading.

A lot of the work and initiative that he carried out on behalf of this government led to a meeting of eight Premiers earlier this year, on April 16. It was at that meeting that we were able to achieve what I consider to be a reasonable way in which the people of this country, regardless of their philosophical beliefs about whether rights should be in the constitution, or whether offshore resource ownership should be extended to provinces, or whether provinces should have sonic say in international marketing…. Leaving those items of substance aside, the accord we reached on April 16 presented us an opportunity not to disregard those items of real interest to many Canadians and of differing opinion among skilled and experienced legislators. What it did provide was an opportunity to achieve the number one goal: to have our constitution in our country. It would have achieved that this year, 1981, the fiftieth anniversary of the Statute of Westminster, which ended Canada's colonial status, and it would also have provided for the removal of the rigidity that has perhaps prevented resolution of these items in our country before now, as unanimity has been the tradition and practice of the country. That accord received the signature of eight provinces; that is twice the number of provinces that formed Canada in the first place. One of the signing provinces was the key province of Quebec, which has a unique place in this country and which until now has had difficulty with some of the proposals that have been signed and agreed to by other provinces. Certainly we can go back to other conferences where the holdout was the province of Quebec.

What was this proposal? The proposal was an accord containing an amending formula that allows for two-thirds of the provinces and 50 percent of the population, plus the federal government, on any item needing agreement. That is greater flexibility, Mr. Chairman, than we've ever had before. It has been agreed to by the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia. Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and it is available today to receive the signatures of the two remaining provinces, Ontario and New Brunswick, and that of the government of Canada.

It was meant as an opportunity, then, for all provinces to come together and provide a means for having our constitution in our own country. It provides the flexibility of an amending formula, as I say, that will allow us to get on with the job of developing a made-in-Canada constitution that will in effect allow Canadians, and Canadians only, to deal with those items of substance that are currently on the list of 12 or 14 items on the agenda for discussion and change in the future. It means that we would not have to go to Great Britain to ask them for the BNA Act or a Canada Act, which would be another act of the British Parliament. We could in effect take this accord, with the amending formula, and the present BNA Act, with amendments, and make them bills of the ten Legislatures of this country and of the Parliament of Canada; we would in effect be writing our own constitution in Canada. We would not be going as supplicants to Great Britain to get another act of the British Parliament to deal with the Canadian constitution. We would be writing our own constitution and providing the mechanism that would allow us to get on with the job in our own country.

Surely that is not unreasonable. It doesn't take away — in fact it enhances — the opportunity for those who believe that rights should be in the constitution rather than in the laws of parliament and legislatures. It means that they can be discussed, debated and adopted if they utilize this formula in our own country. It means that those who wish to discuss provincial rights, resources, education, immigration…. None of those things is eliminated from discussion; there is a greater opportunity for discussion in a Canadian way, in our own country. There is a greater opportunity for those who propose those things and who have strong views on them to be able to achieve resolution in this manner.

I don't know why some are so fearful of their position in the things they advocate in a constitution that they would rather operate in a unilateral way, asking Great Britain to do the job. than to bring it home and have those items on the table of Canadian confederation with an opportunity in this more flexible way to have a greater opportunity of achieving success. If they're confident of their positions, they should look for this better way — this Canadian way — of making amendment in the future to the Canadian constitution. They should not be timid. They should be optimistic. Those who feel strongly that rights are more properly protected within the constitution have a greater opportunity with this amending formula of achieving it and yet keeping alive the unity everybody talks about within this country. Instead of being done in a unilateral and divisive manner that not only has divided regions but in some cases parties and families over the issue, you could be able to achieve that debate in what would be the Canadian and the rational way: that's within our own country.

I don't feel the accord can be considered anything other than our greatest opportunity to achieve this end. The accord is really an answer to the resolution that this Legislature passed last December when we called for a simple patriation with an amending formula. That is what eight governments have been able to achieve. That's in the face of some, both in this Legislature and on the national stage, who have said that

[ Page 6553 ]

such agreement was impossible. They are the ones who are negative in their outlook and unable to be positive about their country or have the confidence in their colleagues across this country to be able to achieve such agreement. Rather than just saying that I believe in Canada, I always like to say that I have that confidence in other Canadians that they can achieve these types of agreements. They're not impossible. There are some that said they are. But today we're that much closer with eight provinces as signators to the accord, which I think is a step forward within this country.

I would hope that in the coining months, regardless of court decisions, we can get back to the bargaining table in this country and to deal in a specific way with the non-controversial aspects of patriation and amendment and do the items of substance in our own country. I know that some members in this chamber may feel strongly about certain aspects that the Prime Minister contains in what he calls his patriation package. But they would have the opportunity to debate those further in Canada in the traditional way if we follow this course.

I want to say that my office and this government have been flooded with mail from across the country from ordinary citizens and politicians alike urging us to get back to the bargaining table, trying to persuade us to get together and try to find a way against what is unacceptable to anyone with any sense of perspective of the history of this country — that is, supporting unilateral action. I can't quote everyone who has phoned me or written. I must say that those phone calls often come at home on a weekend, on a Sunday, and from other parts of the country. I would like to read into the record a letter I received from a parliamentarian, who writes:

"Dear Mr. Premier:

"As you are likely aware, I have recently announced my intention to oppose the resolution before Parliament which is intended to amend and patriate the constitution of Canada. Apart from reservations that I have regarding some of the substance of the resolution, I have three major concerns which arise from the unilateral process which the federal government has undertaken. First, I believe that this process is creating, and will continue to create, divisions in our country."

I think we can all agree with that.

"Second, I fear that the current action is damaging intergovernmental relations and will seriously jeopardize future constitutional reform.

"The third concern was recently expressed by former privy council clerk Gordon Robertson, who stated that the price of patriating the constitution without broader provincial consent will be the loss of public confidence in government itself.

"Clearly a change of course is required. In my statement to the press of February 18, 1981, I proposed a return to the conference table. I am convinced that if the current confrontation is to be resolved, the lead will have to be taken by you and your counterparts in the other provinces. While it would be preferable if the federal government were to agree to a new round of federal-provincial discussions, it does not seem to me to be necessary to await movement from Ottawa. The emergence from a premiers' conference of an agreement on a package of constitutional reform and a clear expression of willingness to address the central concerns of the federal government at a subsequent federal-provincial conference would give focus to that majority element of public opinion which is opposed to the unilateral aspect of the federal government's initiative, but which lacks an alternative to support. There are, no doubt, very real…."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind you that time under standing orders has elapsed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have one more paragraph, and then I'll table it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would appreciate an intervening speaker. The rules are quite explicit and that could be done.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Chairman, I defer to the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll continue:

"There are, no doubt, very real difficulties which arise from the principled opposition of some governments to the entrenchment of a charter of rights and from differences of opinion over the correct amending formula. However, I believe, as I am sure a majority of Canadians do, that no problem is insurmountable if approached with flexibility and in a spirit of compromise.

"In conclusion I believe that now is the time for the provinces to initiate a return to the conference table. Hopefully a package of constitutional changes can go forward based on consensus, the very minimum being an amending formula on patriation."

"Sincerely yours,
"Lorne Nystrom."

I will ask leave at the appropriate time, Mr. Chairman, to table this document.

MR. BARRETT: This is an unusual year. For the first time in my memory we have the Premiers' estimates as the very last part of the estimates during the session, rather than the very first. This is the first time that I can recall the leader of the House putting himself behind the troops instead of in front of them.

It is interesting to note that the Premier made not one mention in the estimates of the state of the economy of British Columbia, or of his own government's stewardship or of the problems which exist for the ordinary citizens of British Columbia. We were offered a rehash of his confused position on a constitution, when the whole matter is sub judice in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I find it interesting that the Premier chose, rather than to face the House earlier on, to come in on a matter which deals with something other than the real problems which are facing the people of British Columbia and quietly expect his estimates just to go through with a nice polite discussion of, as I say. his confused position. It's up to him to explain to the people of the province why he has chosen his estimates to come last. I don't suppose it's a big issue with any citizen out there, but in terms of the tradition of this House it is very interesting to note that when the heat comes on, the last one to face the heat is the Premier of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I thought the Premier would have addressed himself to the fact that under his stewardship this province has doubled its debt. I thought the Premier would

[ Page 6554 ]

address himself to the fact that in 1976 the debt of British Columbia was $4.5 billion, and that at the end of the fiscal year of 1982 it will be over $10 billion. He has driven the debt of this province up 100 percent in five short years — as a leader of a government that said "pay as you go." Well, that certainly is true. We are paying the Americans, the Europeans and everyone else who will loan us money at an unprecedented rate of interest as we go along. The figures I quote now are figures released by the government itself. Social Credit has doubled the debt of the people of British Columbia in five short years. Because of the mandate the government has, they have asked for and received unprecedented legislative approval to drive us even further into debt and into the arms of moneychangers and moneylenders throughout the world.

There has been no reduction in the pace of grabbing money up, no reduction in the pace of putting future generations in jeopardy with this amount of debt, and no explanation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we've seen that the whole approach to public business is to hide it on a shelf, hide it in a drawer, keep it secret — such as the energy policy and energy decisions. We've had no public hearings on vitally important matters such as to the location of gas pipelines. We've had no public hearings or input process in any of this — just pile up the debt and hope for the best. Do you deny that the debt has doubled, Mr. Premier? Do you deny that under your stewardship we're going to be over $10 billion in debt early next year, without any reasonable explanation from those Crown corporations?

Every single citizen of this province has seen the debt load under Social Credit go from $1,800 per person in 1975 to $3,900 per person in 1981. All British Columbians now must understand that the government has borrowed $3,900 in their name and in the name of every single member of their family. What does this mean? This means that when interest rates were around 10 percent in 1975, people were faced with an $1,800 per capita debt. They could handle it. With interest rates now up to 16 and 17 percent and a per capita debt that has more than doubled, taxes must go up in British Columbia just to meet the cost of interest payments. Interest payments almost match some of the more recent budgets in British Columbia. They haven't quite caught up, but they almost reach it. Every single man, woman and child in this province now must pay interest on $3,900 a year, let alone touch the principal.

Public Accounts shows that there has been a shifting of the debt too, a refining of the old shell game that's gone on under this administration and this Premier. Public Accounts shows the following debt taken out of budgets from the old pay-as-you-go system, and now deliberately put into borrowing funds: B.C. Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority — $58 million; B.C. Buildings Corporation — $86 million; B.C. Ferry Corporation — $15 million. And of course we've had this whole episode of the minister selling off his ferries so we could buy them back. That's truly Social Credit monetary theory: mortgage everything you've got so you can buy it back.

We just sold a ferry to Royal Trust for $6 million more than we paid to have it built, and we'll pay for that ferry three times over just to get the chance to buy it back to say it's our own. Will the minister tell the Premiers when they're travelling on their special day on the special ferry: "You should have pride in British Columbia's fleet, even though Royal Trust of Toronto owns most of it"? Will you be handing out a little brochure to those Premiers telling them how you sold off our ferry fleet to the eastern financiers so that we get a chance to buy our own ships back? Will you stamp a little souvenir card for them and say: "It's nice to travel on Royal Trust ships"'?

MR. MACDONALD: We lease them, though.

MR. BARRETT: We lease our own ships back. When the Premiers come on do you think for one moment that they'll be told by Doug Heal, the Premier or anyone else: "This really isn't our boat; we just sold it and we get a chance to buy it back at three times what we paid for it"? Is that what you're going to brag about when you're on the ferry? Knock all the ordinary citizens off; you don't want to be seen with the riffraff'. I don't blame you for not travelling with the riff-raff; they might ask you some questions about the debt, about taxes, and about other problems in this province.

When was the last time the Premier got out of his car, walked on the ferry and spent a couple of hours on the ferry with ordinary people of this province? His father did it. I did it. When was the last time the Premier deigned to walk on with the ordinary people of British Columbia and stand in line, and wait for a hamburger and see how much you're charging people for terrible service on the ferries? Why don't you let the other Premiers see that the special food you'll be bringing on for that special day for them on Royal Trust's ferry is not the standard fare for ordinary citizens of British Columbia? Just keep the riff-raff away from the Premier. Don't let him be bothered with citizens.

And if any citizen has a problem with the debt or the overwhelming tax burden that I'm coming to now, just tell them: "Don't worry; the Premier is working very hard on the constitution. If you've lost a night's sleep worrying about paying your taxes or your home payments or trying to come to Vancouver Island to meet your relatives, don't worry about it; the Premier's worried about the constitution." Thirty-five minutes of discussion here today, and not a single word of concern about the ordinary people of British Columbia and the problems that they have as ordinary people.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I know why the Premier wanted to wait until the dying days of the session. It's just another one of his clever tricks. I didn't say dirty tricks. Thinking that he can draw attention away from the real problems is just one of his clever tricks.

What about the record of who is paying taxes in British Columbia under this government? Well, I want to tell you a very interesting statistic, based on the government's own records. The mining tax revenue of British Columbia was down $8 million last year. Mines are supposed to be booming, according to the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. McClelland). The taxes for mines were down $8 million last year. The mineral land tax has been cut by $500,000; the coal mineral royalty revenue has been cut by $800,000; the oil and gas fees and permits revenue is down by $100 million; the forest taxes have been cut by $65 million; the total natural resource revenues are down 57 percent. Is there any citizen in British Columbia who has had any of their home taxes, or the sales tax, cut by any percentage by this government?

Some of these corporations are eastern-based, and the Premier comes skiing down a hill and says, "CPR, don't come out to British Columbia," so Noranda comes out instead. While these corporations are stuffing money in their suitcases and taking it back to bad old Ontario, the Premier is

[ Page 6555 ]

vilifying the Premier of Ontario for not supporting his position on the constitution. Why should the Premier of Ontario worry? Those people are taking money out of British Columbia by the trunkful, because taxes are being cut on those corporations while the citizens of British Columbia have to pay.

Yes, and what about the people? All the people out there must understand that in the last year alone their taxes have gone up 37 percent under Social Credit. While the corporation taxes have gone down 57 percent, the people's taxes have gone up 37 percent.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to note, too, that we have hidden indexed taxes for the first time. Every time somebody buys a litre of gasoline now, they don't have to worry about the taxes being increased in this Legislature. By law, that tax is now automatically built in at the gas pump. It's a sneaky way of taking money from gas users in British Columbia; it's a principle that the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) said he would never go for, until he had to vote for it in this House.

What does that mean, Mr. Chairman, in very simple terms for the ordinary people, under that man as Premier, where the debt has doubled and the per capita debt has gone from $1,800 to $3,600 and individuals, taxes have gone up in a dramatic way? Last year, before the budget, the individual taxes on citizens were $1,091 per capita.

[Interruption.]

MR. BARRETT: That poor baby up there, while it is gasping for breath in the galleries, must understand that last year it only had to pay $1,091 in taxes through its parents, and this year the poor parents are stuck with $1,492. While that child gasps for air, Mr. Chairman, the parents gasp for sustenance and hope for relief from this problem, but there's not a bit. What about the poor little companies? Let's hear it for the poor little companies and what the Premier has done for the poor little companies.

A year ago natural resources paid the people of British Columbia $443 per person in taxes. This year those companies only have to pay $254 per person. On a per capita basis, the companies have had a cut in their taxes of almost 60 percent. The people have had an increase of 37 percent. What would you rather be, little child, a baby or a company? The way it costs nowadays, if you had the choice, you might think twice.

It is all done in the name of Social Credit accounting and accountability. Pouring on debt, cutting taxes for the corporations, and the working people and those who are on fixed incomes have to carry the burden. They have doubled the debt in five years. If this pace continues, Mr. Chairman, there will be little hope for optional expenditures.

What is the impact of this tremendous increase in the costs of taxation and services? Mr. Chairman, we have heard in here a litany, a catalogue, of the colleges in this province having to cut staff and programs. While the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is saying that we don't have trained people to take jobs, job opportunities through rational training is being cut every single day because the budgets of small colleges are being cut throughout this province. A hundred thousand dollars to take a little ferry ride! It is symbolic, Mr. Chairman, of the stupidity and priorities of this government. A hundred thousand dollars would put some people to work training carpenters and electricians in this province, but they have to have a day off to travel across on the ferry to see what is going on.

Now we come to the increase in taxes, and the Premier's word. I hate to do this, Mr. Chairman. I hate to read the Premier's word back to him, because the Premier thinks in 24-hour dimensions. "If I said something a year ago, well, I meant it then but I don't mean it now. That was appropriate at the time." That was his standard response when the letter from Etienne Reuter came from the EEC pointing out that the Premier had indeed been over in Europe flogging uranium. Yes, Mr. Chairman, in April 1978 the Premier said that the sales tax was cut to 4 percent and it would never go up again. Do you know what "never" means in Social Credit? It means "well, hardly ever." Do you know what happened, Mr. Chairman? Why, a few days later a backbencher, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), got up and said…. It's right here in Hansard: "Our Premier made a commitment to the citizens of British Columbia that the reduction in the sales tax is here to stay." We see it in a newspaper article from the Vancouver Sun, where the big, black headlines read: "Reduced B.C. Sales Tax Here to Stay, Says Bennett. There is a long-term commitment: straightforward honesty and planning for the citizens of the province, and the opposition is frustrated." Well, it is straightforward honesty to say one thing and do another; it's straightforward honesty, Bennett-style — and let's have that on the record. Most people, when they give their word that they'll never increase taxes again…. Well, they don't do it. But this fellow comes in here and talks about the constitution — and we assume his is okay — and about the history of Canada, but he neglects to mention that he, as a Premier of a province, made a solemn promise never to raise that sales tax above 4 percent again. Yet this year he stood up and voted for the raise.

MR. HOWARD: He sounds more like Trudeau every day.

MR. BARRETT: You know, when it comes to teaching the Prime Minister a few tricks for becoming a Nijinsky in the political field, no one can do a pas de deux faster than the Premier of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Wait till Richard Green reads that!

MR. BARRETT: Oh, my good friend the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is trying to be minister of defence for the Premier. I appreciate that. After all, you old Liberals have no ports to go to anymore. You're at the end of the line; you have to defend the coach even though you don't like it. I have never heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations make a public speech praising the Premier.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, you have.

MR. BARRETT: I haven't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, you have.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if that's true, then the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) was the last one to praise the Premier publicly. I guess the conversion is now complete. Are you praising him now, Mr. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations?

[ Page 6556 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I have all along.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, you have. You've numbered the times, have you? Mr. Chairman, that's a matter for a separate debate.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, now that we've brought order back to the House, we'll deal with some other statements by the Premier. We've showed how the Premier said that the sales tax would never be increased, except hardly ever, and then it went from 4 percent to 6 percent, and he voted for it. What about inflation? Why, last December we came here and the Premier was asked: "What are you going to do about inflation?" "Don't talk about it now," he said to my colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). "Don't worry about it. I'm going to send the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) to a conference back in Ottawa." That's what he promised.

The night before the conference was to take place, where was the Minister of Finance? The Premier promised that he would send the Minister of Finance to this important conference. The, Premier and the Minister of Finance were in Vancouver and went to see the play "Little Orphan Annie," and they ended up in a nightclub afterwards. Where else would a fan of Daddy Warbucks go after seeing "Little Orphan Annie"? Daddy Warbucks and the 14 millionaires over there know exactly how they do during inflation; millionaires make money during times of inflation; it's only a problem for ordinary people. The Daddy Warbucks syndrome. I hope you paid for the nightclub yourself; I assume you did. But if the newspaper report is incorrect, I hope that the Premier would correct it. But after "Little Orphan Annie," and under the influence of Daddy Warbucks, they went ahead to fight inflation. It reminds me of the great fight that the former Minister of Highways used to have against poverty: he used to throw rocks at beggars. That was the way he approached the problem, Mr. Chairman.

It's that same kind of attitude that we witnessed even today when we tried to get an explanation of why they've taken a ship out of regular service with the ferry. "Why," he said, like Marie Antoinette, "let them swim." Do you think that they're going to get ordinary ferry hamburgers on that little one-day trip'? Not on your life. Do you think they're going to brown-bag it? For a hundred grand they're going to eat good. I hope at least — and let's all pray for this — that when the ship is going by, the ordinary riff-raff travelling to and fro will get a royal wave on the way by. I hope it's the whole hand. I hope it's a decent gesture. That's all that the ordinary people can expect, Mr. Chairman.

What's he done about rising interest rates? Why, nothing. On the same conference that he was going to send the Minister of Finance…. There was no sending of the Minister of Finance. Can the Premier tell us why he didn't keep his promises on the sales tax and sending the Minister of Finance to that conference?

The Premier made allusion to the fact that he couldn't bring a map in today because we had a new ruling, for the first time ever in the history of this House, about showing charts. What was the chart that we could have shown had we been able? We would have shown a chart that to date over $59 million could have been cut from the fat of this budget in terms of advertising, travel and wasted money. But of course we can't show charts. If I were allowed to show a chart, Mr. Chairman, this is the chart that I would show. But I can't show charts, so I'm not going to show the chart that I was just showing to show that I couldn't show a chart, because the people might be shocked in seeing a chart-showing here in British Columbia. Some $59 million of taxpayers' money is being wasted for silly expenditures by this government with no thought whatsoever.

One expenditure that the Premier never mentioned was the $20 million birthday party he gave his child known as BCRIC, when he took the assets that belonged to all the people of British Columbia and gave it a $20 million going away present and said: "Here, tell the citizens how you can buy a piece of the action." He certainly did. The Premier said: "This is my baby. These shares are worth $11 or $12. I'm going to sell them to you for $6." People watched the Premier of British Columbia on television. So help me goodness, Mr. Chairman, there were still people that day who believed the Premier of the province. They went out and bought BCRIC shares at $6. They're now down to about $4.80. Have you had your lesson in capitalism, folks? Have you had a piece of the rock, right in the head? Guess who denies the parenthood of BCRIC, Mr. Chairman? It is the Premier of this province: "It's got nothing to do with me. I was just its father. I never expected it to be born and mess up its diapers the way it has done. Now that it's done that, it's got nothing to do with me. That's not my baby." If it's not your baby, let's get back to the people of British Columbia the $20 million of taxpayers' money that you wasted on launching that child.

I used to hear those dulcet tones on television and the Premier being interviewed saying: "This is your chance to get a hunk of British Columbia." Edgar Kaiser believed him and got the biggest hunk of all. For the next two months he'll continue to get $700,000 a month. Do you know how much $700,000 a month is, Mr. Chairman? I'll show you how much $700,000 a month is. Under this administration $700,000 is enough to buy two houses in the city of Vancouver, You've done nothing to relieve people in terms of homeownership. You've done nothing to relieve them in terms of taxes. You've given away a major asset worth over $450 million. You've doubled the debt of the people of British Columbia. You've dropped the taxes on the corporations, and you've upped them on ordinary citizens. And today you want to talk about the constitution and hope the time goes by quickly. You've broken promises on sales tax and about sending the minister back east to conferences, and today you want to talk about the constitution.

Debts, growing immorality — oh, yes, we should touch on a little bit of that, and I suppose we will today. Where was the first letter on the dirty tricks scam to come from in terms of using public funds and a politician's office as Premier for fund-raising? Where was the first signal to come from in terms of the standard of behaviour that we were to expect from that Premier and his office? The first letter was to come right out of his office to Social Credit members asking them to join the Social Credit Party. They had cheques along with his letter. He didn't know then, and he doesn't know to this day, the separation of politics and being Premier.

You're the one who told the citizens of British Columbia that you're going to root out this business with the dirty tricks. All we've seen is a rearguard battle by your cabinet

[ Page 6557 ]

fighting off the inquiries by the ombudsman, who's attempting to get to the bottom of that filthy mess that's left a scar on politics here in British Columbia and will leave that scar for a long time. We've seen it all, but I never thought for the life of me that on the day that they had carefully selected to protect the Premier best of all, right down to the end of the session, the last ministerial estimates and the first time in my recollection that a Premier didn't lead but followed his troop, just like following the mounted cavalry after most of the band has past…. There's somebody along to sweep up, and there he was — the Premier. What was the audacious announcement today? "We're going to take a ferry out for a ferry ride." He doesn't want to be seen in public or rub shoulders with ordinary citizens. I understand that more than anyone else. I understand you and I understand your fears. I don't blame you for not wanting to be seen with the people. I understand that. With your record, you've got no other choice.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's hard to respond sometimes to the Leader of the Opposition, who is more concerned with his personal verbosity and revenge for having been defeated twice in elections — once in a very personal way — than dealing with the problems of government….

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Yes, there are problems in British Columbia, which we face. That member talks about inflation. Inflation is a problem for the country. I'll deal with it. I'd like to point out that this government came in following the most inflationary government that this province has ever had. The Leader of the Opposition asked about three questions during that long talk. I'll deal with them if he wants to listen. We had inflation when we came in; British Columbia was the most inflationary province in Canada. I remember that. I think the Leader of the Opposition remembers it, because he was a large part of it — he was Premier at that time. I remember the years 1974 and 1975, when British Columbia's inflation rate was far above the national average. That inflation rate is measured by the cost-price index. I would say that there was steady improvement in the cost-price increase, using the federal government measurement, in the city of Vancouver in the years 1976 to 1980. Vancouver and British Columbia were below the national average on a continuing basis for the first time not like under the previous NDP government.

I must admit that in 1981 there have been tremendous pressures on British Columbia and North American tax policies and on the monetary policies of the Bank of Canada, which are not the policies of this government and which have been opposed by this government at first ministers' conferences on the economy. There are now some Johnnies-come-lately making a noise about high interest rates, because they think it will do them some good in a partisan way. Those people have been good only in jumping on a problem when it's possible to get some benefit, not to offer a solution. In identifying the problem, I would point out to the members that this government, when given its first major opportunity, made economic proposals. Perhaps it wasn't the political puffery that appeals to the opposition. It was a very real set of economic proposals at the economic conference. and it was described as such by other governments attending that conference and by those who seriously viewed the conference, not for what they hoped to see as wrong but for new suggestions they hoped would be advanced to do something to bring some planning between federal and provincial governments to deal with the Canadian economy. At that time we took a strong stand against high interest rates. Goodness knows, they've gone higher since.

I remember one of the things that the NDP ridiculed this government about and wouldn't support was provincial appointments to national institutions, so you could plug a provincial viewpoint into bodies that make national decisions. I can remember when we advocated having a provincially appointed representative at the Bank of Canada and at other national institutions, and the New Democratic Party ridiculed it. It's funny that those who either ridiculed or ignored it are now advocating the very same thing. But there again, it wasn't politically smart to do that in 1977 or 1978; there were no Brownie points to be picked up on the partisan market. Forget about the good of Canada; forget that there was then an opportunity to stand up and speak out. But, no, at that time it was easier to either attack the proposals as foolish or to ignore them.

In my view, high interest rates are not only damaging to every Canadian but to the Canadian economy as well. But you're not going to resolve this economy overnight, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) and Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett). It's now going to be a very long, slow process to have a made-in-Canada economy that doesn't become the tail of the dog to the American economy. It is very hard when things which would have prevented the situation we're in now — control of government spending, control of costs related to GNP, realistic taxation and pricing in this country….

I know that it is popular for some, because everybody drives a car…. Not everybody who drives a car stops to think about the national energy situation, or the replacement for oil, or ending our dependence on imported oil. So it's nice to have opposed any oil-price increase back then. I can remember the great, hysterical. high-pitched speeches in this House, that often scare babies out — that have in the past and did again today. But 1"ll tell you, if we had faced our oil pricing dilemma a few years ago, if we'd faced our dilemma of the high cost of government — a high cost which was built up in the period when the federal Liberal government was a minority government held captive by that little band of NDPers down there, who forced them into high spending, and they went into high borrowing to pay for it….

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You want to talk about high interest rates? You talk about the cause and you talk about the solutions. I've heard a lot about the negative economic policies of the NDP, who are the most negative group that I've ever seen. I'll tell you. you have one member among you who is known to be the most credible economic spokesman for your caucus. That's the member who was given the job of leading economic development when your party was government. I'd like to share with this House then — I wasn't going to do this — what your own member predicted. After the election of 1979 and in the report of a speech by the economic development minister in the NDP government. we had a set of economic predictions, which, I presume, were the official New Democratic Party predictions of what was going to happen to the B.C. economy in 1980 and 1981. It is useful, now that we have some time, to look at how these predictions

[ Page 6558 ]

worked out. Here is the headline from the Sun, August 13, 1979 — that's less than two years ago — and this is what the headline says: "B.C. Faces Depression, Lauk Tells Convention." Then it goes on to say: "British Columbia faces a major depression in the early 1980s, NDP MLA Gary Lauk said Saturday." He said continuing oil-price increases and massive public and private debt will send unemployment soaring.

Well, in fact.,our unemployment rate that he said would be soaring is at some of the lowest figures we've had. It's certainly far lower than during any period of the NDP government. In fact, in January of this year we had perhaps the lowest figure since the federal government started keeping statistics. So we've had a continuing trend of growing employment under this government, something you don't hear from those members over there. Here he is saying just two years ago that unemployment would soar and land values would plummet. Right now he's wrong on both counts, and every British Columbian will know it because we've got a chance to took at the economic expert for the NDP. As it says: "Lauk told the annual convention of B.C. Young New Democrats" — the things he's saying that turn out not to be true shouldn't be allowed near children — "at the Britannia Community Centre." He said we're facing something pretty serious.

"'The free market system is hitting a reef,' Lauk said. 'We owe ten times what we own.' The former Mines minister" — they were wrong there; I think he was Minister of Economic Development; he might have been Minister of Mines as well — "in the previous NDP government claimed a recession sparked by higher energy costs will boost unemployment to more than 14 percent. Lauk said the recession will turn into a depression when unemployment forces homeowners to turn over heavily mortgaged property to banks and mortgage companies, creating a glut of land and forcing down land prices.

"A depression will happen first in the United States, but will eventually drag Canada down, although B.C. will be able to stave off a recession for a short time.

"'I think that in a year you are going to see layoffs in the lumber industry, and in two or three years you will see it in the pulp industry.'"

Here's what he said: layoffs in the lumber industry and in the pulp industry. Then he goes on to say:

"'I don't buy that Marxist stuff. We are not a totalitarian party. I'm in favour of a mixed economy, which Canada has always had.' While disclaiming any skills as an investment counsellor, Lauk said people who are now buying gold will be in a good position in a recession, while investment in land and buildings will not be safe in a few years. 'People who are buying stocks and bonds are insane,' he added."

Well, since he gave that advice gold has dropped, land has gone up, houses have gone up, unemployment has gone down, employment has gone up. You've got 50,000 more people working in jobs in this province, far more than when he made that speech. Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, it gives you some idea of the economic ability and sincerity of that party. Obviously that was good politics to scare people. The politics of fear and scare has always been a good tactic — frighten people in hospitals, frighten people when they are sick and frighten people into thinking we are going to have a depression.

What I am thankful for is that almost two years after that set of predictions, we have a far different situation. I am glad of it. We have more people working than ever before in this province. We have had, on a yearly basis since we became government, a lower unemployment rate. We have more people working and, yes, as part of Canada, we share that opportunity with other Canadians. Because we share that opportunity for people to work and earn their way in life and earn an opportunity to be able to provide for themselves and their families, British Columbia has been under some pressure from other Canadians, and that has created some problems. There is no doubt about it. It has put pressure on the existing housing stock. It has accelerated the problem created by the shortage of serviced land available for housing and the agricultural land reserve.

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that that calls for government trying to respond to changing conditions. But rather than the condition of having to respond to a government and province out of control, as we did when we took office in 1975, we're now having to deal with the problems of our own success, because rather than people leaving, people are coming back. People are coming to join us. I see them every day.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition says: "When do you get out and talk to the people?" Well, just about every day and certainly every weekend. Not only did we talk to them, but they spoke back loudly in Kamloops during the by-election, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. We didn't shaft a loyal NDP member to bring in what was supposed to be the most popular candidate and then run off to New Zealand. We stayed and explained…. Oh, the Leader of the Opposition has left, I guess, for New Zealand again. He's looking for the other 2.5 million people who didn't show up to his dinner.

Anyway, I want to say that we have problems. What about housing? Our government has not been devoid of doing something for housing. I will say that this government was anticipating problems. Last year we introduced our housing initiative program to supplement a number of other major provincial government initiatives that have been set up by a previous Social Credit government. They brought in the home-buyer's grant and the second mortgage fund. Do you remember those great Social Credit programs? They still continue.

Now what did the housing initiative program do? Well, what it did is set the climate for British Columbia to have constructed within our province in 1980…. With just 11 percent of the country's population, we had 25 percent of all the housing starts in Canada last year.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, and the worst housing prices in Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Coquitlam-Moody says the worst housing prices — because everybody wants to come. I acknowledge that. That's the problem. You see, when we get a Socred government in B.C., everybody wants to come and they push the price of housing up. I want to remind the member for Coquitlam-Moody that I can remember 1974 and 1975. You were in Ottawa then, but you are one of the ones who has chosen to come back and put up the price of housing for everyone else. You had to come back. Well, you haven't completed your job. You've only gone half-way.

[ Page 6559 ]

Anyhow, I would say that if you had seen, as I have, communities like Terrace…. I'll talk about Terrace, because I remember visiting up there when there were empty houses for sale, which the people had left because they had no buyers. The community was in the economic doldrums. The people were in despair. We had walkaways. You couldn't give your house away. People were leaving, and there was no employment. Today Terrace is a booming community. Their problem today is not filling those houses that the people had walked away from; it's building them fast enough, as is the problem in the rest of the province, to accommodate our growing population. It's a population that isn't growing just at the normal rate of provincial growth, but through migration of other Canadians coming to this province.

Now I agree with you: it's a problem. We will be dealing with it. I'd like to tell you that over and above the housing programs now, our housing construction starts continue at an accelerated rate over the large number of houses built last year. It's impossible for us to completely remove ourselves from the national climate of high interest rates. That's one of the difficulties we've got: the high interest rates of the federal government. It's difficult for a provincial government to utilize the taxes of our citizens, Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), to counteract a federal financial policy of high interest rates.

That's the point I was making. We were trying to get them to change their economic policies from federally initiated policies to truly national policies that would be developed in concert with the provinces, over three and four years ago. That's when we talked about many of the financial proposals we made that dealt with a lot of recommendations that were made by the Economic Council and economists. They weren't dreamed up in some fuzzy world that you like to describe as Social Credit, They were a real attempt to try and deal, as we could as a government concerned about our province and our country, with something about the economy.

Sometimes you can't wrap the correct solutions in good political slogans. Perhaps political sloganeering is part of the problem we have in this country. The good political pitchman whose political speeches often sound like those that you would get from the fellow selling salad-makers at the circus — perhaps they catch the people's attention and prevent some politicians and some governments from undertaking the very real tough decisions that have to be made.

I have to say that the decisions will not be popular in this country. We witnessed it with the Clark federal government. They tried to talk tough. They talked about a gasoline tax increase of 18 or 19 cents, and they were turned out by a party who said that they wouldn't do it. Now the gasoline costs have gone up by the federal government much more than those proposed.

Mr. Member for Coquitlam-Moody, you know both the federal and the provincial scenes, and you know the national energy policy is a large part of our problem.

In British Columbia we also have the high cost of social services. There's no doubt that in many cases we're the cutting edge for the rest of the country in costs and salaries. We have the highest salaries and wages in the country. That reflects in the cost to government and in the ability of the government to serve us.

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned taxation in his remarks. He talked about a fall in resource revenue as a measure of whether the province was prosperous or not. He didn't relate it to people working or to a decrease in unemployment or employment. As a socialist and a government operator, he only relates it to what income you can get to government. I think it's very dim in his memory. If many thought he had forgotten. Let them be reminded by his attitude today that the mining-tax proposals of his government put people out of work. I've often said, and I'll say it again, that the hand of government in an area such as forestry and resources where there are escalating world prices…. We don't set the prices in B.C. We're selling primarily outside the province. The hand of the government should not be so big in the pot that it inhibits the ability of those firms to continue operating and of the people to continue working.

It was a point that the former government and the present Leader of the Opposition still miss. Our commitment is more to people working than to government being part of the problem and having taxation so onerous like the Mineral Royalties Act which you brought in. In effect, it would be there whether markets were high or low and then force companies to shut down and lay off people, because you cared more about big government and going out and saying how much you could tax the companies, if only they were working. We remember that, but let it now be made clear to those who thought that the leopard had changed his spots. They still have the very same philosophy. They measure everything in how much government can suck out of an economy, regardless of whether it hurts people, forces business to shut down or creates unemployment.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) giggles and says: "Where were you?" I'll tell you what. You want to talk about businesses. We've had a record number of incorporations of new small businesses coming into this province each and every year. With over 20,000 new small businesses starting last year, this year we have an increase of between 30 and 40 percent in the number of new companies over last year.

I want to tell you something. Mr. Leader of the Opposition and Mr. NDP. British Columbia was the only province in all of Canada last year where we had a reduction in bankruptcies. And you don't care about that. He frowns because that's not important. He says: "What does it mean in revenue to government? That's only people. That's only small business."

You may think about your big-government revenues and ways in which you can suck the revenue out of the people. You may stand up and make a speech about how forest revenue or mineral revenue is down. Well, I'll tell you, it's very simple: the international prices are down, and we have a tax on profits. But I'll tell you what: those people are still working. They haven't been driven out of the province as they were in 1974 and 1975. The hand of government hasn't scooped for so much that business and people were driven out. They're still working. The facts speak for themselves: more people working, lower rates of unemployment.

We talk about taxes. I can remember when we had some great debates about the tax on small business. I can remember an organization going around this province in the last election saying they were independent — Mr. Len Friesen, a good friend — supporting the NDP. I'm waiting for his congratulatory letter, because of course he knows that it was the New Democratic Party and the Finance minister of that day — if I

[ Page 6560 ]

can remember who was Finance minister — who brought in the capital tax that taxed not only the equity but the debt borrowed to provide the equity of small business.

This government has reduced and taken all those small businesses off the iniquitous capital tax that hurt small business. Businesses that had to borrow money…. Can you believe it? Little businesses. They didn't tax just the money they put in for shares; they taxed the money they had to borrow at the bank. Who introduced it? Can you remember? Who remembers who introduced that? Well, we've reduced that, and that's part of the figures where the Leader of the Opposition says we've reduced taxes on business. You're darned right. And small business now has one of the lowest rates it has ever had in British Columbia — 8 percent of provincial taxation. But I would suppose that's part of the reduction that the Leader of the Opposition opposes.

The tax on business is reduced, yes. Small business in this province gets a break — it gets a big break. We have reduced the tax on small business, yes. I will be willing to go out and share that information with the people — that you oppose those things we've done to assist the development of small business, which has helped to create the employment. Because I guess it's not just the people who are struggling to start those businesses; it's the ones who are working.

You know, most people don't want to deal with your big government or big revenues when you talk about this. They'd rather have a job and earn and pay their own way. That's what most people in this province want. That's why I think that while things aren't perfect in this province economically — and I readily admit that — compared to both the national economic situation and the international economic situation as it applies to North America, British Columbia is better off than it was in the years 1975, '74 and '73, and it's certainly better off than it has ever been.

I think that those are the things, as I talk to British Columbians around this province…. It may be that some don't wish to listen to the people but wish to sell them their own version. The people are going to be very skeptical of people who not only keep predicting things to them that don't turn out to be true, but keep telling them that things are bad when now they've got a job, they don't have to abandon their house and they've got more equity than they had before. I think they're going to question it.

Sure, we've got a lot to do, and this government will continue to do it. And we'll seek advice. I seek advice from the opposition. You don't have to tell me the problems; I know the problems. I'd like some advice on some of the solutions. We'd be very appreciative in this House to receive suggestions.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members will have an opportunity to speak when they are recognized.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that in those areas there has been a lot of improvement in British Columbia.

MR. LAUK: I'll just take a couple of minutes. I'm very flattered that several times during the past three or four years the Premier and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) have quoted a speech of mine that was three or four years old.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Two years? Well, I always enjoy hearing my own speeches; there's no question about it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It must be that you give the same speech every two years.

MR. LAUK: Well, no, I don't have to. Obviously, I just give it once, and you'll give it three or four times. I wonder why the Premier and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs flatter me by reading out the speech so often. I think they're a little bit worried by the warning in there for this government.

The Premier talks about federal spending and provincial spending. He talks about the inflation-fuelled economy caused by the federal government. In fairness, it should be pointed out that the largest percentage increase in government spending in Canada in the past two years has been here in British Columbia. The most fantastic increase in government spending has been right here under the stewardship of this Premier.

In August 1979 I said that massive public and private debt would bring about an increased cost of housing, inflation and interest rates would make housing inaccessible. Therefore people would not be able to sell their homes, and foreclosures would take place. I warned the government of the day that unless they brought back the Housing Corporation and housing programs, the people would be left unprotected. The Premier asked for advice. I gave him advice two years ago; I gave him advice four or five years ago. Did he listen to the advice from the hon. member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) a month or two ago in estimates when he talked about the housing crisis? — not a word in response. He wants advice but he doesn't listen to it.

He says there's a reduction in bankruptcies this year in British Columbia and that the number is the lowest anywhere in the country. That's because in the previous two years it was the highest anywhere in the country. There aren't any businesses left to go bankrupt, after the two years prior to last year. Small businesses starting out — he's talking about incorporations. If I've heard that old saw once from that side of the House I've heard it a hundred times. Anybody can incorporate a company. They incorporate companies every day. Husbands and wives incorporate companies, one against the other and another on the side, and you've got a little business incorporating three or four times in a year. What does that mean? It means nothing. It means that we lawyers make a lot of money incorporating companies. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the economy. It's not an indicator for the economy. The Conference Board in Canada — no economic institute, no economic advisers anywhere in the country use incorporations as a measure of economic development. No one except the Premier of the province of British Columbia uses them. Why? Because it's just a front.

There is massive debt. This side of the House predicted the problems that this government would be in when there was massive debt, and they have ignored us. I said that anyone who buys stocks and bonds would be unwise to do so in an economy that was fuelled by inflation. But I will say this: I had no idea how important my advice was to the average BCRIC shareholder. The Premier of this province said: "You've got to learn about stocks. You've got to learn about the stock exchange." The other day the member for

[ Page 6561 ]

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) said: "It's the great casino in the sky. It's a sacred institution — the stock exchange on Howe Street." Everybody down there should be wearing masks today. Who is that masked man who just sold us the BCRIC shares? I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman. The only person who benefited was the man who looted the BCRIC treasury, aided and abetted by, and with the knowledge of this government — that was Edgar Kaiser Jr. He looted the BCRIC treasury. He looted it in front of our very eyes. And this Premier has the nerve to stand up and quote one of my speeches and say: "Well, you know, gold has gone down," or something like that.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I gave a solemn warning then to a group of friends — and I say so in this chamber — that this government has not acted responsibly. I blame the federal government too, but this government cannot escape responsibility. Massive debt, public and private, if tolerated, fuels inflation and causes a disruption in the economy that will increase foreclosures and bankruptcies. It can be avoided with good, sensitive people policies, which this government ignores. Accept advice? Never! His eyes are closed and he's deaf and dumb when it comes to policies for people. But when it comes to giving breaks to big corporations, he's all ears and all eyes.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has learned a few things since being elected to the Legislature. I don't think he's as good a politician as his father was, but certainly his speaking ability has improved. I congratulate him for that. He has learned a few other things too. He has learned that when he's under attack and challenged to account for the performance of his government, it is useful to use a political diversion. The Premier frequently does that. When he's challenged to account for the record of his government today, he reverts to the NDP years of 1972 to 1975 or some other era in British Columbia's history rather than taking the onus which he holds as Premier of this province to account for the economy, to account for the social fabric of the community today.

He quoted my colleague the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). He quoted from a speech wherein certain predictions were made, and he said that was only a year and a half or two years ago — in August 1979. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to the Premier that he might well have quoted from a business editorial in the Vancouver Sun, dated June 18, 1981 — just last month, not a year and a half ago. "B.C.'s Outlook: Inflation Cited, Less Immigration. B.C.'s economic growth rate, bogged down by inflation, the ills of trading partners and housing affordability problems, will not nearly equal that of the past two years, a B.C. central credit union analysis released Wednesday predicts."

The Premier is fond of talking about all of the in-migration, the population explosion, and the jobs created in the province of British Columbia. Some rudimentary homework, Mr. Chairman, would show the Premier that over the historical prospective the in-migration to the province of British Columbia, despite economic circumstances, has been in excess of 3 percent, the highest in the nation. That has something to do with the lovely province that we are fortunate enough to live in. It has something to do with the climate — not the political climate. Mr. Chairman, but the climate per se.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Is that why they left when you were government? Were the trees less green when you were government?

MR. KING: I know when I talk about climate the wind starts to blow from the north. But it is not that kind of hot air that attracts people to the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I will ask all hon. members not to interrupt the member who is now speaking.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the same business analysis done by the central credit union of British Columbia and published just last month in the Vancouver Sun has this to say: "The province's 14.2 percent inflation rate. fuelled by last year's enormous growth in greater Vancouver housing prices, is now the highest in North America. It will remain relatively high in 1981, not only in Canada but in North America." And the Premier gets up and brags about the healthy state of the economy.

Well, Mr. Chairman. I can understand that. You're a rich kid from Kelowna: you're not bothered by inflation. You make money on it. All of the 14 millionaires on that side of the House think inflation is wonderful. They see their bank accounts bulge. But I want to tell him that the working people of the province, the majority of whom are unorganized and not enjoying the protection of a trade union, but slaving under the pitifully low minimum wage law in this province, don't think it is funny. They are not very comfortable with the highest rate of inflation in North America. They can't afford a home in this province. The young people in the province today do not have a ghost of a chance of owning their own home in the foreseeable future. Look at what interest rates are: 21 percent. Inflation is the highest in North America, and the Premier gets up and tries to talk about the problems of 1972-75. We have never seen a situation in British Columbia before where there has been no prospect for young people who are just married to own their own home. Never in the history of our province has that kind of sick economic situation obtained. If the Premier is proud of presiding over that, then he has a distorted point of view and a completely distorted view of what his responsibility is, as the head of government. for the general economic good of the people of this province.

He talks about being cooperative and receiving advice. I have never seen anyone in this chamber before who is so obsessed with personal, political animosity toward the leader of another party that he cannot in any way debate the issues that are put forward in current terms. They chortle away over there The total substance of the Premier's speech when he, got up, was to attack the Leader of the Opposition — to revert back to the fact that the New Democratic Party was in office between 1972 and 1975, and isn't that too bad. "Isn't that too bad," by a rich kid who thinks he has a God-given right to govern in this province. Somebody talked about someone who was handed the reigns of a political party on a platter and about manipulation of the by-election in Kamloops. That man, if his name had been Smith. would never have been leader of the Social Credit Party. If his name had been Chabot, he would never have been leader of the Social Credit Party. But he was the son of the former Premier, and it was handed on as a dynasty. For him to get up and talk about

[ Page 6562 ]

manipulation of nominations is just a bit much. We are not the party that accommodated renegades from every rag-tag political party in this province. You were the ones. Liberals, assorted Tories and other assorted malcontents found a home simply through his lust for power. For him to get up and preach about handing over nominations is just a bit too much to take.

The Premier should have addressed himself to the issues raised by the Leader of the Opposition, which were issues of concern about the economic condition that people face today. I think it's instructive that when people cannot afford a home of their own anywhere in the city of Vancouver — and certainly in Victoria, for that matter — we see increases in travel and furniture allowances for the cabinet of this government increased a total of $81,936,012 in the current year. That is totally for travel expenses, new office furniture and new buildings for the staff that this government continues to increase. But there is no affordable housing for the citizens of the province of British Columbia. We see cuts in home care in virtually every community in this province where home care cannot be obtained by citizens who need that kind of care. As a result, they have to go into acute-care facilities in hospitals at three times the rate and the cost to government, simply because this government places less priority on people and their human needs than they place on the profits of the corporations that they owe their political allegiance to.

It's as simple as that. The Premier got up and said: "The NDP would tax corporations, chase them out of the province and dry up jobs." The fact of the matter is that the employment rate grew in steady fashion during our years in office. We never intervened in the private sector to the extent that we said to Canadian Pacific Railway, a Canadian company, that they weren't welcome in British Columbia. We didn't say that to any company in the private sector. That Premier did. Then he talks about the responsibility for the inflationary crisis facing this province and for the crisis of shelter accommodation and interest rates. He blames that all on Ottawa. It's all extraneous forces. It's nothing to do with the Premier's mandate. If that's correct, how is it that he points the finger at the New Democratic government for the responsibility of extraneous economic factors from 1972 to 1975? You can't have it both ways.

How is it that this Premier is trying to persuade the Legislature that he is a voice of reason on the national scene, and he's trying to influence bank rates and fiscal policy at the federal level? How is it that he introduces those requests to the federal government by calling the Prime Minister of Canada an arsonist on a number of occasions? What basis is that, Mr. Chairman, for the leader of a province to elicit the support and the sympathy and indeed the ear of the Prime Minister of Canada when he stands and accuses him of being an arsonist? Certainly I hold no brief for the Prime Minister of Canada or his party. It is not our group that has accommodated the Liberals. They're in the ranks of that group over there as a trade-off.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is a renegade Liberal; the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is a renegade Liberal; that guy down there who pretends to be a maverick, the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), is a renegade Liberal from the federal. I believe there's another one. Oh, yes, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) is another renegade Liberal, and was once the leader of the Liberal Party in this province. But to accommodate a lust for power, they were willing to form a coalition with that rag-tag group over there which happily accommodated any political view so long as it was anti-NDP, anti-people. Their philosophy is clear and the division of opinion is clear in this House. Their view is: relieve taxation on the corporations, the theory being that they'll create more jobs and some of the benefits will trickle down to those poor unwashed people out there. Our philosophy is that we have resources in this province that are owned jointly by all of the people of the province. The forests, the oil and the minerals are owned jointly by the people. And we believe that the major bulk of social capital should come from the development of those resources, not off the backs of the working people and the senior citizens. That's the debate.

The Leader of the Opposition has outlined the spectacular increase in costs of taxation on the average working person in the province. He hasn't outlined them all; how can you keep pace with them? Costs are going up on every front, from ferry rides to automobile insurance to medicare costs to hospitalization to sales tax — you name it. This government has gouged people, and they believe in gouging people so they can protect their friends who pay their slush funds to their political campaigns. That's what it's all about.

What we are debating, Mr. Chairman, is some balance. Certainly we need a kind of climate in which industry can function, but we say it's disproportionate, unfair and inequitable to heap the burden of the total costs of government on the people in your drive to protect your friends in the business community. I'm sure that the banks of this province and of the nation are doing very well with their usurious interest rates. Everyone has seen the record of their profits. Everyone has seen the records of profits from petroleum companies. They aren't bad: 90 percent or 100 percent in some cases. Yet the working people trying to reach out their hand to obtain an increase in pay to keep pace with the spiralling cost of interest, the spiralling rise of inflation, are discouraged by this government. They say: "You're being greedy. You're being selfish. Be modest." They increase the sales tax and costs but they expect working people to be moderate in their demands. What a double standard! It's fine for millionaires; that's why you don't understand it. You've 14 millionaires sitting in the cabinet.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Name names!

MR. KING: No, I'm not going to name names. I've got nothing against that except to say that it makes you pretty insensitive to the workaday problems that the average homekeeper and working person in this province have to cope with. It's pretty difficult. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is not one of them — I can vouch for that — and he knows what it's like to make ends meet for a large family on a moderate income. It's very difficult. When we see the constant increases in taxes and in all of the government services that people must rely on, yet a decline in corporate taxes, as the leader of my party has pointed out, by 37 percent, then we say it's inequitable, unfair and unjust. This government should be condemned by all of the people of the province for striking that kind of approach to managing the economy of British Columbia.

I want to comment on a couple of other things, Mr. Chairman. The Premier is getting very good at diverting. He failed to be accountable for any direct question about the government's performance. It's always, "Well, compared to

[ Page 6563 ]

somewhere else we're not doing bad," or "The NDP was worse back in 1975." Well, let's put that debate aside for a moment, even if we were worse. Say we stipulate that just to accommodate the Premier's pettiness. How about, just for once, having the Premier stand up and account for his stewardship of this government over the last six years. That's what he's here for and that's what parliament is all about. We could all hearken back to some era, I suppose, that would improve our stature or our stock politically, but that's not what responsible government is about. That's not what these legislative sessions are about. I got a kick out of the answers we received today when we talked about the Premier's joyride on the ferry which he is seconding from the citizens of the province — the citizens who pay the tax bill. His minister got up and he said: Well, these are very important people. The Premiers are very important people. Well, I grant that, sure. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that there are more important people out there. They are the ones who pay the bills. They are the taxpayers. And yes, Mr. Chairman, they are the ones who either vote a government in or vote it out. The minister and the Premier should not forget that.

The other comment that the minister made was that they're very good friends. Are we to see ferries and other services paid for with taxpayers money — albeit in a strange Social Credit way — pulled out of the public service domain to accommodate friends of this government? Does that answer imply that they have some kind of higher status than the average citizen who pays the tax bill in this province? What a strange and brazen and contemptuous attitude for a minister of the Crown to put forward in this House. What kind of a convoluted attitude and perception of the role that a minister should have to serve the people of this province. I'm shocked and amazed, Mr. Chairman, that it came from a veteran Social Crediter; I would have expected better from him. But, you know, these little answers give a glimpse of the attitude that explains this government; it's an attitude that does not meet the standards that I think the people of the province of British Columbia are entitled to. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that unless the Premier starts answering in some intelligent, concise way for the problems which beset the economy now, and for the programs that his government is planning to introduce now to cope with those problems, then the people of the province are not going to forget the kind of contemptuous attitude that this government is ever-increasingly showing in the province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we understand quite clearly what the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is advocating: that government members or legislative members from across the country shouldn't travel free on our ferries. If the Premiers and ministers from those provinces meeting on an annual basis, as they do in every other province where the tradition is for the province to extend the courtesies of that province to the conference…. They're saying that it is an affront to the people because they're riding for nothing. I suppose that argument could be taken to mean that MLAs shouldn't ride free on the ferries. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition travels free on the ferry — he brought it up. Whose place do you take when you travel on the ferry?

MR. BARRETT: No, we travel with people.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Anyone behind you in the line?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm only trying to deal with the argument from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. Is he concerned about talk of increases in government — about what it costs? Is he saying that MLAs' expenses for their travelling to do the people's business should not only not be increased but taken away?

I want to mention something about that ferry trip, because that's a very interesting argument which I will take into account. Let me just point out what is happening with the Premiers' conference. I think it's important for all to know that while it's good political fun to perhaps play some politics with it. I have now had the opportunity, as Premier, of attending a number of Premiers' conferences and first ministers' conferences on behalf of the people of B.C. I think the Premiers' conferences have been in Alberta, New Brunswick, Quebec, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Each of those host provinces, as Canadians and in dealing with their other governments, have extended the courtesy of their province to make sure that the meetings were a success and easily facilitated a lot of busy people who had come a long way to talk about how to try to resolve some of the questions and problems that have been raised here today. When you talk about high interest rates and inflation, they are national in scope and nature — in fact even international.

I want to say this about the ferry. I want to make it clear how much greater the disruption would be…. First of all, the conference of the Premiers is going to be held in three places. It's going to be held in Victoria; it's going to be held on the ferry going across to Vancouver; and the conference will conclude in Vancouver. If we had tried to move a total conference with the large number of people who attend — not only Premiers and ministers but others…. I'm sure that the former government remembers these conferences well. We would have disrupted far more people in the ferry lines trying to move a whole conference with meeting rooms from its Victoria location. meeting en route and meeting in Vancouver, as we will be doing.

We would have disrupted the long holiday lines and we would have disrupted the ordinary people — as you put it. I've never found anyone who considers himself ordinary, but it makes a good political term for some people. If would be more disruptive to those wanting to travel than taking the route in long-term planning of asking the Ferry Corporation to schedule out a vessel and be able to book those requests that came in for that date both before and after. Disrupting total ferry lineups and leaving people abandoned as you moved a total conference across the Gulf of Georgia in one of the regular routes would have been far more disruptive, both to British Columbians and tourists.

This other way is not disruptive. It allows for the conference to maintain intact and continue to meet on a needs basis on those items on both the public and private agendas. The conference is more than just agenda items between the Premiers. It's an opportunity to expand on some of the ideas that others have. They may not be of your political philosophy. In a non-partisan atmosphere — which may seem strange to the members across — members from four different parties across Canada are able to try to reason together to come to grips with the problems that face our country.

[ Page 6564 ]

The use of the ferry would be less disruptive to local people, British Columbians and tourists. I'm sure that now having had an opportunity to think fully about the situation, which perhaps could have been done before they spoke, the opposition as well will understand very clearly that the other way would have been disastrous. I guess they're not suggesting that government members should not ride free on the ferries. Maybe that's what the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) suggested — that expenses and things were too much for MLAs. So I'll take that under consideration.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke also asked: "Why do you keep comparing to the former NDP government?" I only did in a very short part of my remarks. I was trying to respond directly to remarks, suggestions and allegations; very few questions were addressed to me.

Let me say that one way to assess the British Columbia economy is by assessing the atmosphere of the Canadian economy within which it works. All you've got to do to assess the economic performance of the British Columbia economy under a provincial government is to assess how it fared during its term of office in relationship to the rest of Canada. What I think you'll find is that during the years 1972-75, the unemployment and inflation rates were higher here. You actually had a stronger average Canadian economy in a number of indices than you did in British Columbia. Yet the reverse is true now. I'll give you a couple of points about the current economic situation in British Columbia.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: B.C.'s economic growth — I'm sure this is easily understood by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes)….

MR. BARNES: Here's a file. Do you want to read the case of a baby that was out on the street with no place to sleep because of your housing policies?

AN HON. MEMBER: Emery, pipe down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, there will be ample time for all hon. members to debate during Committee of Supply.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In 1980 B.C. grew at a rate of 3.6 percent compared to 0.1 percent for the Canadian economy. This will give you some idea of how the British Columbia economy as a whole performed. I think that if you go back to 1975, you will find that the British Columbia economy had a slower growth rate than the Canadian economy. You will find that the relative position of British Columbia in the Canadian context has improved considerably. These are federal statistics. They are not mine. There are so many of them that bear witness to this, Mr. Chairman, that it makes me wonder why people would argue against them, unless they really believe that in arguing against them they will make people believe they don't exist. These are there for all Canadians and all British Columbians to see. Those who deny their existence or who argue in some obtuse way that they aren't correct have only to get the same set of data that is available to us from Statistics Canada.

You have got to be proud of the way British Columbia has responded in a difficult situation. As I said, British Columbia, with 11 percent of Canada's population, had 25 percent of all the housing starts in Canada last year. British Columbia, with 11 percent of Canada's population had 22 percent of all the new jobs created last year.

MR. BARNES: How many people are looking for houses? How many of them are children?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre will have an opportunity to take his place in the debate, but not now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The second member for Vancouver Centre has requested where he can find a house. I understand there is one for sale in Point Grey, or perhaps three. Oh, it's been sold.

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, while it is difficult this year and I acknowledge the inflation rate and the way we are heading — for five straight years the British Columbia inflation rate has been below the Canadian average. In 1980 it was 9.4 percent versus 10.1 percent. The previous years were 7.7 percent and 7.7 percent. I don't have all the figures here as to the higher Canadian average. After five years of improved performance relative to the Canadian economy, 1981 has started off badly. There is no doubt that we have to provide some provincial answers as well as policies which must be developed on the national level. Those are areas in which the government is assessing and developing additional programs right now.

I also want to say, in answer to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) — the little one….

MR. BARNES: Don't judge everybody by your own attitude about stature. He's a big man, even at five feet.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You'd have murdered him on the football field.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, it was to do with the incorporation of companies. He argues as a lawyer — and these are his words not mine — that they incorporate paper companies, and they do this back and forth, and it means nothing to the real growth of the province. Gee, that's unusual for me. You know, up country where I come from people set up companies to go into business. When you tell them things are happening, all they've got to do is see all those new buildings being constructed and the new businesses going in, whether they have to do with food, services, industry or forestry. You see all these new businesses, and then you hear someone stand up over there and tell you what you see and what you read isn't true, because what he does as a lawyer is set up paper companies. It's a good thing that the rest of the people set up real companies in this province, because those are the companies that are employing the people.

I take exception to the fact that the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) — or maybe it was the member for Vancouver Centre — said he was glad that he advised people to buy gold and not buy on the stock market, because in the marketplace people are not willing to pay as much for B.C. Resources stock as was paid as a subscription price by those who chose to invest in the company. I think it might have been the first member for Vancouver Centre who said that. And then one of them went on to say that the only one who benefited from that was Kaiser Resources, who plundered the company, aided and abetted by this government. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that's a totally untrue statement. I take

[ Page 6565 ]

this opportunity to correct what was not only fanciful political rhetoric but a very untrue statement, because very clearly this government does not help make decisions in the boardrooms of the province but is often advised, out of courtesy, of major financial transactions. If we were asked to be the financial adviser for all the companies that advise the government out of courtesy of changes in ownership and expansion plans that take place in this province, we would have an inability to govern. It's not our role and wasn't our role, nor did we do that.

MR. BARNES: Did you advise the people to buy shares in B.C. Resources?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver Centre asked: "Is the Premier of this province proud of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation…?"

MR. BARNES: Did you advise the people to buy those shares?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Listen to me, my friend.

MR. BARNES: What do you mean, listen to you? I'm not your friend. I'm an hon. member in this House just like you. Don't refer to me as your friend. I'm not your friend. Be careful.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Premier will address the Chair, and if the second member for Vancouver Centre will cease his remarks until he's recognized, the debate will continue at an orderly pace.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would say, Mr. Chairman, that the second member for Vancouver Centre took offence when I called him my friend.

MR. BARNES: That's unparliamentary in this House.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It may be that he doesn't want to be my friend, but I will continue to be his friend, even though I may be the last friend he'll ever have.

Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about that because I want to clear the record. Let me say that I believe there's a great opportunity for every company operating in British Columbia under management…. While it gives me some personal satisfaction that people in the marketplace thought BCRIC was worth $9.50 when they thought I was running it, they think it's worth less now that they know it's being run by the private sector. That doesn't raise my ego very much, when I'd rather see those who are attacking the company for political reasons, because they think it'll bring them political gain…. They're frightening investment. Those who would invest in the company have a direct effect on what people may be willing to pay for the stock. It isn't comforting to me, Mr. Chairman, that those people are willing to harm little people in this province, small investors, by frightening out those who need all the assurance they can get. They scare them. And they're the people that listen to the politicians. They think they have some respect because they think that because they're here they're always right. They might expect us to always be right. but the difficulty is that when things are said for political gain that put a drain on the little people and scare them and frighten them, it's the same old politics of fear. Frighten the old people, frighten those who are in hospitals, frighten those who have invested: I guess it's good politics.

I just wonder when people are going to be the good British Columbians and Canadians they all stand up and talk about at their great July 4 speeches and other things, and when the partisan politics that prompt those statements will be seen for what they are. I would think there's a great opportunity for an opposition in this province that would operate on that basis. I think they'd have an opportunity not only to replace the opposition but to replace the government some day.

We talked about what is going to happen in the economy in this coming year. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) asked me about the forecast for 1981. Because of this government's policies, I want to say that our economists predict that the British Columbia economy will again expand by 3.5 percent, while the growth in Canada and the United States is expected to be in the order of 1 to 2 percent, with continued high levels of investment. That's an area that I haven't yet touched upon but which is perhaps a measure of the basis of our prosperity and increased employment in this province,

Last year we saw a record level of private sector investment in this province — about a 30 percent increase over the year before, which was substantial. We've seen a high level of private sector investment developing in this province as they gain both political and economic confidence in their ability not only to be allowed to do business but to have some reasonable opportunity. You see, something that party doesn't realize, with their hatred — except at election time or when it's politically convenient — of business and enterprise, and their answer that government is everything, is that that's the only engine. That's the engine that drives our economy and that's where the jobs are created. If they are not successful, people don't work, and you don't get any personal income tax or corporate income tax. and all the government revenue you talk about just won't be achieved. There have to be people working out there to be able to build the economy to pay the taxes. You've got to realize that there is some balance.

I got a laugh a little while ago when the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke was talking about us being the captive of big business. Well. for two years I have been reading where big business is mad at the Premier of this province, and on the same page they are saying that the leader of the New Democratic Party, in a three-piece blue suit, is now the darling of big business. He's having tea with them in the Vancouver Club and in the boardrooms of this province. Obviously the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke isn't aware of what his own leader is doing, because evidently he is telling them something that those big corporations want to hear. I just wish he'd share it with the rest of us, because the only thing we tell them is that they have to pay their way. They have to operate under the rules of the province. There is a great opportunity here for them. They get no special privileges, but they have an opportunity. The rules are clear, both politically and economically.

I wonder what it is then, in me saying that, that has got them so mad at me. And I wonder what it is that the leader of the New Democratic Party is saying to them that makes him their new darling. They now say that big business loves the New Democratic Party and is no longer fearful. I wonder,

[ Page 6566 ]

because exactly what we say and what we do are the policies of British Columbia. So, Mr. Chairman, let me say that this province….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) is memorable in this Legislature for saying, "The NDP make up their own facts," and that was an honest statement from that member. I agree with him. We'll all remember him. We'll never forget that. It's indelibly printed in Hansard for all the people to remember that that member said…. Did you say that you made up your own facts? Of course you did. Mr. Chairman, we all heard him.

MR. SKELLY: You're a liar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, while we can take exception to statements that are made by hon. members in the House, there are certain expressions that we are not parliamentary to use. I would ask the member to withdraw the direct statement….

MR. SKELLY: Unfortunately there is no equivalent that is parliamentary, Mr. Chairman, so I will withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Premier continues.

On a point of order, the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: On a point of order, would you also indicate to the House whether the expression "friend" is parliamentary in light of the Premier referring to the second member for Vancouver Centre as his friend at a time when he knows full well that we're all hon. members in this House and should be referred to as such. I would like your clarification on that as well, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will give that point of order the consideration it deserves.

The second member for Vancouver Centre on a new point of order.

MR. BARNES: No, Mr, Chairman, on the same point of order. I do not consider your remarks to be very humorous. I asked you to rule on whether "friend" was parliamentary, in light of the fact that we're to be referred to as hon. members in this House, each and every one. If I want to be a friend of the Premier I can do it on my private time. I would like to ask you to indicate to this House whether he is correct in referring to members of this House as "friend." I'm quite serious. I think that you should look at it in the same light as you did the remark by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) when he said that the Premier was possibly lying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Previous statements by the Chair are equally appropriate now, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: It's not a facetious remark, Mr. Chairman. Please address it as such.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The request by the member is one…. Again, hon. members, in committee or in the House we have traditionally referred to other members as hon. members or as members for particular constituencies. The Chair would find it very difficult, however, to rule that the word "friend" would be in any way unparliamentary. I'm sure that the member appreciates the difficult position that making such a ruling would put the Chair in. Nevertheless, hon. member, I have instructed that the term "hon. member" would be the appropriate one, and the point is made.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that all members are hon. members and all hon. members are my friends. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm trying to find out what's so funny about that. But that's fine. I'm such a nice, good humoured person, Mr. Chairman.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, a motion has been placed…

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do I have 15 more minutes here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: …which has now been withdrawn.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm pleased to be the soul of cooperation, Mr. Chairman.

Before we got diverted from what I was saying about what the member asked me about what would be happening in the economy in the future, not just the economic relationship of the past year…. Some members weren't in the House then. I notice some members have come in who may have some questions to which this answer may apply, so I'll allow them an opportunity to speak before I provide that answer.

MRS..WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I thought for a minute that the Premier was going to change his mind again and move adjournment, seeing that he didn't seem to have anything more to say.

It's been rather interesting listening to the Premier. He seems to somehow feel that the fiasco that has occurred with BCRIC in the last few months is all the responsibility of a few comments by some members of, the Legislature. Let me tell the Premier that some of the people I talk to are very concerned. People who took him at his word and went out and borrowed money to buy those hundred shares are now finding the value has dropped, and the Premier is saying it's none of his responsibility and none of his affair.

I'm interested too, unless I misheard, to find the Premier of the Legislature of British Columbia stand in his place and talk about people being out making their Canada Day speeches on July 4.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did I make, a mistake? July 1.

[ Page 6567 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Hansard will bear out whether you said the 4th or the lst, but I would think that the Premier of the province would know when Canada's birthday was, and not be so affected by our neighbours to the south as to confuse our birthdate with the birthdate of our neighbours the Americans.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was a slip of the tongue. I apologize. I'm a Canadian 365 days a year.

MRS. WALLACE: I'm surprised. They say a slip of the tongue is no fault of the mind, but I suspect that it is, in this case.

I'm interested to hear the Premier say that he doesn't consider himself a friend of big business. Certainly I think that corporations like Denison and Teck might have a different opinion, and I think that the taxpayers of British Columbia have a different opinion of the handouts that that government is giving to those kinds of corporations.

The reason that I wanted to participate in this debate has to do with a concern that is very close to me and a concern with which the Premier has involved himself over the last several years to some degree; that is, the preservation of our agricultural land. I want to go back to an editorial published in the Sun in October 1979: "Some Funny Goings-on in the Okanagan." It starts out: "There's a nasty smell rising from Okanagan Lake these days, and it's not from rotting fish or from milfoil." This had to do with the situation where there was a move to change the zoning of some of the rangeland from 65 hectares minimum to a much smaller size. This editorial estimates that the change could have generated a cool profit of somewhere between $50 million and $60 million in hard cash.

The section that I want to read relates to the Premier. It says: "The directors of the regional district are evidently undergoing a struggle with their consciences on this matter. Whether awed by the fact that Premier Bill Bennett's trust, the child of his brother R.J. and the brothers Joe, Herb and Tom Capozzi are among the 60 landowners who stand to benefit, the directors seem to be wavering." Certainly a lot of concern was raised about that by the Federation of Agriculture, by nine provincial civil servants, by the planners of the regional district and by many people who were concerned about that kind of change in the agricultural land reserve.

Maybe we wouldn't really be so concerned about that one little paragraph about the possible influence of the Premier, if that was all there was. But we go along a little later and in October 1980 we find the Premier up in Smithers saying: "It's ridiculous to think that B.C. can become self-sufficient in any food other than apples." This is a quote from the Smithers Interior News, Wednesday, October 1:

"In an interview last Wednesday in Smithers, where he made an overnight stop during his province tour, Bennett said the province had lots of land available for growing food and that land developers should be allowed to take good residential property out of the agricultural land reserve. He said: 'It's too tough to get land out of the ALR. I don't think anybody has to worry about losing agricultural land: there's plenty of land around.'"

That's the attitude he has evidenced about the agricultural land reserve. And there's not one knowledgeable person in this province that would back him up because we know that our agricultural land is less than 4 percent or 5 percent of our total area. Certainly the editor of the Smithers Interior News….

HON. MR. BENNETT: What's his name?

MRS. WALLACE: I have no idea what his name is, Mr. Chairman. He did an editorial in the same paper, and he said: "The statements made by the Premier of British Columbia in Smithers last Wednesday are either figments of a distraught mind or they are an indication of the most frightening policy directions yet brought down by the province."

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. That was this editor's interpretation. He concluded by dealing with the land reserve and he dealt also with the Kitimat situation. In the end he said: "The conclusions are obvious: either the Premier should resign, leaving the way clear for someone else to haul on the reins of a runaway team, or he should go to the people immediately." That was October 1980.

We didn't have to wait so long for the next time that the Premier came out in an attack against the ALR. It was April 1981. "Premier Bennett will take a new look at the B.C. Land Commission with an aim for allowing some agricultural land to be released for development. 'Bennett made a commitment during a recent meeting with the Kelowna city council,' the acting mayor said Monday." So that was April 1971.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Nineteen seventy-one!

MRS. WALLACE: April 1981. Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad you're listening.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Oh. there's the minister for Cargill piping up again, the Cargill Kid.

Yes, the wheel is just about to make a full turn, Mr. Chairman. Just two months later, in the Kelowna Courier, on June 13, 1981, the headline is "No Fine-Tuning ALR in Valley," but what does the Premier say? Let me read the article: "There are currently no plans by the B.C. Land Commission to fine-tune the agricultural land reserve boundaries in the Okanagan Valley this summer. Contrary to several statements to that effect by public officials, including Premier Bill Bennett, Bob Murdoch, the commission's general manager, said Friday he has 'no idea' when" there will be any fine-tuning. And rightly so, Mr. Chairman, because there have probably been more submissions and more applications from that Kelowna area than any other area in the province. It's been fine-tuned to death.

The regional district has come to the conclusion that they'd better start looking elsewhere, that that land is not going to be released. Even the developers have purchased land elsewhere and are asking that services be installed. But not the Kelowna city council and not that Premier, Mr. Chairman, because he's in there saying we're going to do some fine-tuning. What happened? Just a few weeks ago, under the Premier's auspices — and some other cabinet ministers had some input into it, I am sure — we found that the whole Land Commission was travelling around the Okanagan Valley. I would suggest that the Premier and some members of cabinet

[ Page 6568 ]

are getting a bit concerned about the number of times they have to overrule the Land Commission. They don't like that. It's bad publicity, because they have come to recognize that the public is in favour of our land reserve. When they have to overrule those unanimous decisions, it's a bit uncomfortable for them.

I would suggest that that Premier and that Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), who appoints those members of the Land Commission, are trying to put a bit of political influence on that Land Commission, and are trying to break them down. They're trying to get one or two members to change their decision on applications like Glenmore in Kelowna. There's lots of land for development there that is not ALR land. There's lots of room to move. Other towns have moved, other regional districts have moved, and Kelowna's hanging tough. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, who is going to make the money out of those changes and who is pushing that that land come out of the reserve. I suggest that there is political pressure being put on the Land Commission to make those changes, and I suggest that the Premier is very much a part of that pressure.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tabled the 1980 annual report of the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Government Services.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we adjourn, hon. members, on Tuesday last the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) rose on a matter of privilege relating to report No. 6 of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, which was by order received by the House on June 26 last, and in connection therewith stated that, as a member of that committee, he had no opportunity to discuss what the report would contain. The member further stated that the report appears incorrect, and that in presenting the report the Chairman of the committee had offended the privileges of the hon. members of that committee, and further suggested that the report would "mislead the members."

As I indicated to the House in connection with the same report and another matter of privilege raised relating thereto, it is noted in the twelfth edition of Sir Erskine May at page 63 that "both Houses of Parliament enjoy various privileges in their collective capacity as constituent parts of the High Court of Parliament which are necessary for the support of their authority and for the proper exercise of the functions entrusted to them by the constitution. Other privileges again are enjoyed by individual members which protect their persons and secure their independence and dignity."

The same author, in the eighteenth edition at page 342, states: "As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the prearranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied both that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed and that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity."

In determining whether or not the matter has been raised at the earliest opportunity, I have considered the fact that the report in question was received by the House on June 26, 1981, while the hon. member first raised the matter on June 30, 1981. In support of the rule that a matter of privilege which claims precedence over other public business must be a subject which has recently arisen, Sir Erskine May cites the following instances: "…a matter concerning an article in a newspaper published on May 6 was refused precedence because it was not raised till the 14th, and a speech reported on a Saturday because it was not raised until the following Tuesday…but again, when provincial newspapers appear in London on the morning of issue, the complaint should be raised on the day of issue."

It is clear, therefore, that the rule is one of very strict application. However, in view of intervening questions raised by other hon. members relating to the same report, the Chair might have been able to find the matter had been raised with sufficient promptness.

There is, however, a further impediment to a finding that this question could be placed before the House without the usual notice of motion. I refer hon. members to the eleventh edition of Sir Erskine May at page 273, where it is stated that a question of order in the House or in a committee thereof cannot be treated as a matter of privilege. In almost identical circumstances, on the motion to receive the report of a standing committee, objection was taken on a point of order that the report was, on the admission of the Chairman, not the whole report as made by the committee, that the same was incomplete and was not a report of the committee, and it could not be received. This objection was sustained by Mr. Speaker Weart and the report was thereupon withdrawn. See Speakers' Decisions, volume 2, at page 26.

The almost identical objections raised by the second member for Vancouver Centre could have been brought to the attention of the Chair on a point of order on the motion for receiving the report, and may not now be raised as a matter of privilege. Upon the authority cited there is no basis upon which the Chair is able to find a prima facie case of breach of privilege.

Hon. members, on Monday last, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in connection with the same report — No. 6 of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills — raised a further question while the Deputy Speaker was in the Chair in relation to the application of standing order 115. This order provides that the committee must state the grounds on which it arrived at a decision that the preamble of a private bill had not been proved to its satisfaction. Examples of grounds for the decision as contemplated in standing order 115 are given in Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedures and Practice, fourth edition, at page 609. One of the various grounds was cited: "Because no sufficient evidence was offered in favour of the preamble." A reading of the report in question discloses that the reason given was that the assertions in the petition are not substantiated, which very closely parallels the example cited by Bourinot. In any event, without going further into its adequacy or otherwise, the report was ordered received by the House on June 26 last. It therefore appears to the Chair that the content of the report would only be open for debate upon a motion made on notice for its adoption.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, on the last instruction, we are close to the end of this session. However, I will take your ruling immediately to the attention of the member who raised it. Perhaps since we are short, as I understand it, leave could be requested to follow your decision at the end. With that, Mr. Speaker, I welcome your

[ Page 6569 ]

decision. I will advise the member and anticipate leave being granted by the government.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:08 p.m.

ERRATUM:

In the issue Volume 12, Number 4 of Friday, June 19, 1981, morning sitting, at page 6313, first column, a speech was wrongly attributed to Ms. Brown.

Where the paragraph begins:

MS. BROWN: I want to ask the minister if he could tell….

The speech should read:

MS. BROWN: I want to ask the minister if he could tell me in terms of dollars what the end result of this new formula is. What exactly is going to happen now?

HON. MR. SMITH: The budget impact on that change in the 1982-83 budget year, which will be the first year that it's applicable, is estimated to be approximately S350,000. That is in revenue that has been lost to independent schools. as the member knows, arising out of transfers where students did not stay the full qualifying period. Quite often there were transfers within the independent school system. so two independent schools got no benefits. But that is the dollar impact.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

27 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 27) intituled Financial Administration Act, to amend as follows:

Section 21 (1), lines 1 and 2: By striking out "or has been prorogued or dissolved".

Section 29, line 8: By striking out "in the" and substituting "by".

Section 63, by adding the following subsection:

"(4) Where a demand is made on a third party under this section the Minister of Finance shall in the same manner and at the same time notify the debtor of the demand and give him the particulars of it."

Section 117, by deleting section 117 and substituting the following:

"117. section 139 (2) of the Labour Code, R.S.B.C. 1979, c. 212 is repealed."