[ Page 7923 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Expenses of Minister of Energy. Mr. Howard –– 7924

Fraser bridge closure and forest industry layoffs. Mr. Nicolson –– 7924

Alleged export of Prince Rupert groundfish. Mr. Lea –– 7925

Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act (Bill 16). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 2 –– 7926

Mr. Stupich

On section 4 –– 7928

Mr. Stupich

Third reading –– 7930

Corporation Capital Tax (Bank Rate Increase) Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 38). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 2 –– 7930

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. Gardom

Mr. Stupich

Third reading –– 7932

Forest Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 42). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Waterland)

On Section I –– 7932

Mr. King

On section 4 –– 7933

Mr. King

On section 7 –– 7934

Mr. King

On section 8 –– 7934

Mr. King

Mr. Gabelmann

On section 13 as amended –– 7936

Mr. King

On section 14 –– 7937

Mr. King

On section 16 –– 7937

Mr. King

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources estimates.

(Hon. Mr. McClelland)

On vote 28: minister's office (continued) –– 7937

Mr. D'Arcy

On the amendment to vote 28 –– 7937

Mr. Barber

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Howard

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Barrett

Mr. D'Arcy

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Levi

Mr. King

Mr. Mussallem

Appendix –– 7953

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We have in the gallery today two visitors who originally lived in Vancouver and now reside in West Vancouver. Will the House please welcome Mr. and Mrs. John Emerson.

MR. KING: I would like the House to join me in extending a belated welcome to a class of elementary school students from Falkland Elementary School who visited the House yesterday with their teacher, Mr. Hatch. Today we have a class from the Silver Creek Elementary School, here with their teacher Mrs. Georgette Clayton. I would ask the House to extend a welcome to them all.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: We're honoured to have in the House today a rare visitor, although he does come from time to time. He is a renowned B.C. television personality and a great tourism promoter for British Columbia, Mr. Jack Webster. I don't know whether or not this augurs well for the House, but I would ask you to welcome him.

I would also ask the record to show that this is the first time Mr. Webster has been known to blush.

MR. RITCHIE: It's always a pleasure for me to introduce guests from the Central Fraser Valley and it's a special pleasure today because we have with us in the members' gallery three wonderful ambassadors: the Miss Abbotsford-Matsqui Queen, Sandy Friesen, and her two princesses, Cindy Martens and Lisa Aleksic, accompanied by two of their mothers, Mrs. Friesen and Mrs. Martens. Would the House please extend a warm welcome to these girls.

MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like all members to welcome a good friend of our caucus, Mr. Fred Trestain, president of the Denturists Society of B.C.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: One reason I am rising on this matter is that I believe my estimates will be up reasonably shortly, and I'd like to have this matter of privilege dealt with before that. During a debate on a bill under my responsibility on May 27, there was some reference made to a petition and two proposed hydroelectric developments — the Keenleyside Dam and the Murphy Creek dam. I referred to the petition and mentioned that the petition had to do with both of those dams. I have had a chance to look at Hansard, and I do not dispute that those were the words I used.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the matter raised by the member is now in the hands of the Speaker for a ruling. It would be improper for this matter to be dealt with in any manner before the House until that ruling is down.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, when a member stands under a matter of privilege to make a statement in the House, the Speaker is duty bound to hear the matter.

MR. BARRETT: There's no dispute that under standing orders anyone has the right to make a statement on a matter of privilege. The subject of the statement is a matter before the Chair at this time, and I am pointing that out to the Chair. The House is awaiting the ruling from the Chair on that matter stated by the minister in terms of the date and the subject.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Standing order 39 does make a provision for a matter to be raised. Standing order 39 says: "If anything shall come in question touching the conduct of any member, or his right to hold his seat, he may make a statement, and shall withdraw during the time the matter is in debate." I commend that standing order to you; it is your standing order.

MR. BARRETT: On that point of order, the minister referred to the date that this matter came to the attention of the House and then proceeded to make a statement. As a consequence, a motion was made for Your Honour's consideration. In the midst of Your Honour's considering that matter of privilege, the matter is not to be reopened under standing order 39 when that opportunity was not taken at that time to deal with the issue, consequently leading to the matter before the table at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in Sir Erskine May's seventeenth edition, page 373 provision is made in regard to explanation of personal matters. May I just read it for you: "In regard to the explanation of personal matters, the House is usually indulgent and will permit a statement of that character to be made without any question being before the House provided that the Speaker has been informed of what the member proposes to say," and it has been given leave. Before the commencement of public business is the proper place for such statement to be made, and "no debate should ensue thereon." Hon. members, I'm not sure that this is exactly the area under which the minister seeks the floor. However, at least until we determine whether or not that is the area, we should hear the matter.

MR. BARRETT: I did not rise under a point of order until the matter was heard. First, there was no leave asked, as you point out Sir Erskine May requests. Secondly, once raised, the matter became of concern to me as a member, due to the fact that standing order 39 and the reference from Sir Erkine May do not deal with a matter that has already been formally presented to the Chair to deal with.

The Chair has not dealt with this matter. In the midst of the Chair's deliberating on this matter, the minister wishes to raise a matter that is presently in front of the Chair. In my opinion it is out of order. No standing order or ruling that I'm aware of allows any member to raise a matter that is under consideration under a motion of privilege, without that motion first having been heard.

MR. SPEAKER: I appreciate the observations of the hon. Leader of the Opposition. In order that we comply with the precedents that have been established, perhaps what we

[ Page 7924 ]

should do, under the provisions of page 373 of the seventeenth edition, is at least comply with this other recommendation of Sir Erskine May: that is, to ask whether or not leave can be granted to proceed with the matter.

Leave not granted.

Oral Questions

EXPENSES OF MINISTER OF ENERGY

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Inasmuch as he made a visit to the city of New York on June 11, 1980, I ask the minister if on that day he was met at the airport by a chauffeur-driven Cadillac and transported therefrom to the Plaza Hotel.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, as the members could recognize, that's a reasonably long time ago. I would like to be able to check through all of my records for the various days in question, take that question as notice and bring back an answer at the earliest possible opportunity.

MR. HOWARD: I have an additional question, then, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the House if the limousine was kept on standby by the minister for a period of 10 3/4 hours on that day at a total cost of $317.93, and whether the minister would not have found it cheaper to get in from the airport by regular transportation — say by a taxi?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, since the member is obviously — or at least appears to be — quoting from vouchers which he has obtained in one way or another, I would like the opportunity to have those vouchers as well and have a look at them. It would have been possible to have had those vouchers on the table at the public accounts committee so that we could all have discussed them. But since I haven't had that opportunity, Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice, and I make a pledge to the House to bring back an answer as quickly as possible.

MR. HOWARD: It's passing strange that the minister was the one responsible for blocking access to the vouchers.

MR. SPEAKER: No debate; the question, please.

MR. HOWARD: I'll ask the minister another question: on that particular day in question did the minister host a group of New York residents at a Broadway show at a cost to the taxpayers of British Columbia of some $373.69?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, obviously, since the member is quoting from those vouchers, access has not been blocked, or he wouldn't have them. I have not had the same opportunity. I would like to study them all and I will come back to the Rouse with an answer to that question at the earliest opportunity.

MR. HOWARD: I ask the minister another question to which I'm sure he will know the answer out of his memory without having to check documents. Does the minister recall that the Broadway show in question was called Sugar Babies and was identified and described by one of the stars therein as a burlesque?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is there a question there or is that information?

MR. HOWARD: That's a question, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the questions which I would like to take on notice are those which refer directly to the ministerial responsibility of my office. I have taken some of those questions as notice and will bring those answers back to the House at the very earliest opportunity.

MR. HOWARD: I ask another question of the minister, then. I ask the minister if he was aware at the time or is now aware that the tickets for that particular Broadway show, "Sugar Babies," were acquired through and from the firm of Herman Agar Co.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I don't have access to the material from which the member is reading. As soon as I am able to get access to that material I will bring an answer to this House at the earliest opportunity.

MR. HOWARD: I ask another question of the minister, then. I wonder if the minister, in his examination of those matters, could indicate his awareness that the Herman Agar Co. is a scalper that charges double the regular price for such tickets.

There's no answer to that question. I see the minister declines to answer that particular question.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the indications are that we know what the minister really did in New York on June 11, at a cost of $1,298 of the taxpayers' money for a one-night stand. I wonder if the minister could tell the House what business was discussed during the "Sugar Babies" show.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I don't have access at this moment to any of the vouchers which that member has had full and free access to. I have guaranteed that I will get access to them, study them and bring a full answer to this House at the earliest opportunity.

MR. HOWARD: I just have one other question. While it may be that the minister was not in New York for a very long time on that occasion, are we entitled to assume that he was there for a good time?

FRASER BRIDGE CLOSURE AND FOREST INDUSTRY LAYOFFS

MR. NICOLSON: Is the Minister of Forests there? Oh, he is there. Sit up straight, lad. I would like to ask the Minister of Forests a question concerning last Saturday's fire on the railway bridge at New Westminster, which resulted in the swing bridge being closed for an undetermined length of time for the convenience of inspectors, thereby stopping barge traffic travelling up and down the river. Because this closure has rendered the Fraser unnavigable, a result has been the imminent shutdown of the Whonnock's Mackenzie Mills and the Hammond mill, employing 500 workers. It also affects the shutdown at the Crown Zellerbach plant, which employs 750 workers. In view of the fact that this amounts to an additional 1,250 workers being laid off in the province, why has the minister not taken steps to ensure that the swing bridge remains in the open position?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Surely the member is not asking me, as the Minister of Forests, to see that a Canadian National bridge is kept open on the Fraser River.

[ Page 7925 ]

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Nelson-Creston has a further question?

MR. NICOLSON: I am giving answers to questions, Mr. Speaker. The answer is yes, I do expect that the Minister of Forests would be concerned about the layoff of a further 1,250 workers.

Has the minister decided that he will undertake, on behalf of the forest industry — which he represents — to point out to the authorities responsible for the closure of this bridge that while it may be convenient for their inspections to leave it in a closed position, it is further hampering the economy of British Columbians, and that it is in the best interests of the industry that it be left open and inspected, even if by helicopter?

BON. MR. WATERLAND: The member is completely in error. I do not represent the forest industry. I represent the people of British Columbia in the Legislature, and I represent the forest resource of British Columbia. I'll have that member know that we are in the process of creating 10,000 short-term jobs in the forest industry by the expenditure of $40 million in federal and provincial funds in order to help people during these difficult times.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May we have order so that we can proceed with another question.

ALLEGED EXPORT OF PRINCE RUPERT GROUNDFISH

MR. LEA: The Minister of Environment who informed the House last week that the economic development committee of cabinet would be meeting yesterday to discuss the closure of the groundfish operation in Prince Rupert. Did the meeting take place? Does the minister have anything to report today to the House?

BON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, the economic development committee did meet. However, there wasn't sufficient time to discuss all the matters. In addition, there has been a further complication in the issue because of the shutdown of the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative's groundfish processing line in Prince Rupert. With the shutdown of that particular line and their decision to export their groundfish from Canada to the United States, which is going on right now. I have asked staff in my ministry to investigate. It is contrary to the policy of the government to allow groundfish to be exported for processing while there are processing facilities in British Columbia which could handle that particular product. Additionally, I have been in contact with federal Fisheries and Oceans, and they are checking their regulations to find out whether or not it is possible.

It is also further complicated by the fact that the labour negotiations that have taken place in Prince Rupert to deal with the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Cooperative may have had some bearing on their decision to shut down their groundfish line on a temporary basis, rather than on the permanent basis which they are insinuating. I am at this time getting more information on it; maybe I can be of more assistance to the member.

MR. LEA: I'd like to thank the minister for the answers that he's given, but I point out that what was a grave situation in Prince Rupert is now a desperate situation. The reason that the companies gave for closing down those groundfish operations were that it wasn't profitable, as there was no market. We now find out that there is a market, that they are processing the fish at Imperial in Vancouver, and yes, the minister is absolutely correct, they are taking fish across into Bellingham, Washington and processing it down there. Obviously there is a market.

I ask the minister the question that I asked before: has the government now decided that it is the policy of the government of British Columbia to stop the high-grading of fish in this province? Has the government reached that conclusion?

BON. MR. ROGERS: No, but perhaps I could assist the member with a misleading statement that he makes — or maybe it is just a confusion. The fact is that fish can be exported from the lower mainland into the fresh-fish market in the United States, which cannot be done from Prince Rupert under the present transportation arrangements that we have. The difficulty that they have in transporting fish by truck from Prince Rupert to the markets in California is not the same as the situation that exists with transportation from the Imperial plant in Steveston — or so I am advised. At the present time we are checking to see if that is the case, because it may be that those fish could be transported from Prince Rupert. But that is the information the company is giving me. We have two conflicting areas of legislation. Officials of both the federal and provincial governments are working on the problem today.

MR. LEA: I don't think that it matters much whether they are shipping it to Washington from Prince Rupert or from Vancouver. I can tell the minister that they are shipping it from Vancouver.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. It is not a matter of debate at this time.

MR. LEA: We are not debating it.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed with the question.

MR. LEA: The trucking company that is hauling the fish down into Bellingham, Washington is called Emde Trucking Ltd. of Burnaby. The Sunnfjord unloaded on May 26 in Vancouver, and those fish were loaded onto the truck and taken down to Bellingham, Washington. I am not much interested in whether it was shipped by truck, rail or boat. I am asking whether the government has decided that they are going to stop this practice, that they are going to have a policy of stopping high-grading in the fishing industry, and that the groundfish are going to be processed here. That is what I want to know.

MR. SPEAKER: Order. please. This has never occurred before, that a minister was on his feet with the answer when the bell rang. Shall we accept the answer?

SOME BON. MEMBERS: Yes.

BON. MR. ROGERS: The member for Prince Rupert continues to try to confuse the issue. Yes, there are fish being

[ Page 7926 ]

exported. We agree to that. No, the government has not made a decision as to whether or not they will continue to allow this to happen. As I have said, we are checking to see whether or not the matter is legal, and we are going to check to see whether it is federal or provincial legislation. I am informed that we will have an opinion on that very shortly.

MRS. WALLACE: I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to seek leave to move adjournment of the House to debate a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Please state the matter briefly.

MRS. WALLACE: I have this hour received from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture a copy of a letter sent to them on May 7, 1982, by the minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). I understand that the B.C. Federation of Agriculture have been unable to arrange the courtesy of a meeting with the minister to discuss the contents of the letter. They have therefore asked me to raise the matter in the House. The letter reads, in part, as follows:

"The history of some of the plans" — that is, the farm income assurance plan — "illustrates that the relationship between the calculated basic cost and the market return is far from satisfactory. The relationship could lead one to conclude that the production of these commodities is not viable. I am disappointed that despite this knowledge the federation continues to press for more and more benefits."

The implication is clear. The minister is at a minimum considering abolition of farm income assurance for certain commodities, because the government is unwilling or unable to to make up the deficit in the plan. I therefore urge that this House do now adjourn to discuss this matter, which is of grave concern to the agricultural community. I have a motion prepared.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind you that the estimates for the Ministry of Agriculture were concluded last night.

MR. SPEAKER: We will review the matter to be sure that it qualifies under standing order 35, and, without prejudice to the member, we will bring a decision.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

RESOURCE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. STUPICH: I indicated yesterday we might want to say something in committee stage. While we can all applaud the principle espoused in section 2, particularly subsection (3) — "The purpose of the fund is to stabilize the annual growth of revenue paid into the general fund" — one has to wonder whether there is a bit of hypocrisy behind presenting this legislation at this particular point in time.

Had the legislation been presented to the Legislature in 1980, there would have been some sense to it. It was a good year; resource revenue was very high that year. In spite of the fact that resource revenue was very high, the government dipped into cash funds and depleted cash resources to the extent of some $300 million. I don't have a copy of the budget speech with me, but the material is in there. In a year when resource revenue was at an all-time high, when there might have been some opportunity to start this fund, the government talked about it. The Minister of Finance spoke of it, I think, in the budget speech. Perhaps even in the opening speech there was some reference to setting up this kind of fund. So when the money was there to do it, there was talk about it but no action.

Even in the following year there could have been some money there; 1981 was not that bad a year — that is, up to March 31, 1981 — from the point of view of resource revenues. As I recall, resource revenues were very high in that period. Once again there might have been some opportunity to bring in this kind of legislation, to set up a resource revenue stabilization fund, as the bill before us reads, to stabilize the annual growth of revenue and put it in this fund. But the government chose not to do it. I believe the government did refer to this idea of establishing some kind of fund along those lines — possibly it was in the opening speech; certainly it was in the budget speech.

This year, when the government doesn't have any cash left over, when the budget indicated to us that the government will have used up in three years almost $1 billion of cash reserves, they're now presenting legislation that says they're going to put money into a revenue stabilization fund. It's a great idea. Why wasn't it brought forward in the form of legislation at a time when there was some cash to put into this fund? What's the point in bringing it forward now, when the government has no cash to put into this fund? I'd like the minister to tell us something about the timing of this particular section.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It is correct that in 1980 and 1981 I made reference to the desirability of a resource revenue stabilization fund. I don't have the material in front of me. I think the reference in the spring of 1980 was relatively brief. Certainly on the two previous budget occasions, in the budget debate or the budget itself, and in background papers accompanying the budget, I indicated that this was one of the policies I had developed upon assuming the portfolio of the Ministry of Finance. I indicated in second reading that we are' establishing this for the years to come, not just for this year.

The new fiscal year for this government commenced just over one month ago, and while there are many pessimistic signs in the very short term I submit that no one on either side of the House can accurately predict precisely how resource revenues will fare in the remaining 11 months of this fiscal year. We did not bring this into the Legislature for this year or next year alone. We brought it in as a matter of government policy for a good number of years, recognizing that in the fiscal history of this province there have been tremendous swings in resource revenues. I would happily share with that

[ Page 7927 ]

member, or with any member who is interested, the graphically illustrated documentations of those swings. They look very much like the Coast range, the Selkirk range and the Rockies together on a single page — tremendous rises and falls in terms of resource revenue, whether from forestry, minerals or other sources.

This is not legislation for this month or this year only; rather, it is the final delivery of a desire to which I alluded on at least two previous occasions. It can be argued with some validity, since that member is a thoughtful member of this House, that it might be better to bring it in during a year when resource revenues are at a higher point rather than a lower point. Frankly, however, having decided some two years ago that I wanted this as a matter of policy within the Ministry of Finance, within the government of British Columbia, to delay it for yet another year in the expectation of better economic conditions would, I think, have invited criticism to the effect that "You've talked about this for three years, Mr. Minister, where's the legislation?" So I decided that once the draft legislation was in an acceptable form insofar as I was concerned, and was approved by my colleagues in cabinet and in government, this would be the appropriate time to introduce it. The member may disagree; nonetheless, having decided upon it as a policy, having worked on it and made it ready, the fact that we are in a slow economic period is no excuse to delay this legislation for one year, bearing in mind that it is to be in place, I trust, for a good many years to come.

MR. STUPICH: The minister talks about this as a policy for several years in the future. Unfortunately, the voters of this province and the organizations representing the people in this province have come to distrust the long-term plans of this particular administration. The legislation should properly have come in when there was cash to start if off. If that couldn't be done because the legislation wasn't ready, then it should have been held back until there was some cash to start the fund, providing some degree of certainty that the government was really going to to do something, rather than simply issue another political statement.

I have a letter from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, dated May 18, 1982. I'm going to read briefly from it because it has some bearing, I think, on why people generally do not feel that this administration can be trusted to do anything other than make a political statement:

"Returning from a tour of interior B.C. municipalities, Tonn stated that the five area associations of the UBCM are united in their opposition to the province's 1982 program. 'Local government has never been more united and more angry than at any time before that I can recall,' said Tonn.

"Local government opposition could have been avoided if the province had been upfront in its dealings with local government."

Mr. Chairman, I believe it was the minister who is introducing this legislation before us right now who was then the minister of municipalities and brought in the revenue-sharing program that served the municipalities and served the government well for a number of years — until this year, when the government arbitrarily decided that they were going to change the formula because it suited them to do it....

That is why the voters and the organizations don't really have any faith in the long-term plans; that is why the government, if it were to regain any measure of faith, should have waited until it had some money to put into the program.

I would just like to read a little further:

"'Instead, they have chosen to change the rules and move the goalposts in the middle of the game without bothering to talk to us,' Tonn explained. 'The province is naive if it expects local government to roll over and play dead on this issue. The wrath of local government is aroused and won't be quelled until the province makes good on its previous commitments. The province has welshed on its commitments to local government, and in the process they have shaken the confidence of local government in this administration.'"

Mr. Chairman, as I remind you, this very minister was the one who started that program, changed it arbitrarily without any discussion and is now telling us the legislation he is bringing in today may be in effect next year, the year after...or three years down the road there may be an opportunity to actually put some money into this fund that is being established by the legislation we're discussing today.

No one will have any faith in that legislation on the basis of the record of this government and of this minister. The incident that was raised that the Speaker is now considering with respect to an emergency debate, the apparent attempt to kill the farm income insurance program, is another example of lack of faith in the long term. Mr. Chairman, I would submit that this particular administration is not serving the citizens of this province well by bringing in legislation that says we're going to do something good some number of years down the road because it is a good idea to do it. Certainly it is a good idea to do it; there is no question about that. We supported the bill in second reading and we're supporting it today. But we have no faith that this particular administration will do anything about this legislation, unless at some point down the road, for political reasons only, they feel that there is some advantage to be gained in actually doing something in line with the terms of this section before us now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry that the member for Nanaimo does not believe what I have said in second reading and in response to his first question. However, there is nothing to compel him to accept what I have said. I pointed out in second reading.... Incidentally, I might say, Mr. Chairman. that the reference by the member to the municipal revenue-sharing program and fund can, I suppose, be used as a comparison in a slight stretch of the rules, but it isn't dealt with in this bill nor is it dealt with in this section in particular. However, inasmuch as the Chair allowed some latitude with that reference, I will take a few moments to respond.

What has been forgotten by local government in terms of that fund is that it was said very clearly, in this House and outside, that as the province — that is, the people of British Columbia — prospered through its government revenues, local government would prosper; in the event that revenues flattened out at some time in the future, similarly revenues would flatten out for local government; and in the event that revenues dropped, similarly revenues for local government would drop. So the reference, I think, should end there. But that is another bill.

However, to return to the section, I pointed out in second reading — and it is therefore, I feel, appropriate to repeat — that we have had historically, and the member knows this.... Any member on either side of this House who has examined revenues in British Columbia over the last 30, 40,

[ Page 7928 ]

50 or 80 years will know that revenues increase and decrease quite dramatically, unlike the case in some other jurisdictions in Canada and in the United States. In 1979-80 resource revenue peaked at nearly $1.3 billion and accounted for 24 percent of that year's operating revenue. By 1981-82 revenue from the same source — resources — is estimated to have dropped 53 percent to $613 million, representing 9 percent of operating revenue. But the point is, Mr. Chairman — and the members opposite know — that revenues are going to increase again.

This is not a political statement, and it is not correct and it is, I think, unfair to dismiss this as a political statement. This is a policy statement. This is legislation which, I believe, will remain in place in British Columbia for many years to come. As governments alter, as governments change over many years, I would like to think that, because of the nature of the resource revenues in British Columbia, with their cyclical history and, therefore, the predictability of further cyclical swings, hollows, and peaks and valleys, this legislation will be required by succeeding governments in the province of British Columbia.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as I understand this section, it means that the cabinet alone will decide how much money is to come out of this fund. They might leave a substantial balance in it, but is it possible that this fund might even be thrown into a debit balance by drawing out of the fund more money than is in it simply because it is one of a group of funds? That's really my question. Is it in the same category as the special funds that we were dealing with in other legislation, where all of the cash in the province is sort of thrown into one pot where some of the funds may have a credit balance and others may have a debit balance? Is it possible that this particular fund may have a substantial debit balance as long as the total in all of the funds does not get into an overdraft position? Is that the intention of the minister?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that is not the intention. However, I would not want to mislead the committee. I would expect that that could occur at some time, perhaps within a particular fiscal year. That is not the intention, but it might occur in the course of a fiscal year. Clearly, the whole purpose of this bill is to raise the valley floors — if I may continue with the analogy — and to lower the peaks, in terms of revenues, which accrue to the government of British Columbia.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Obviously we are not going to set out deliberately to take money out of a fund which is in a debit condition. It could happen in the short term. I want to be very clear to the member who has raised the question. It could happen in the short term. I think that would be very unlikely, and certainly that is not the policy thrust of the establishing of the fund.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear on this. I think the minister has given me the answer, and I'll just ask it once more. I'm missing figures; I'm not sure what the balance is in all of the funds at this point of time. But the section before us is giving the cabinet, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the authority to take all of the money out of all of the special funds — in other words, the total cash reserves of the province — and bring them into the operating accounts of the province in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983. They would have that authority, with this section and with this whole bill, to use up all the cash of the province in order to balance the books in the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983. I'm not saying that they would, wouldn't, should or shouldn't do that, but as I read this Section it does give them the legislative authority to throw everything into the pot, if it is needed, and make sure that this year balances.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think that this is useful discussion. I hope I can now satisfy the member by stating in another way that which I attempted to explain just a few moments ago. First of all, this is not like the heritage fund in Alberta or Saskatchewan, and I made that point particularly clear. This must not be seen as a companion piece to the heritage fund in those two provinces. The estimates of revenue for the fund would be presented to the Legislature as part of the official estimates of the province. That would occur, and there would be no expenditure from the fund other than transfers to the general fund. That is where the significant difference between this and the Alberta and Saskatchewan examples exist. They can, as the member and the committee know, make direct expenditures and investments.

So the Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund, as before us today, is designed to permit us, in periods of significant revenue health, to utilize that money either in the year in which we find ourselves or in preparation for the following fiscal year.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's fiscal husbandry.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that is one way of putting it, Mr. House Leader.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) says, it is different from the Saskatchewan and Alberta heritage funds in that there is no money in this fund and the others have funds. Saskatchewan's may not last long the way things are going. It appears as though they are going to use up the money very quickly. The minister talked, and yet I don't know that he actually completely agreed with what I said. This particular legislation, together with other legislation that is in the course of passage through this House.... Almost all the cash of the special funds — I think it leaves out five perpetual funds — has been merged with the general account cash. This legislation, along with the legislation that wipes out the separate funds as such and keeps the amount separate, would make it possible for the cabinet.... I think that is another difference between this and the heritage funds. I am not sure, but I believe that in the case of the heritage funds the Legislature, while it may not make decisions as to investments by the heritage funds, does vote on the transfers from the heritage funds to the general accounts. I believe that is the case in Saskatchewan, at least. I think it is part of the budget and at least is voted on that way.

As I read this bill before us now, the Legislature will have absolutely no opportunity to discuss the amount that is being transferred from the fund to operating accounts. It will be

[ Page 7929 ]

done by the cabinet at a time and in the amounts chosen by cabinet. This legislation, with the other legislation before us, does give the cabinet the opportunity to use every cent of cash that the government has to make the books balance for the March 31, 1983 year, or any other year. At the moment I am thinking particularly of the March 31, 1983 year. I am not making any particular judgment on that. I am simply pointing out that, as I read it, the government is going to make it possible to get legal access through legislative authority to every cent of cash that is available to make sure that we don't go into deficit in the current year-end, using up everything that was accumulated by several previous administrations. Is that the authority given to the cabinet with this legislation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the attempt to draw the comparison between heritage funds in other provinces and this fund, clearly the Legislature will have the opportunity to debate that which has been done with revenues from the funds. The member surely appreciates that. He nods his head in agreement. We debate revenues from whatever source may be in question. Perhaps I did leave the member with a mistaken impression when I indicated that there could be variations in the fund from time to time. The resource revenue stabilization fund cannot legally incur a debit balance at the time of a reporting period. That is quite clearly the case. That is actually in section 4, the section which is before us.

The member said: "I don't know if it's going to be right or wrong or if it's that serious." Very definitely the Legislature will have the right, as with any other fund, to debate how much has been taken from the fund, for what purpose and under what conditions. That clearly is allowed in the course of the budget debate process and other debates which occur every year.

MR. STUPICH: Just pursuing that last bit for a moment, the minister says we can debate what the money has been spent on. I'm not sure just exactly how we manage that, but in any case the difference that I am trying to point out now is that this is in advance of spending. Up to this point in time the cabinet hasn't taken unto itself the authority to set the sales tax at a particular limit or to set income tax rates. They may do that with the way legislation is going, but they haven't done that kind of thing yet with respect to revenue items. But in this instance it will be a revenue item coming into the general accounts from a special fund. While we may have opportunities to ask questions and debate it after the fact — as I understand it now — at no time will the Minister of Finance come before the House and say that we are proposing to take so many dollars out of the resource revenue fund and put it into general revenue. That is the way I see it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you would determine if we have a quorum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are absolutely correct. Under standing order 6 I will ring the division bells and summon members to the House.

Please proceed. We have a quorum now.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think maybe the minister was going to answer a question now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we may be getting too far from the purpose of the Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund. It is rainy day money. That was the point made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) when he first rose in committee this afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: Election day money.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, rainy day money, Mr. Member.

MS. SANFORD: It will be a rainy day for you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member interjects. It is simply a recognition of the volatility which occurs in this province, and of the need, therefore, to have an opportunity to set aside, in periods of very high revenue growth, in order to raise up when there are inevitable periods of low resource revenue figures. That's it, pure and simple.

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to return to the thesis I was advancing earlier when I said it does give the minister access to all of the money. He said that this particular fund could not be thrown into a debit balance. In the list of funds in the budget speech and the revised estimate for the year ended March 31, 1982, there is a total of $528.5 million in special funds. That includes those set aside to the extent of $241 million, but it does leave $287 million....

HON. MR. CURTIS: In this bill?

MR. STUPICH: Yes. My question earlier was whether this fund is in the same category as the special purpose accounts. There's a whole list of special purpose accounts with balances in each one of them. Those balances are all merged into one figure that is sitting in cash and investments along with government accounts. As I read it, the minister can exhaust that total amount of money — because we are no longer keeping cash set aside — including any money that's transferred from resource revenue this year. According to this legislation, even the money that comes in from resources in the year ending March 31. 1983, will all go into this fund. Then there'll be a transfer out of the fund. I'm not quite sure how that ties in with the budget that we've already approved, which shows we're going to be getting certain amounts from resources this year coming into revenue. This bill diverts those revenues into a special fund and then gives the minister the opportunity to take those revenues back out of the fund — more or less than the total amount. I believe more. I believe more to the extent of the total amount going in, plus the amount that's sitting in the special accounts. Mr. Chairman, I'll probably have a lot more to say about this this year or next year, depending upon whether or not an election intervenes.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I may be able to assist the member. There are going to be large variations in the fund at any particular time, but I think the member will understand that any balance built up in the fund results from rapid increases in revenue and not from undue retention of money in the fund. In the future, the transfer from the resource revenue stabilization fund to the general fund would show the same approximate growth rate as all other revenue sources. So any attempt by any Minister of Finance or any cabinet to manipulate the transfer from the fund to general revenue would very quickly

[ Page 7930 ]

become apparent. I really want the committee to be quite assured on that point.

Section 4 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 16, Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

MR. NICOLSON: I seek the floor to ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I have just had the honour of talking with 23 grade 7 students from Canyon, British Columbia — near Creston — and their principal, Bob Meredith. They are accompanied by Mr. Lee Brocklesby, Elaine Alfoldy and Joyce Charest. I would bid the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 38, Mr. Speaker.

CORPORATION CAPITAL TAX (BANK RATE
INCREASE) AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 38; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. LEA: Section 2 increases the tax to banks having an amount taxable that exceeds $500 million, as I understand it. The rate goes up from 0.8 percent to 2 percent. I was wondering why only banks were singled out. In the act itself, I know that up until now the trust companies, which are also in the same business as the banks to all intents and purposes....

Why were they left at .08 percent and the banks taken to 2 percent? I'd like to ask the minister why the government decided there should be a difference in the formula applied against these two financial institutions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the member for Prince Rupert, I indicated in second reading that we quite clearly felt — and the government still feels — notwithstanding comments to the contrary in the interval, that the major chartered banks have enjoyed a status with respect to this corporation capital tax which has not been enjoyed by others

In second reading I dealt with the industrial sector and the commercial sector, not at length and in great detail, but I indicated that we reviewed the after-tax profits of a number of activity groups in the country and in the province of British Columbia. Therefore the decision was taken by me with respect to the major chartered banks — a host of banks and trust companies. The Bank of British Columbia, as an example, is not affected, as the member would know, because its paid-up capital is significantly lower than the majors. A large number of trust companies and other financial institutions, in the broad sense of the term, are simply not in the position in which we believe the major chartered banks found themselves.

MR. LEA: Does the minister know whether any of the trust companies are in the same position as the major chartered banks in terms of the over-$500 million? I would suspect there are. Maybe the minister can answer that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would be hesitant to give an off-the-cuff opinion with respect to that without very careful checking. I think I made it very clear in second reading that this was designed to recognize a particular advantage which the major chartered banks in Canada have been enjoying.

MR. LEA: I'm sure the minister would want to apply all taxation equally and fairly. If there are trust companies that are over $500 million, then it would seem to me that the banks are being treated unfairly. If you're going to charge one lending institution a rate of tax, then all lending institutions that have the same provisions....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: One is under British Columbia regulations, and one is under federal regulations.

The charge that some people are making is that the only reason whatsoever that the banks had an increase in taxation is that we all know that almost everyone is angry at the banks, and it's good political fodder to go after the banks these days. I think we should be going after them, but it would be purely a political move and not a taxation move to go after the banks and leave the trust companies out, if some of the trust companies are in the same position as the banks. Would the minister give an undertaking to take a look at the trust companies that are under provincial legislation and see whether or not some of them should be brought in? Otherwise, we're giving an unfair advantage to some of the trust companies that may be in the same position.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I did not want to answer with reference to a specific trust company because I don't have those figures readily available, but certainly we have them. If you're looking at groupings — banks, trust companies, mortgage companies, consumer loan companies, leasing companies and life insurance companies — the banks dealt with in this legislation have been far more profitable than any other grouping of financial institution. The banks, which are the subject of this section, this bill, had after-tax rates of return of 16.8 percent; then there is a significant drop before you hit the percentage for trust companies as a group: 9.5 percent.

I think those two percentages are very important. For mortgage companies, 8.9 percent; consumer loan companies, 7.7 percent; leasing companies, 5.8 percent;.and life insurance companies, 7 percent. I think that shows that this was not taken in a frivolous or punitive way but, rather, recognized the very high after-tax rate of return over a period

[ Page 7931 ]

of several years for a particular group of financial institutions.

MR. LEA: I have two more questions; maybe I can put it all into one. Is the minister satisfied, first of all, that this will not increase the service charges that banks could apply to customers in British Columbia? When you tax somebody they try to pass it on, and an easy way for a bank to pass it on is to increase service charges to its customers. Has the minister satisfied himself as to whether that could be done provincially? I think it could be. I know they have a national service charge structure, but they could change their rules to pass on service charges just in the province of British Columbia, to make up for this extra taxation.

The other point: as I understand it, the money loaned by banks in British Columbia is a net amount of money. In other words, more money is loaned out in British Columbia than we deposit. The banks import money from other areas to lend out in British Columbia. If they could lend this money out somewhere else and avoid the tax, there could possibly be a shortage of money — for instance, to the small business community. The banks would prefer to lend their money out in another province in order to escape this taxation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The questions are related. With respect to the risk of banks passing on this increase to British Columbia consumers, I think that is very unlikely. The member will know, or would expect, that I met with representatives of the Canadian Bankers' Association after this bill was introduced. I had a long and, I think, helpful meeting with them. I won't call it productive because I suppose they would have been happiest if I had withdrawn the legislation. Short of that, though, we discussed a number of their concerns, and I've responded to them in writing.

The banks would have a difficult time passing on this particular increase in British Columbia because of the financial institution structure that we enjoy in the province — smaller banks and other financial institutions not subject to the tax: credit unions and trust companies. I would be very surprised if those major banks affected by this increase in the corporation capital tax rate made any attempt to retaliate. There was absolutely no suggestion of that, directly or indirectly, when I met with the bankers, and I would be extremely surprised. I just don't expect that to happen.

Yes, the member speaks correctly of the fact that money flows into British Columbia in the banking system. Because this is a relatively small tax increase — from 0.8 percent, as the member observed, to 2 percent for the major banks — I do not sense, nor do my officials sense, any shortage of activity that the banks will want to undertake. I indicated in second reading that — and I've told them as well that this higher rate may not apply for a considerable length of time, unlike the previous bill which we were discussing — if, as and when interest rates lower and the tax paid under normal conditions increases — taxes paid to the province — then there may be no need for this higher rate for the major banks.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I think both the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the Minister of Finance have articulated and developed a good point concerning costs passed through. An item that I think is a concern to the general public and pretty well every legislator in the country is the comment from the banking community that they're proposing to charge for the credit card service — or perhaps they're just flying kites. I think it would be a fair thing to draw to the attention of the banking community that they brought in this plastic money as a "service" for their customers. They initiated it, and it's certainly true that it's become almost a way of life in our country, and it is furthermore true that it has served to fuel the fires of inflation. For the banks to suddenly now decide that this service that they intended to provide to customers is going to be at the expense of the customer is, I must frankly say, a bit of economic cheek. I think the banks should be informed very carefully and very strongly that customers in Canada are totally opposed to that. If any bank proposes to take such a course, I think it should do so at its own risk, and I would certainly hope that those banks that do not take such a course and provide that "service" at non-cost would be where the customers flock to. The rate in question for late payment is about 26.8 percent to about 32.9 percent on an annual basis. Indeed, from any historic perspective that could certainly be considered as usurious, notwithstanding the fact that there, are many factors today that the banking community can with validity say have brought about such a rate.

Mr. Chairman. If the credit card system is going to continue, and if it's proving to be a loss leader for the banking community, then I'd say the responsibility for the decision in the first place is the banking community's, and the result is their responsibility as well. I find it very difficult to accept the conclusion that the customer should have to bear the full brunt of those kinds of charges. I do hope that we will get some better leadership and some competition from the banking industry, specifically in this area.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, are we talking about Bill 38, section 2?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are.

MR. STUPICH: After listening to the previous speaker, I wonder whether he was talking about a different piece of legislation.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The other two members developed the premise.

MR. STUPICH: Not about credit cards.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Prince Rupert did raise a question of concern that there might be special charges levied in the province of British Columbia. I don't share his concern in that direction. I do share his concern, though, that the banks might be less anxious to lend in the province of British Columbia than in other provinces. I really do share his concern there. If the banks are being pushed — and I think they are this year; certainly there are indications that they are suffering compared to what they are used to.... Suffering is a relative term, I suppose. If it's more profitable for them to do business in other provinces, then I would not be surprised if they considered doing more of their lending out of B.C. and less in B.C. So I do share his concern there.

At this point, I want to ask the minister a question we discussed in second reading — he was going to bring the answer back. He said today with respect to the Bank of B.C. that its capital stock was substantially less than the $500 million figure. He was going to tell us in committee stage just how much the Bank of B.C. fell short of being caught by this legislation. I would point out that it's not just capital stock

[ Page 7932 ]

that is the base; it includes a number of reserves, which are all listed here in the legislation before us in six descriptions of the kinds of accounts. So it goes far beyond the capital of the bank, and I'm wondering how far the Bank of B.C. falls short of being caught by this legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I recall that I undertook to have that information. I am informed that we're comparing apples and apples, and $500 million is the cutoff; the Bank of B.C. is, in that context, about $84.1 million. That is the answer to the question I undertook to get.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 38, Corporation Capital Tax (Bank Rate Increase) Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Might I have leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask all members to pay a cordial welcome to Mr. Jake Brouwer, a gentleman well known to members of this assembly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 42.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 42; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question to put to the minister with respect to this section. In terms of varying the annual allowable cut, it says: "The forest licence may, for any of the first five years of its term, provide for an allowable annual cut that differs from the allowable annual cut determined under section (2)(c)." 1. wonder what the point here is. Is this in connection with the transfer of timber out of that particular unit, or is it with respect to variations that may occur according to silvicultural treatment? What's the point of requiring that flexibility to vary the annual allowable cut?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the purpose is really to accommodate a phase-in of the reductions in certain licences that were made as a result of the timber allocation plan announced about six weeks ago. As the member is, I think, aware, we are establishing a small business program which will probably average in the order of 10 percent to 15 percent, varying from timber supply area to timber supply area. In order to make it possible for the small business sector — that is, those people in the logging business — to be able to build up their forest to adapt to it, we're not going to put that wood into place all at one time. At the same time, it gives licensees a chance to sort of phase down the cut that we did have. As the member realizes, under the act, timber sale harvesting licences must be rolled over stick for stick, and timber sale licences have a "may" clause, which means that the minister does not have to, but can if he wishes. So all we're doing here is setting the allowable cut, but in those areas where we have reduced the TSL part of it, we're just phasing that reduction in over a five-year period rather than doing it all at once.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his explanation. The only additional point I wanted to make before we start passing some of the sections of this amendment act is just to express a concern to the minister, which I expressed in second reading as well, that not a great deal of time has been provided since these amendments were introduced for reaction from the forest community. I've had a number of queries out to different sections of the industry with respect to various of these sections in the bill, and have found, by and large, that not many of them were well informed on the specifics or the intent of the amendments. In fact, many of them had not had an opportunity to study the amendments. I sent some of them out, but inadequate time existed between the time the bill was introduced and committee stage consideration to get any analysis from those people in the industry who are affected by it and allow time for their reactions. I'm somewhat concerned about that. I would think the minister would be too. I just wonder whether or not he has made any attempt through his ministry to obtain some feedback from the forest community regarding these amendments.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have had discussion with various people in the industry — in particular, the forestry section of the British Columbia bar society. After having the intent of the legislation explained to them, they had a few concerns, one of which is expressed in the amendment to section 18 on the order paper. A few others which they had concerns about were really because of lack of understanding of the intent of the legislation. But by and large, we have had considerable feedback in a relatively short time. Although they don't agree with everything we're doing, at least they understand it, and understand the reason why.

MR. KING: I can appreciate that the forest section of the bar association would be interested, but that's more from an academic legislative point of view. Certainly I would have preferred, with all due deference to my friend at the table.... Those practitioners in the field are the ones who feel the consequence of this legislative change in terms of their everyday dealing in the forest industry. While the legal niceties of legislative language should by all means be scrutinized by the bar association, I have more concern with respect to the practical application in the field, and that's what I was directing my comments to. I wonder how broadly the minister polled the forest industry and all of its relative sections — the truck loggers, the contractors, the small business sector, some of the medium and small companies — to determine what their reaction was not just to the legislative

[ Page 7933 ]

language, but to the intent and purpose of these amendments. That's what I was getting at.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I didn't mean to imply that the only people we spoke to were the forestry section of the bar society. We have been discussing this with various associations such as the the TLA, the BCILA, the Council of Forest Industries and individuals in the industry. I think there's a pretty general understanding and acceptance of the amendments we're making.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

On section 4.

MR. KING: Section 4 amends section 16 of the act. I am concerned about the changes that are proposed. Basically, as I understand it — and these amendments are a little difficult to follow — the intent here is to allow the minister to vary licences within a timber supply area so that the quota, instead of being associated with a particular mill or processing plant in that TSA, can now possibly be transferred out of that TSA. This, if it's administered well, I think could be fine because it can take stock of timber supply, but I'm concerned that if a particular company has managed the timber quota poorly within that timber supply area, and simply seeks a supply in another district, then that certainly is not compatible with the spirit of the Forest Act which requires some management and proper utilization of their supply, and in effect directs that the supply be associated with a certain local processing plant.

If there is, as I read it, some possibility here that the supply customarily associated with the local mill can be transferred to some other processing plant outside that particular supply area, then I'd have some real concern. This concern, Mr. Chairman, is heightened by the fact that we have had a number of mergers or sales of existing companies over the past number of years, many of which I've raised in the House with the minister. One in the Kootenays that I referred to just as an example is Arco 's purchase of Hadikin Bros. sawmills. In that particular case Hadikin Bros. sawmill was closed down, and the timber supply that produced jobs in that local area flowed to Atco's plant at Fruitvale. Now they're not very far away — it's in the same general area — but the result was a net loss of jobs associated with that timber supply. The minister has not acted very strongly or definitively in the past with respect to his authority under section 50 to guarantee, as a caveat of transferring timber licences, that jobs be preserved.

In fact, to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. the only particular case in which the minister has exercised that authority was with respect to the one case where Federated Co-ops of Canoe purchased Downie Street Sawmills of Revelstoke. I don't know why that should have been the only purchase where the minister insisted that the processing plant be maintained in Revelstoke. Certainly I agree with that approach. I think it's one that should be applied uniformly and not on some hit-and-miss basis, because the Forest Act — the five year range and resource plan which states the philosophy of the ministry — indicates that the resource will be managed with a regard to maintaining economic stability on a regional basis and to preserving jobs. So I'm concerned about this amendment.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

If. In fact, provisions are available for, say. a company which is badly overcut in one TSA to apply to have the quota moved to a better timber stand elsewhere, then that's bad news for the local communities and for the regional economies. I would like some word from the minister in terms of what precisely his intention is in this respect and to give an undertaking that this flexibility which he seeks will not be used to benefit those companies which have done a poor job of managing the timber resource and perhaps overcut, and then have simply sought this provision to gain a new supply. I would like that commitment from the minister.

HON . MR. 'WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, many of the comments made by the member were really relative to section 3. However, the same theme comes up in later sections as well. so it's best that I explain the intention of the section to the member, even though it's perhaps under the wrong section.

The reason for allowing the movement of cutting rights between TSAs or timber supply areas is that during the rollover process a number of timber sale harvesting licences or timber sale licences will be rolled into one forest licence. Prior to this rollover these licences would have been operating in one or more of the old public sustained-yield units or, in fact, one of the more current timber supply areas. This section really allows us to stay more with what the harvesting pattern has been, and perhaps to allow the licensee for a time to extract timber from one timber supply area where he was operating in the past, and then to allow him to operate in a separate area where, in fact, he was also partially operating in the past.

It also gives us the right to provide some efficiencies in the industry whereby one or more licensees may find it to their economic advantage and also therefore to the Crown's economic advantage to cooperate on the development of roads, camps and so on on one particular drainage for a period of time, and then move the whole operation to another. It provides increased revenue for the Crown and increased efficiency for the operators. So we're providing that flexibility in the administration. There is no intent to allow anyone to abrogate their responsibilities insofar as maintaining operating plants is concerned; in fact, this should have the opposite effect.

Regarding section 4. which is the section we're on, the member has queried about why we're allowing a replacement of licence on a non-competitive basis. Generally under the Forest Act major licences are rolled over into forest licences on a stick-for-stick basis without competition. What we did in the Act was take those smaller licences, or what we called designated applicant licences, and say that they would not have that same right. These are — generally people with small quotas — usually independent loggers. We've said that they will still have that same matching bid privilege but that they're still subject to competition. In thinking that through, and in discussion with that sector of the industry, we accepted the fact that we were not being consistent; we were not treating the small operator in the same manner, or as well, as the larger operators. In this amendment we're simply providing our authority to allow these smaller operators to have, without competition, the same rollover as the others. Once the rollover process takes place, then their licences will carry on, as will the forest licences. They will in fact be the licensee and will not be subject to competition every time the licence is replaced.

[ Page 7934 ]

MR. KING: I apologize to the Chair and to the minister. I rose on section 4, when I was referring mainly to section 3. However, as the minister indicates, the same principle is contained further on.

With respect to sections 4 and 5, which deal essentially with the same thing — the rollover provisions and bringing some equality to the practice in terms of there being a double standard, as it were, with respect to the true forms of licence in the past — I understand that and appreciate it.

I'm still concerned, though, about the extension of any tenure. I know there are a number of rollover provisions. In my view, hearings should be held before the tenure is extended on any form of licence. I wonder what the minister plans in that respect. I know there has been a great deal of public protest regarding some of the rollover provisions that are already in the Forest Act. Now I'm wondering whether, by simply adding another type of licence, with a smaller amount of timber involved.... Any time Crown timber is awarded with tenure, it seems to me there should be provision for local public input. I wonder what the minister's intention is in this respect.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I think our actions in the ministry in the last few years have demonstrated that we do indeed welcome public input. The place where it takes place is not in the actual process of rolling over the licence, but is in the development of the working plans for licences. This is where the public has the opportunity to comment on and request changes in the operational plans. We do have an very extensive public-involvement process within the ministry. I think it's working quite well, whereby people from all sectors who are affected by harvesting plans can in fact have a dialogue with us. In many cases we do indeed change plans as a result of such dialogue. We have always taken the position that it's not appropriate during the rollover process, because all we're really doing is extending, under a new act, those contractual obligations that were entered into between the Crown and the licensee under the former act.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

MR. KING: On this particular section, a provision allows the holder of a timber-sale forest licence to surrender it and obtain a tree-farm licence. I wonder what the motivation is here. Is it simply the view and the objective of gaining better management of the resource area, or is there some other administrative reason the minister has as well?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Primarily, the reason is, as the member suggests, that the tree-farm licence, where appropriate — and it's not always appropriate — does provide us with the best level of forest management that we have experienced in British Columbia. There are areas where a forest licence would be a better licence if it were a tree-farm licence. In fact, in many areas they are very close to it, in any event, because the operating area is pretty well defined.

This section provides the holder of a forest licence with the opportunity to conditionally surrender his licence for replacement by a tree-farm licence, if it is appropriate, without actually putting into jeopardy the licence he now holds. There would be great reluctance to do such a thing if they could lose that licence. And it would be very disruptive to the manufacturing plants that depend upon that timber supply.

We're simply saying that if a tree-farm licence is more appropriate and is desired by the applicant, he can conditionally surrender that forest licence. Then, of course, he has to go through the public-hearing process — the only difference being that if the licence is not awarded to him, it's not awarded to anyone, and he reverts to his forest licence. The intent is to encourage that higher level of forest management which is usually associated with tree-farm licence tenure.

MR. KING: I wonder if the minister could tell me whether there is any size restriction on what might be turned into a tree-farm licence. Is there a minimum number of hectares, or is there a minimum volume of timber required, or does the minister anticipate very small tree-farm licences?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, from a practical standpoint, there is a minimum size that really could be considered. It is related to both the size and age class distribution of timber within an area. The member is aware that we recently issued quite a small tree-farm licence to an Indian band up in the northern part of British Columbia, in what we call the Tarnezell Triangle. It happened that the type of timber — the age class distribution and so on — made it a practical thing to do. In fact, under this section a tree-farm licence size would be limited by the amount of timber that could be produced from it. That would have to be compatible with the amount being surrendered under the forest licence.

Section 7 approved.

On section 8.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't really understand the explanatory note on this section. It simply states: "The amendment to paragraph (i) of section 28 enables the holder of a tree farm licence to contract for the harvesting of a greater amount of timber by persons under contract with him." I guess my question is whether this means that the holder of the licence can exceed the annual allowable cut contained in the five-year plan, or whether it simply means that he can award a greater percentage to the contractor than the normal percentage set by the minister.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simply to clarify the intent under the original act, which stated that the minister shall require that a timber volume equal to 50 percent of the volume authorized under the licences shall be harvested by contract. That was supposed to be a minimum amount, not a maximum amount. The intent of the original section was that a licensee could harvest any amount he wishes, but with a minimum of 50 percent. This simply clarifies that they can go over that, because some of them felt that that restricted them to 50 percent. In fact, many licensees harvest 100 percent of the timber in a tree-farm licence by contract, and there was an interpretation, I guess from our legal friends, to the effect that somehow they were in violation of the act by going over 50 because the act said "equal to 50."

MR. KING: In applying this provision, does the minister take into consideration unique circumstances such as those

[ Page 7935 ]

outlined by my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) with respect to a situation in his riding where a company was moving from its own logging crews to increased contractor activity? I don't think that was as a choice by the company but rather some collective-agreement provision. The net result was a loss of employment to a very small community which was a single-industry town dependent on that timber supply. It seems to me that in these cases, in exercising the percentage that must be cut by contractors, the minister should have some regard to those factors affecting the economic security of a town like the one my friend outlined. I forget the name of it. Was it Gold River? No. One of the northern communities on the island, anyway — Tahsis.

AN HON. MEMBER: Zeballos.

MR. KING: Zeballos, yes, but the Tahsis Co., I believe. It was a unique situation, to a certain extent. As I understand it, it was a conflict between two different locals of the IWA. They were caught in the bind of the percentage allocation to contractors resulting in company loggers being laid off who had their homes and all their investments in the town of.... What was it again?

MR. BARBER: Zeballos.

MR. KING: I can never remember that name.

That is the kind of situation that the minister should have some regard for. I recall that when the question was asked, the minister shrugged it off. I was sorry he did that, because the whole spirit and purpose of awarding cutting rights, as stated in the act, is to try to stabilize regional economies and employment opportunity. Here is a very tiny community that, through the prospect of losing a lot of employment to their local members, is certainly very negatively affected. Now I see the minister seeking, through this amendment, to increase the percentage that can be allocated to contractors. I have to ask: will that not result in even greater circumstances where small, one-industry towns are negatively affected, as was outlined by my friend for North Island? I would like to hear the minister's response to that, because it should be a matter of concern to him.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, this section really has no effect on the point raised by the member. Whether that harvesting was done by contractors or the company's own logging division, it would not change the situation. This section does not increase it; it just clarifies the fact that it is a minimum, not a maximum. It's not a fixed amount. The company has not requested any relief from that section of the act. That in fact is a possibility, if we can modify this to provide better chances for it — either logging-camp or logging-community stability. We can do so and have done so many times. As a matter of fact, we have a contract advisory committee made up of representatives from the logging sector of the IWA, the industry and others, who always adjudicate these matters and provide recommendations to the minister. This particular thing at Zeballos was not related to this section at all.

MR. KING: My point is — although it may not be the point in that specific case — that I have, to a certain extent, the same problem in my own area with what used to be CanCel, and is now B.C. Timber. Where there's a 50 percent allocation to contract loggers, and there's a slowdown in the logging operation, who gets the work? Is it the company loggers, who are employed by the company, or is it contractors? Now my proposition is that there should be equity of opportunity for both the contractors and the permanent logging work force. So the same thing that happened in my colleague's constituency can very well happen — and indeed has happened — in other areas.

Now the minister is proposing to legally increase the portion of timber that can be allocated to contract loggers. All I'm asking him to do, in giving effect to this particular power, is to have regard for what percentage of the work force is currently involved in the logging operation in that area, as between company staff and contract loggers, and to be even-handed, in effect, in allocating the percentage of cut that will take place by contractors. That's the point that I'm trying to make.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I agree absolutely with the member that those types of things should be done in as equitable manner as possible if there are cutbacks. In fact, generally they are accomplished through discussion and dialogue between the contracting sector and the company logging sector. I very seldom get involved in it; only if they can't come to an agreement am I brought into it. Then I simply enforce the section of the act if there's a general reduction. The percentage should stay the same, so that each is treated equally.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of quick points — a slightly different tack on the same issue.

When the original Forest Act was brought in, I guess four years ago, with the 50 percent contract clause, I, along with a lot of other people, thought that that was a good thing, inasmuch as it would guarantee that there would be some work for small contractors around the province in various communities. One of the effects of that particular provision has been to create situations that I think weren't intended by the original intention of the legislation and are not corrected by this particular amendment to the act.

I have a couple of examples. In the Nimpkish Valley, the Canadian Forest Products tree-farm licence was one in which there was significantly less than 50 percent contract operation. It was the kind of situation where the operation was basically run from four camps — five if you count their booming area. It was also a situation where they hauled the logs from the valley to tidewater by their own railroad, except that some particular provisions had been made because of that, in terms of the 50 percent contract clause. The effect of the clause has been, by not allowing the minister to vary in significant ways the amount that is contracted as opposed to company operations, to force the companies to change the way in which they operate; to change dramatically, in some cases by closure, existing communities that have been established, the primary reason being to meet the imposed mandatory 50 percent contract clause.

I think that if the minister had the ability in legislation this amendment does not give it to him, because it talks about flexibility on one side of the 50 percent, above it, but no flexibility whatsoever on the other side of the 50 percent, below it — to allow for, in certain cases, a lesser proportion than 50 percent.... He is giving himself, under this amendment, the ability to allow for a greater proportion, in

[ Page 7936 ]

certain cases, than 50 percent for contract, which, by my reading of the existing act, is there anyway, because it's a minimum 50 percent contract. Theoretically, I guess a company can go to 100 percent, but the amendment clarifies that, presumably.

What the minister is saying is that a company can go from anywhere from 50 percent to 100 percent contract, but can only go from 0 percent to 50 percent of their own operation. That has a peculiar effect in some TFLs particularly, and I cite the case of the Nimpkish Valley, where, I think, a 30 percent or 35 percent contract clause arrangement might have been very appropriate. It would have had the impact of allowing people with many years of seniority to keep their jobs, it would have allowed for communities that have existed for many years to remain, and it would have allowed for some stability in those communities. But because the companies have to meet this mandatory limit while there are some negotiations — and I can understand that, but the goal is always to try to reach that 50 percent minimum contract — it has had a very unsettling effect on the work force, and it has had an unsettling effect on the communities. I won't make the point any further than to say that I think that's not a desirable goal for this Legislature to accomplish.

The Zeballos situation, with the Tahsis Co., is a different situation. That company is already operating with, roughly, 80 percent contractors. They have a limited proportion of their cut handled by their own logging divisions. What the minister is saying is that the 50 percent provisions, or whatever the percentage is going to be, is going to be TFL-wide. The minister does not choose to intervene in cutting areas or in existing communities. I think the argument that I would like to make on this section on behalf of people who live in Zeballos, where the company is cutting back one side each — one side of the logging division and one side of the contractors — but it still remains relatively equal between contractor and logging division, with slightly more logging division loggers, is that in cutting back one side of a contract they are laying off people with three, four and as much as six months of seniority, but in laying off one side of the logging division, they're laying off people with as much as ten years of seniority. They're saying to the village of Zeballos: "You're going to lose a certain number of your homeowners and your residents. They're going to have to leave." In the meantime, a logging camp can operate eight miles down the inlet, operated by a contractor. The longest-practising contractor in that area is one with two years of experience. Most of them last about an average of nine months before the new contractor comes in. So workers from various parts of the Island come in on Monday morning or late Sunday night and leave Friday afternoon, and there's no advantage to the community whatsoever. That's because the company is not required, either by the act or by this amendment, to make provisions for contract and logging division balances applicable within certain communities, which is a far more meaningful place to make the decisions than over the entire tree-farm licence and cutting area.

So while it is probably much more of a technical amendment than anything else, I think the amendment really does give an opportunity for us to discuss what is a very important point, and which is, as I said, easily demonstrated by two neighbouring tree-farm licences — one which has significantly had its own operation and one which has significantly had contractor operation, but neither of which suits the needs of the community or the people who live there. The amendment doesn't solve that problem.

MR. KING: I don't want to belabour this either, but this is a very serious local matter. It's something that I think deserves the kind of discretion that the minister is demanding for himself on the one side through other sections of the act and through this section 1'd like to hear his response. This is a real human problem, and I would appreciate a response from him.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we are getting considerably beyond this section. I would point out to the members that, under section 28(k) of the Forest Act, the minister indeed does have flexibility to relieve tree-farm licensees of compliance with that section — indeed, many times we do. That's why I was explaining the function of the contract advisory committee, which provides advice and is made up of people from the IWA, from the contractors themselves, and from the licensees. Many times we vary the enforcement of that regulation, under the flexibility provided under section 28(k). Indeed, I, as well as the members opposite, am concerned about the stability of communities and we're doing whatever we can to ensure that stability. I would also point out that the timber that must be harvested, the 50 percent, refers only to the Crown portion of the TFLs and does not include the private land contribution to the allowable cut. So that flexibility is there; indeed, it is used many, many times. I share the same concern as the members.

Sections 8 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

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

Amendment approved.

On section 13 as amended.

MR. KING: I have a brief question; what does the minister have in mind by giving the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council order to reduce the stumpage rate below the applicable formula? Does he contemplate an emergency power for periods of serious economic downturn such as the one we're in at the moment, or does he have something beyond that in mind here?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: We have in fact been doing what is provided for in this section for about the last year and a half. However, we've had to use another section of the act, which is quite awkward to do. The member will recall some discussion during my estimates last year about having provided a designated minimum stumpage for the small loggers, those people who are having difficulty marking their logs. They don't generally receive the average market value because in many cases they are actually selling lower-grade logs. What we have done in the past, using another section of the act, is designate them by individual licences, and we have literally hundreds of those. This means that every time a new licence is issued, we have to pass another order-in-council to exempt that specific licence. This section allows us to do that

[ Page 7937 ]

in a more administratively efficient manner by simply stating the class of licence — for example, those people who are classified as small business program people, market loggers and so on. We can say that a class of licence is reduced without naming each and every licence. It's administrative efficiency to do something that we have been doing for the last year under these adverse market conditions.

MR. KING: In exercising that discretion, presumably regard will be given to the species and quality of the timber being logged. Even though they're small, some of it could be very high-grade timber, and I presume that in those cases regard would be given to the quality of the material being logged.

Section 13 as amended approved.

On section 14.

MR. KING: This section gives authority to enter and cross private land to obtain access to a fire area. Why does the minister require this particular power? I thought it was already contained in the act.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The act provides the right to enter onto private land for the purpose of fighting a fire on the private land. However, in many cases we have a fire on Crown land across the private land and we have to get through it. I'd also point out that this section provides payment for damages that may be caused the private land due to entry.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. KING: What is contemplated here by giving the district manager the flexibility to grant exemptions from the regulations?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's just to be a bit more practical in the application of the regulations. For example, the regulations spell out very specifically what firefighting equipment is required, and it's a very broad basis. It may say, for example, that your operator is required to have three pumps, seventeen shovels and two buckets, when in fact there may be no source of water to be pumped. We can relieve him of that need to have a pump, and perhaps say that he must have five backpacks instead. It's a little more application of the rules. If something cannot be used, it's therefore not necessary; so we can vary the regulations without our forest officer's being in violation of the act.

Sections 16 and 17 approved.

On section 18.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: 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 42, Forest Amendment Act, 1982, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY,
MINES AND PETROLEUM RESOURCES
(continued)

On vote 28: minister's office, $212,539.

MR. D'ARCY: As with other ministerial estimates, this side of the House is dismayed this year, as we were last year, with the profligate spending of the minister on office expenses, travels and equipment. We have to wonder why, in this time of restraint respecting all aspects of the economy in British Columbia, the minister cannot, in terms of his personal conduct, at least show an effort — not to cut back; that's not what we're asking him to do. We're simply asking him to hold the line when it comes to his own travel expenses, his own furniture and his own equipment expenses. After all, one has to assume that equipment that was ordered last year and usable last year is still going to be good this year.

Because the minister has at this point shown no indication that he desires to even hold the line in terms of his personal expenses, I would like to move that vote 28 be reduced by the amount of $7,900.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: Last year the New Democratic Party moved cuts totalling $82 million in the budget that Social Credit put forward. We did so in the name of real restraint. We did so in order to trim the fat, cut the waste and end the extravagance of Socred cabinet ministers and their friends on the public payroll. Last year we moved that $82 million be cut in non-essential public spending from such areas as are now outlined in the motion put forward by my colleague. These areas are not essential to public safety, public health or public well-being. They are apparently essential to the personal well-being of Socred cabinet ministers, but that's another matter. If the $82 million which we proposed in budget cuts last year had been accepted by Social Credit, we would have money to guarantee that every single hospital bed in British Columbia would be open today. Vote after vote, motion after

[ Page 7938 ]

motion, cut after cut and division after division demonstrated last year that the Socreds are not interested in real restraint. They are not interested in cutting back the fat and the waste and the extravagance.

We challenge the Minister of Energy to accept this motion in the name of real restraint. We challenge him to set a personal example, to ask no more of the public for the expenses of his office than he asked for and was granted last year — not a dime more.

If the Socreds believed in restraint they would be cutting back in areas of non-essential public spending. Travel to New York and other places by ministers is not exactly essential public spending in a year of restraint. Public expenditure on booze and on fancy apartments and hotel rooms is not acceptable in a year of restraint — or in any other year.

What we are proposing by this motion — one of a few so far this session, one of many to come — is that the Socreds actually do what they say they want others to do: that is, exercise personal restraint. We are not asking that moneys be reduced for essential areas such as energy development, energy self-sufficiency and energy conservation. We believe in those programs and support them. We're not asking that a nickel be withdrawn from them. What we are asking, though, is that Social Credit accept responsibility to cut in such nonessential areas as travel, office expenditures, office furniture, rent, and all that other stuff that cannot be rationally justified in a year of restraint.

We proposed cuts totalling $82 million last year. The Socreds voted against every single one of them. We are now proposing a series of cuts this year. We did so in Agriculture, and strangely enough they voted against all those cuts. We are now doing so in this portfolio, and we ask the government to accept responsibility to deal seriously with these motions and proposals for restraint. We ask them to accept these proposals, for budget restraint in a year of restraint, as serious gestures. If the cabinet ministers themselves are not prepared to exercise restraint in their own offices, how on earth can they persuade anyone else to do the same in theirs? If the Socred cabinet ministers are not prepared to abandon their high living at public expense, then there is no reason for them to expect the people of British Columbia to think it justifiable that Social Credit is shutting down hospitals and closing down schools. The money we would have saved last year would have kept the hospitals open this year; the money we propose to save in this motion will singly and cumulatively help guarantee that hospitals and schools will be kept open. How you keep these important services available to the public is a legitimate matter of public debate, Mr. Chairman.

When we speak in favour of keeping hospitals and schools open, people often ask how we're going to pay for it. Through this motion, we're demonstrating how you can pay for it. You pay for it by assigning correct and humane priorities. You pay for it by cutting back in areas of inessential public expenditure. You pay for it by accepting motions like this and redesignating those moneys to important purposes like hospitals and schools.

If this motion passes, it will save the taxpayers of British Columbia several thousand dollars in inessential public spending. The dozens upon dozens of other proposed cuts we will make in inessential public spending will save the taxpayers millions upon millions of dollars. We believe those dollars should be diverted from ministerial spending to hospitals and schools. It's a matter of humane priority, fiscal priority and real restraint that causes us to propose the motion we have now proposed.

MR. BRUMMET: I don't know what the first member for Victoria said this amendment demonstrates, but I believe it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the socialist opposition. I know he referred to last year when they moved cut after cut through amendment, and that had to be one of the most hypocritical demonstrations I've ever seen. In the preceding debate, one after another their members made ever-increasing demands on what the ministers should do and what they should deliver to the people, and then at the end of that debate, having made a long list of requests, they finished it off by asking for lower spending. We've had nothing from this opposition this year but requests for greater spending in various areas, yet here we have the same hypocritical procedure repeated. When it comes to the motion, they make an amendment to make cuts.

The cut proposed now is for the travel costs of the minister. That member comes from Victoria, so I can understand why he feels that everything happens or can be learned in Victoria. I don't think it can; I think it is most important that the ministers visit the areas. For instance, if travel costs have risen this year.... I would like to see the minister able to visit the North Peace River more than once in a year, because that is where a great deal of his responsibility is in Energy. We have the Hydro dams there, which are part of his responsibility, and we have the oil and gas industry. I think it is most important for him and members of his ministry to come on to the ground and actually see what is happening.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that coming from the area and being in direct contact with the people in the oil and gas industry is quite different than sitting in Victoria and pretending to be knowledgeable about the oil and gas industry. That opposition certainly demonstrated that during their reign in power in this province. They practically wiped out the oil and gas industry for no other reason than that they didn't understand it or know what was happening.

MR. BARBER: What about restraint?

MR. BRUMMET: They talk about restraint. Yes, I can see restraint, but in every area that restraint has been mentioned in this House, they're against it. They're for spending more all the time. They try to attack it on the basis of all of the taxpayers of this province sharing in the cost when a minister travels. When people from our area have to come to Victoria, they take the cost out of their own back pockets, so they try to twist and turn this into a personal extravagance. No one is against the personal extravagances, but let them use whatever legal or dirty tactics that they want to attack that.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll remind the members of the committee that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary debate. The Chair is finding some of the comments from the member for North Peace River unparliamentary. Comments such as "hypocrisy" are not parliamentary. I would ask the hon. member to remember that good temper and moderation are the characteristics of our parliamentary language. Please proceed.

[ Page 7939 ]

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, in terms of some of the expressions that I have heard in this House, I would have thought that "hypocrisy" is certainly not an unparliamentary term. I have heard "dirty tricks" said in this House many times without being challenged. However, with respect to the Chair I'll change my wording.

With whatever tactics they choose to use, let them attack what they wish. I certainly resent their amendments to try to tie the ministers down to Victoria when they should be out in the field.

Rather than use the term hypocritical.... Just prior to the amendment to cut travel on the Agriculture minister's estimates, that same member who made the motion was criticizing the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) for not having attended a conference. We have heard criticisms in this House about ministers not attending important conferences in Canada and in various parts of the province, yet at the same time as they recognize increased travel costs, they still maintain that travel should be cut.

I certainly cannot accept this as a responsible amendment, because we need more ministers to visit more parts of British Columbia in order to properly understand what is actually happening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the next member, the Chair must observe that when an amendment comes forward it is designed to reduce the amount of money in a minister's vote. An amendment of that sort is acceptable, but of course an amendment that changes the direction of money in a vote would not be acceptable. I would remind all members that their speeches in Committee of Supply should also take the same direction — pointing out why the amount should be amended. The Chair would be acting improperly if it allowed members to discuss changing the direction of the vote, and the Chair would have to react if members do this in their debate. I'm sure all members are aware of that.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not usually at a loss for words, Mr. Chairman

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask member for North Peace River and the Leader of the Opposition to please come to order.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the absolute carelessness with which the member for North Peace River approaches the spending of public money is amazing. This member for North Peace River is a good friend of the minister and supports him 100 percent. He wants to see this government continue on its obscene course of spending public funds. The member for North Peace River joyously and with great glee.... Could you see the tremor in his voice when he said: "How lovely it is that the minister is going to spend 14.7 percent more on travelling this year than he did last year"?

AN HON. MEMBER: He might even come up to his riding.

MR. HOWARD: He might even come up to North Peace River. More particularly, I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that what the minister is not likely to do with this extra 14 percent that he wants in travelling expense money is spend it coming to North Peace River. He wants to visit Vancouver and spend his time in the Vancouver Hotel. That is part of travelling expenses. That is what this money is all about: an increase of 14 percent in squander money for the minister. Everybody else tightens their belt, but not the Minister of Energy.

Office expenses is another increase that the member for North Peace River just rubbed his hands in glee over and said: "Isn't that lovely that the minister is going to spend more money. Isn't that lovely that the minister has his hands on these public funds. I want him to spend more of it."

Office furnishings? That has nothing to do with travel. That is for the minister while he is here. That is his luxury: a 12 percent increase in office furnishings. The member for North Peace River says: "That's beautiful. I want the minister to have the most expensive couches and desks. I want the minister to have that furniture that Jack Kinsella couldn't get. I want the minister to have Jack Kinsella's furniture."

AN HON. MEMBER: Patrick Kinsella.

MR. HOWARD: Whatever that guy from Toronto's name is, in any event.

That is what the member for North Peace River is advocating. That is what all Social Crediters are advocating. "Get your hands in the till. Get your snout in the public trough. Squander hundreds of thousands and hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money." That is what the member for North Peace River wants, and he's got the utmost gall to stand in this House and use the word hypocrisy, which is out of order. It's not out of order if he applies it to himself, and I notice he didn't do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has already spoken on this word. I am sure the member knows exactly what good temper and moderation are.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, indeed, we need good temper and, more than that, we need moderation in spending public money. We need moderation for the public. We need moderation in squandering the taxpayers' money, and that is why this motion seeks to reduce the amount by $7,900. That may not mean very much to the member for North Peace River. What is $7,900? It may not mean much to him, but it sure means a hell of a lot to thousands of people who are out of work in this province.

I will gladly stand up in this House and vote to reduce the minister's expenditure by that amount of money. It won't affect one single, solitary program available to the people of this province, but it will make $7,900 available for something other than high living, squandering public funds and living in the most luxurious accommodation one can find. I will be proud and pleased to stand up and vote for the reduction. I am sure the member for North Peace River and the Minister of Energy himself will just as cheerfully stand up to squander it. We will enter that on the record and we'll remind the folks about it at the appropriate time. The member for North Peace River can think about that upon his retirement, as he contemplates his one term as an MLA, after the next election.

MR. RITCHIE: Very briefly on the amendment, I oppose this amendment, of course, and I oppose it on the grounds that this minister can be greatly admired for the tremendous

[ Page 7940 ]

job he has done on behalf of this province, and for the strong position that he has taken with respect to protecting the gas and oil of this province for the people of this province. It is rather coincidental, but I received a telephone call here not too long ago from a person who was rather dismayed and upset at some of the comments which have been made by the opposition with respect to various things which they attempt to use in order to pull people down into the gutter with them.

MR. SKELLY: How's Bob Thompson these days?

MR. RITCHIE: Bob Thompson, hon. member, is very fine indeed these days, and I'll pass along your regards to him.

MR. HOWARD: How's Bob Sommers these days?

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Member, I would suggest to you that you just sit quietly, as I did while you spoke.

My father gave me a little advice many years ago, Mr. Chairman...

MR. BARRETT: On this motion?

MR. RITCHIE: On this motion...that one should never get into the mud with the hogs, because you'll all come up covered with mud and only the hogs have enjoyed themselves. So I'm going to stay away from that.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to stand here and make a few comments because of the telephone call that I just received about an hour ago from a Mr. Jack Ellison of Vancouver. Jack has asked me to bring up this matter concerning travel, which the members are kicking around here in regard to expenses. He asked me to remind this House and the public out there of the way that the opposition so freely spent their money when they were in office. One particular incident he wanted to draw my attention to, Mr. Chairman, was the trip to Toronto and, I believe, Ottawa by the Leader of the Opposition, then the Premier, and one of his members, the first member for Vancouver Centre, who I believe at that time....

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he go to Hull, and how do you spell it?

MR. RITCHIE: It was the trip east when he sat down with the Prime Minister, Pierre Elliott Trudeau....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, at this point I must remind you that we are on an amendment to vote 28 in the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and we must relate all of our remarks to the amendment as it applies to that vote, and specifically to the administrative actions of the ministry whose estimates are before us now. Would the member please be relevant.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm pleased that you draw my attention to that, Mr. Chairman. I'm merely responding to comments made by the opposition. If we checked Hansard we'd see that almost all of their talk has been around travel, and I'm talking about travel and the purpose of travel, which, of course, is the reason for the expenses.

Mr. Chairman, the travel of those members, plus their staff, which I understand were a good many, was to Ottawa to make the deal with Pierre Elliott Trudeau that he would commit all of the natural energy resources of British Columbia to Ottawa under the Trudeau administration, provided he nationalized all of them. But that is only the side issue, Mr. Chairman; the issue I wish to make is that they were travelling first class.

MR. BARRETT: False!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would once again ask the member to please relate the remarks to the amendment and to the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. RITCHIE: On the amendment and on the question of expenses and as they apply to travel, I just want to remind the House, Mr. Chairman, that the things that they are saying now against the minister in respect to his travel in his portfolio really are the things that they should have been criticizing themselves for in the past. I just wanted to bring this matter to the House because I received the call to say that the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Vancouver Centre were travelling on that type of business and travelling first class. I know it's not proper in this House for me to call them hypocrites, Mr. Chairman, and I won't do that, although the word is very fitting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly oppose this nonsense amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, usually when members make statements they back them up with facts. You bring facts in here and deal with them. If we are to be attacked for quoting from government vouchers, then I would suggest the remedy is not to take that action that caused those vouchers in the first place. It was that minister — and why I speak to this motion — who made allegations in this House, when we were in office, that welfare recipients were being housed in the Empress Hotel. Did he have any facts? No.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair has already reminded the committee that we are on the amendment to vote 28 and we must be relevant to the administrative actions of the minister.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, it is that minister who is asking for money; it is that minister who has been responsible for decisions in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Why should we give him any money at all when he announces decisions will be made about gas pipelines to Vancouver Island, and the Premier announces an entirely different policy and he didn't even know about it until he was told in a parking lot? Do you want us to give money to a minister who doesn't even have authority to make decisions? You want us to give money to a minister who, when he is travelling, doesn't even know what is going on at home? You want us to give money to a minister whose whole policy foundation is pulled right out from under him by the Premier of this province? You want us to give money to a minister who has promised to bring natural gas to Vancouver Island, only

[ Page 7941 ]

to have that whole policy destroyed by the Premier? You want us to give money to him to travel so that he can get the news, in the parking lot, of what his policies are? You want us to give money to that minister who blew $14 million on a crazy heroin treatment program?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. That was $14 million on an unsubstantiated program.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are discussing the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.

That minister no longer has the authority to announce policy decisions. The minister has yet to explain to this House why he had announced the policy decision on natural gas and the Premier announced an entirely different one.

My friend the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) talked about the gas and oil fields in North Peace River. They have never been as low and as shut down as they are this year under that ministry. I am not opposed to the minister's travelling to North Peace River. You admitted yourself that he went to North Peace River only once. I am opposed to the Broadway Bob antics of this minister which have been going on here. I am opposed to the Broadway shows that the taxpayers of British Columbia and the residents of Fort St. John have to pay for. I am opposed that I should have to explain to the unemployed rig worker, the small businessman in Fort St. John and the welfare recipient. I am ashamed that I have to explain to the WCC followers, packing meetings by the hundreds. Why do they want to separate? They want to separate from that minister, who is more interested in Broadway than he is in Fort St. John.

I find it kind of idiotic. Mr. Member, you should be fighting for the people in Fort St. John, not defending that minister spending money on limousines in New York. You tell us how much a limousine costs in Fort St. John. Maybe we'll hire one for him to travel around up there so he can visit your constituents. Don't you know what the welfare rate is up there? Unemployment is higher in the oil and gas industry in British Columbia than in the last 15 years, and it is directly because of the inaction of that minister and this government. That member should be down here fighting for the people of Fort St. John and Fort Nelson. That member should praise the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, which that minister voted against and which is still functioning. If you are so against socialism, then why do you support the Petroleum Corporation? Stand up and explain that. I haven't heard that member under this vote or any other vote stand up and say: "I've got unemployed in my constituency. I've got trouble in my constituency. I've got bankruptcies in my constituency. Mr. Minister, come up, and I'll pay your way up there, but for God's sake do something to help the people who are unemployed and losing their homes in my riding."

What do we get under this? I'll tell the people in Fort St. John what we get. We get the member for Fort St. John demanding that the minister be given more travel money. Of all the issues and priorities in North Peace River and in the oil and gas field, the last priority and issue is for that minister to get more money to head for Broadway. That is the last issue I expected to hear from you.

I find it interesting that when the minister was asked those questions and we got this amendment, he ran off down the hallway, running from the cameras. He couldn't get down the hallway fast enough. Tough guy Bob! He is the same guy who tried to block the vouchers. Now  you would have a debate here for us stop him, cutting his expenditures. What a bunch! You are the worst of the bunch. There is more to come, too. The whole works of you have been squandering money all over the world by avoiding the problems here in the province of British Columbia.

On this amendment, we've gone all the way from the Pouilly-Fuisse kid to Broadway Bob, and there's more to come. They have no more sense of responsibility to the public and the questions of public expenditures than the most vicious wastrels in the history of the province of British Columbia. And that member's got the nerve to ask for more money for them!

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, I will not vote for another dime for that minister. I don't see what single socially redeeming purpose is served by spending $300 on a Broadway musical to entertain the minister and by having a fat luxury limousine waiting for him outside so that he could have a posh ride home to his hotel.

AN HON. MEMBER: Three blocks to a posh hotel.

MR. BARRETT: It s a little much to hear the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) pleading for more money for the minister — unless he gets up and says the minister can cause less damage out of British Columbia than he does while he's here in this province.

Unemployment is high in this province. Welfare rolls are high. Ministers are gambling lottery fund money and playing games, playing politics. People are losing their homes in your riding and other ridings. and you've got the nerve to stand up and ask for more money for that minister. Shame on you!

I want to talk about this amendment. I want the minister to stand up now and tell us why he should have more money to travel. I want the minister to stand up here and tell us right now why he spent the money on a limousine, why he spent it on a Broadway show, and what decisions are being made when he travels.

That minister, with his sanctimonious act — all along he says he's fighting for the people of British Columbia. I would like an explanation, before I vote on this, of the fight he had in the audience of "Sugar Babies". Can you tell this House and the people of British Columbia how the "Sugar Babies" dance act helped the unemployed in British Columbia? Will you tell this House and the people of British Columbia how "Sugar Babies" helped the unemployed in Fort St. John? Will you tell the people of this province, through this Legislature, how "Sugar Babies" helped the unemployed? Will you tell the House and the people of British Columbia, when they pay their mortgage bills, that "Sugar Babies" is part of the price? This is the most insensitive, unthinking, uncaring administration ever elected in the province of British Columbia.

Even in their own group, the way they behave demonstrates how they operate: not one single cabinet minister who sits next to the minister is acing to be in the House for the next

[ Page 7942 ]

few days. Isolate him; cut him out of the herd; he's in trouble. Leave him alone in the House. We've seen that before. The only guy who took the heat for this government was the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). I'm beginning to think he was the most upfront of the whole works.

I want the minister to stand up and explain here, now, on this amendment, why he thinks he should have more money to travel. I want the minister to stand up here today and explain how he's been squandering money. I want the minister to stand up here, now, and explain why he went to that show, why he hired a limousine, why he travelled the way he did, and tell the people of British Columbia why he should have more travel money.

You're not alone. It's been a whole party gag by the whole works of you over there. Then you want more money to travel. And you've got the nerve, in that public accounts committee, to attempt to block getting at vouchers? Stand up and tell us why you want vouchers blocked. And we can't have photostats of vouchers.

When I want to speak on this motion, I want to believe that when we allow the minister to spend public money, at least his position is that we have a right to know how he spends it by seeing those vouchers. Your asking us to vote on that minister and additional funds, when he's the one that's attempted to hide the vouchers? On behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia, thank God for the guts and the nerve of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who photostated those vouchers so that we could find out what was going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind the hon. member now speaking that we are in Committee of Supply. This committee is not aware of the actions of other committees. We are debating the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, the administrative actions of that ministry, and we are currently debating an amendment to vote 28. Would the member please be relevant to that amendment.

MR. BARRETT: We certainly are, Mr. Chairman; I'm addressing myself to the amendment to reduce the minister's salary and I'm giving you the reasons why it should be reduced. That minister has not shown one whit of responsibility towards funds that have been voted to him in this House. I find it totally unacceptable, when questions are asked about his expenditures in the past, that he deliberately attempts to block public access of photographs or duplications of vouchers.

I remember that member when he was in the opposition, and the untruths he told in this House about public spending.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That must be withdrawn.

MR. BARRETT: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the member must relate his comments to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am relating my comments to the expenditures under this amendment by the minister, including the expenditures. I want the minister to get up and promise that he'll never go to another Broadway show at public expense. I want the minister to get up and promise that he'll never take another limousine at public expense. I'd prefer the minister to get up and quit.

I don't think this group has any sense of shame. Their actions bring disrepute upon the whole government and upon backbenchers who have probably been responsible. I want to tell you that when other cabinet ministers have to carry the can, it would be irresponsible for the opposition not to move an amendment like this.

Mr. Chairman, we're also debating that minister's estimates and moving this motion for another reason. For over one week the Speaker of this Legislature has been sitting on a ruling as to whether or not that minister told the truth before his estimates came up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member has impugned another hon. member's honour.

MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member has not done that?

MR. BARRETT: No, I have said we are debating this amendment at the same time a motion of privilege has been in front of the Speaker for over one week, and that motion of privilege that the Speaker must rule on is to decide whether the minister told the truth in this House. That's what it is, and the minister attempted to get up today and get off the hook before the Speaker brought in his ruling. Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with an amendment to his salary and an amendment to his expenses. It should be dealt with very clearly that while that minister travels around and we are asked to debate his behaviour, the Speaker has yet to make a ruling. Let's have a ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The committee cannot accept debate that would properly be before the House. We are in Committee of Supply, and the member must discontinue his remarks with respect to actions taken in the House and comments that are outside the scope of this committee. I would ask the member to confine his remarks to the amendment on vote 28.

MR. BARRETT: I will make no allusion at this moment, but when we get back to the main motion we'll have to deal with it, Mr. Chairman, don't you think that it's proper for me to ask for an accounting? Don't you think that we have a right and a duty to bring in this amendment?

The minister knew where he'd been on Broadway. He didn't answer the question today, and now he wants more money for expenses. The minister has publicly admitted now, after some forethought, that he liked the show. That is what he said. He told the press that he liked "Sugar Babies." If he liked it, why didn't he pay for it? As a matter of fact, even if he didn't like it, why didn't he pay for it?

I'm not going to debate his expenditures knowing that that minister squanders public funds. Mr. Chairman, we're voting on the expenses of that minister, and we haven't had an explanation of those expenses and more vouchers. We're voting on the expenses of that minister when he tried to block getting at vouchers. How much was the tip for the limousine? Do you know what the tip was, Mr. Chairman? According to the voucher — not a telephone call, but public documents signed by the government — the tip alone for the use of that limousine for two days was $65. You can get two bottles of Pouilly-Fuisse if you add a couple more bucks to it. There isn't a cabinet minister around him. The way the car sales are

[ Page 7943 ]

going for some of those dealers over there, you can buy a whole car for $65. A $65 tip in U.S. money! Sixty-five dollars for some New York worker to drive the rear end of the minister and the rest of his body around New York so he can go and see a show at taxpayers' money. Where is all this stuff about shovelling money out of the back of a truck? Where are those righteous fiscal managers today? Where are all those freedom-fighters who should be speaking on this amendment, when the taxpayers are paying for luxuries for that minister and other cabinet ministers? A sense of responsibility? You think you were born into that office.

I find it very interesting that when an opportunity comes up for those backbenchers and other cabinet ministers to show that they are not part and parcel of this profligate spending, the only one who gets up to defend the minister is the poor, misunderstood member from Fort St. John, who said: "If you give him more money, maybe he'll come up to my riding more than once a year." Well, Mr. Member, I'll tell you how to get him up there. Tell your high school up there to put on "Sugar Babies," tell your local undertaker to paint up the hearse and drive it up to the front of the minister's motel, and put a sign up that says "New York, New York," and you might have a chance to see His Luxury and His Highness up there in Fort St. John.

Mr. Chairman, do you remember the pious statements of the frugal, pencil- sharpening businessmen that they were? He got so excited that he took the pencil out and stuck his finger in. I find it interesting that the minister ran down the hall when the cameras were on him. The minister scurried off and ducked around the corner when the heat was on, but he used to be so brave when he made unfounded statements against the opposition.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: "Scuttle" is the word. He was not on all fours; he was on his hind two, running like crazy to get away from the press.

Come on, Mr. Chairman, is there no defence? I look at the minister from Surrey. fie's not happy; he's wondering what he's doing with this gang. The last place he'd go to is "Sugar Babies." He might go to something like 'Annie Get Your Gun" or one of those....

AN HON. MEMBER: "No, No, Nanette."

MR. BARRETT: "No, No, Nanette." At least that minister would go to one that doesn't have a black cat walking across the screen before it starts.

Mr. Chairman, you want us to give that minister more money when he can't even make a decision on where the gas pipeline goes. As soon as he left town, the Premier announced where the gas pipeline was going to go. That's the minister who authorized the expenditure of tens of thousands of dollars for Hydro to have the southern route. As soon as he left town, he was told in the parking lot that his boss had changed the route. I don't blame him for going to New York. He had to get away and forget it all. But pay your own way! Not the taxpayers of British Columbia. You go up there and tell people in your riding who have to meet mortgage payments why you went to New York and saw "Sugar Babies" for $325 U.S. Who do you think you are, anyway — King Tut? — running some kind of operation over there that allows you to spread your signature without any restraint? Shame on you, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't think you'd run away; I thought you'd have the guts to stand in the hallway and face the press. When the heat was on and the vouchers came out, you ran and scurried for cover. And that's on television tonight. I'm going to warn people to turn off their sets at 6 o'clock. You don't want to see a frightened, scared minister running down the hallway because he might admit that the taxpayers paid for him to go to "Sugar Babies." I want to know what it was. Was it "Sugar Babies" or was it a play about the cabinet, "Sugar Daddies"? Let's have the answer, Mr. Chairman.

The one person who's listening and who understands clearly what I'm saying is the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), because he describes himself as a populist and he knows that, as a politician, he's going to have one heck of a time standing up in a public meeting in Surrey and saying: "Yes, I agree with the minister going to 'Sugar Babies. Yes, I agree with him going in a big, fat limousine. Yes, I think it was a good idea for him to spend that kind of money. Yes, I voted for him to have more money."

Mr. Chairman, I can see that minister standing up here today to defend the minister getting more money, saying: "Oh, yes. the people in Surrey would love it." Not him. That minister knows more than any other, because he defines himself as a populist. But he's going to be stuck today. He's going to have to vote for more money for that guy to blow — through you, Mr. Chairman. on this amendment. He's going to have to vote on the amendment, and I don't want to have to reflect on the vote, because it hasn't happened yet, but I'm making a prediction.

Where are the rest of your pals? Where are your buddies sitting around giving you support now that you're in the glue and have been caught? Come on, let's hear from that minister why "Sugar Babies" was important. Give us the explanation of why you thrash around and throw that kind of money around in a limousine on a one-night stand in New York. It's absolutely disgraceful. In any other jurisdiction today, we would have seen the resignation of the second cabinet minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Could the member please make his remarks relevant to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: I certainly am, Mr. Chairman. I'm not going to vote for any more money for that member to blow in New York. I can't make it any more clear than that. I would have thought that he would have been number two to resign. Through you, Mr. Chairman, does the minister know no shame? These sanctimonious money guarders came to office and said they were going to watch every penny that was spent, and they went around making false accusations about the NDP and about members, particularly the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt). That particular minister made those accusations with no foundation, no vouchers, no nothing. Now that he's been caught, did he stand up in this House and say: "I'm sorry; I'm ashamed of myself; I'm embarrassed; I'm quitting"? No.

What other course do we have but to move this amendment? What other course do we have but to show the people of British Columbia that we, as the New Democratic Party, will not stand for wasting money on Broadway shows and on limousines, while people are out of work and can't make their mortgage payments and keep their homes?

[ Page 7944 ]

This is one of those strange ironies. An amendment would be so much in order and in tune with what took place today in this House. There is no passage of time. There are no forgotten memories. Just a few hours ago that minister was presented with the evidence from his own vouchers of how he was squandering money. Now we have an opportunity, after giving that evidence — not denied, but cowering and running down the hallway to avoid the light of day and the light of the free press. Thank God for the free press of British Columbia. You know, Social Credit used to bring in press laws too. I suppose he'd like that, if he can't block it inPublic Accounts.

Mr. Chairman, I ask that minister now, here, to tell us why we should give him more money to travel. I ask that minister to stand up and explain to us why he went to "Sugar Babies." I ask that minister to clearly tell us in this House why he thinks he should ride around in a limousine for 24 hours in New York. Sixty-five bucks for a tip to some chauffeur for driving a British Columbia cabinet minister in a limousine. One thing they can't say in New York is that the Socreds are pikers. They've left a good name behind them. They spend big, they tip big, they live high, and they're not accountable to anybody, includingPublic Accounts. That kind of behaviour will bring the whole damn works of you down, and you deserve every single bit of it.

MR. D'ARCY: We want to get clearly on the record what we're talking about in this amendment. To put some perspective on it, last year the minister managed to spend some $97 a day in travel expenses. I want to make it clear that this was not his constituency travel on behalf of the taxpayers of Langley. This was not just on business days or working days; it includes every single day of the year — Christmas, Boxing Day, May Day, Labour Day, every Sunday. The minister's travel costs were, on the average, $97 worth of expense money.

Under this year's vote that we are attempting to amend.... We are still wanting to be reasonable. We're prepared to allow the minister $97 a day travel money, if he sees fit, but we're not prepared to raise that to $117 a day, which is what the member wants. One of the reasons we're concerned about the increase is that, based on last year's amount, the minister can't even recall how he spent the money. There seems to be some evidence, cited by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), that the member spent a considerable amount of time in New York City. According to him, he was on urgent public business, leaving a 12-cylinder Cadillac idling at the curb for several hours while he was at a Broadway show conducting urgent government business underneath the footlights. However, earlier today — this was outside of committee — the minister not only couldn't remember what government business was transacted, he couldn't even remember why he was there, except to say that he enjoyed the show.

On behalf of the people of B.C., we simply would like some accounting. If the minister can't remember how he spent money last year, why he spent money or in what government business he was actually involved, we can't understand why he should get an increased amount of money this year. In fact, I've had an argument with some of my colleagues over here as to why we should be as generous, reasonable and lenient as we are in this amendment. There's an excellent case for reducing the minister's travel budget to zero. If he can't recall how he spent $97 a day, each and every calendar day in 1981, and can't recall what business he was transacting on behalf of the people of B.C., then I see very little reason why this House should vote further taxpayers' money in this time of restraint for similar travel operations in 1982. The minister cannot make any justification whatsoever for his travel during 1981. All we know for sure, Mr. Chairman, is that he spent $35,500 during 1981 and that he intends to spend $42,700 during 1982. It's because of that lack of answers and that lack of justification that we on this side of the House strongly oppose this increase in travel expenses for the minister, and why we have reluctantly seen fit to move this amendment.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, I am pretty concerned about what's happening with that minister's office as well, especially when you consider what happened during the debates of his estimates over the last few days, where the minister sat without any advice from his staff, without any of the staff being present, giving offhand comments, some of which weren't related to the facts at all. Then we find that the minister seems to be more concerned with what he can get out of this ministry in terms of his own personal enjoyment and personal travel. He's not travelling on the business of the ministry; he's doing what he can at the public trough.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't mind at all the personal attacks that the members opposite want to make on me. I'd appreciate it if they kept their attacks on me, though, and not on members of my staff. My deputy was with me during the estimates, and I'd like the House to recognize that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I advise the committee that that is not a point of order: it's entering into the debate, which the minister has every right to do in committee. The hon. member for Alberni will continue on the amendment to vote 28.

MR. SKELLY: I will say, Mr. Chairman, that I have a great deal of respect for the minister's staff, for the assistance and the information they provide us on a day-to-day basis through the year as working MLAs. I'd like to deal with the burlesque show that the minister went to in New York when he was supposedly on public business and being paid out of the public till. We've got a review that was distributed to some of the members of the Legislature, which tells a little bit about the show and what kind of business the minister was on when he was in New York. What kind of a show would attract the minister to New York at $1,200 on the public cuff?

Here's a description of the show: "The gags come tumbling out, one after the other, most of them unprintable in a family newspaper. 'Bawdy and gaudy,' says Mr. Rooney, 'but not lascivious.'...enough baggy-pants pratfalls to fill a hospital emergency room" — but not in B.C., Mr. Chairman. If they were in B.C. you couldn't get into a hospital emergency room, because they've cut them back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chairman must advise the committee that remarks must be relevant to the administrative actions of the ministry whose estimates are before the committee.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, nothing could be more relevant, because it's the wastage, the frivolousness and the spendthrift attitude of these ministers that is causing the

[ Page 7945 ]

problems and that has to be restrained. It is compelling us to present the kind of motion we have on the floor today.

"Enough baggy-pants pratfalls to fill an emergency room" — but because of the way they spend money out of the back of a truck, we don't have enough money for hospital emergency rooms in this province, Mr. Chairman. "The chorus has been selected with an eye to the special standards of burlesque. The women have to have full figures, for example, rather than the slim bodies of many of today's dance-oriented shows."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Once again the Chair must remind the committee that we must be relevant to the estimates of the ministry.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Chairman, we're being asked to vote travel and personal expenses for the Minister of Energy, when this is the kind of drivel he travels 4,000 miles across the country to see at public expense. We are being told that this member must travel on public business, must serve the interests of the province of British Columbia, must serve the energy policy requirements of this province, and this is what he spending our money on — your money and my money and the money of the people that we represent.

We feel this minister is far too frivolous with his own travel accounts, and as far as I am concerned, unless he can show that he can exhibit some responsibility we have to cut back, in the interest of the people of this province. Once he has shown that he can perform responsibly as a minister in the way he travels and expends his money, then we will be prepared to vote a sum adequate for the government's business.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, you may not recall this, but I've been sitting around here waiting and thinking to myself: I've been waiting nine years for this to happen.

My God, what are we doing? The gold-dust twins are sitting together.

The administrative actions of the Minister of Energy. I can remember when he got up and made the statement about the juveniles in the Empress Hotel, which was about the level of his debate in those days. At no time did he produce any facts. I must say that I quietly thought that one day anybody who would have the temerity to do what he did nine years ago eventually was going to put his foot in it. Well, he put his foot in it. What amazes me is this. Here he is, right up to his neck in it, whispering through his nose, "No waves, no waves," hopping down the corridor and getting away from the press. What interests me and what should interest our friend over there who babbles about $100 million is this: what minister over there would have the audacity to tip anybody $65? Do you know what he was? He was so proud of being a minister that he went down to New York and said to himself: "But I can't stiff the driver." So he gave him $65 and stiffed everybody in this province.

His actions are absolutely indefensible. We had a timid little attempt by the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who used exactly the same technique that was used by the minister nine years ago: to get up and make accusations about somebody without any proof at all. Over there you get up, say what you like and think people will believe it because you've said it. The things you have difficulty dealing with are the facts. We've been getting copying machines that we can produce the facts. There has got to be something very devious about that.

We are talking about the minister and his administrative responsibilities. He gets $75.000 a year as a minister. He gets $42,000 a year for expenses. He's not hard up. He has over $100,000 to play with. He has yet to produce, as the minister, one piece of sound, practical policy for this province in energy. He has to be the most expensive, overpaid underachiever in that cabinet. There is no way that he can have any money. He's not safe with it. Burlesque, girls with full figures, jokes you wouldn't talk about in a family newspaper — and he represents Langley? What is going to happen to him when he goes home on the weekend?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He never goes home.

MR. LEVI: He doesn't go home? I am prepared right now to put up $100 to bring people from Langley to meet him.

We are not a burlesque. We do not have to have all the decor of a Broadway play. It is possible here for ministers to make incredible pratfalls. This one has made it, along with another one, and there is more to come. The session is quite young yet and there is more to come.

AN HON. MEMBER: Lots more to come?

MR. LEVI: Even if we have to print it by hand, there's lots more to come.

Mr. Chairman, there is no way that he should get any more money. If he has the guts to stand up and tell us just what took place and what piece of policy or good government work he did in New York, I won't mind if he rode around in a limousine. You can get a limousine out at Kennedy Airport that only costs you one-third of what he paid for it. But you know what happens, when you get up there in those heady ministerial clouds that those people are in. There is no doubt that he probably had dinner on the plane and was Pouilly-Fuissed. It went to his head and then he was in real trouble over there. It's incredible! There is a disease going around over there called Pouilly-Fuisse. The people at he B.C. Research Council in UBC are looking at it as an antidote. Well. the only antidote for that crew is an election and a defeat. [Applause.] Mr. Chairman, to have waited so long for such a sweet moment!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, as my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) has noted, the new slogan for this government should be "Pouilly Fuisse, the Elixir of the Gods," because apparently they live like gods and think they are gods on the people's money.

There is some levity involved. There is some humour, but as far as I'm concerned, behind it all there is a more important feeling of bitterness. Certainly I feel bitter that hundreds of thousands of people in British Columbia are suffering in economic terms, wondering where they are going to get their next house payment, how they are going to finance their children's education and how they are going to be able to get health care because the hospital beds are closing. They're wondering whether they're going to have a job next week, because the mills and the mines are closing, and that minister, rather than address himself to doing something positive for the economy of British Columbia, is a drain and a leech on the economy of British Columbia.

[ Page 7946 ]

If ever a gang of bloodsuckers came together and was a leech on the lifeblood of the taxpayers of this province, this motley outfit has to be it. It angers me, because daily I and my colleagues are receiving representations from the poor, hard hit people of the province of British Columbia. No funding for student employment. No funding for community programs. But, yes, funding for fancy French wine and funding for limousines for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources in New York — the sugar daddy of the cabinet. If ever there was a group totally bereft of morals as a collective group of government people, this has to be it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll remind the committee that we should always remember parliamentary language, good temper and moderation in debate. Please, could we be relevant and relate to the amendment before us.

MR. KING: Yes, Mr. Chairman, and as far as I know there is no House rule or standing order which prevents the categorization of the government as bereft of morals, and I indeed believe that statement. It's shocking. As my colleague says, it's obscene that the minister would fritter public money away on his own personal entertainment, on his own personal predispositions, and then hand out $65 tips of the public money while welfare recipients and young mothers with children are wondering where the next meal is going to come from.

What manner of group is this? What manner of government is this? If there was any sensitivity, if there was any sense of values attached to this government, they would collectively resign. Two of their ministers, in my view, through their excessive extravagance, through their breaking of faith with the public in the spending and the custody of public funds, have disgraced themselves and disgraced the government.

All manner of questions spring to mind regarding this particular amendment. We cannot seriously be expected to increase the minister's spending authority for travel expenses and plush office furniture when we find that he has attended some kind of burlesque show in New York. What was the cost? It was $370. I want to know who attended that show with him. Who was he entertaining at the taxpayers' expense in New York? Who were the two gentlemen in addition to the driver who were listed as travelling in the Cadillac limousine with him? Who were those people and what possible business discussions did the minister have with them that pertained to his responsibility as a minister of the Crown in the province of British Columbia? The taxpayers have a right to know.

It is the job and function of the opposition, despite all the obstructions we face from the government, to scrutinize and carefully examine all the expenditures of this government. We shall not be deterred from obtaining the evidence of this government's crass, luxurious extravagance and profligacy. Attempts to intimidate the opposition and prevent us from copying the evidence pertaining to these things will be met with the stiffest resistance. It is now clear why the obstruction was mounted against the attempts of the opposition to obtain the vouchers and scrutinize the conduct, the living style and the spending preferences of this government and their cabinet ministers at public expense.

I am appalled and saddened at the complete absence of any consistency and moral leadership by the Premier of this province when it comes to the conduct of his ministers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

MR. KING: I wonder how it is that the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) was treated in one fashion, and yet the crass abuse that we have witnessed here is ignored. I want the minister to answer to the committee how it was that when my colleague the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) directed questions to him today in question period, his memory escaped him. He couldn't remember how long he had the limousine or, indeed, whether or not he had the limousine. He couldn't remember whether he attended the show "Sugar Babies" on Broadway. He doesn't know anything. After running from the press, once they finally cornered him, apparently, his memory came back. There is something to be said for a minister having an obligation to answer in the Legislature rather than in the hall. It is a precedent of British parliamentary practice that if a minister obstructs or refuses to give information pertaining to his ministerial responsibilities in the House and is then prepared to release it outside the House, it is considered a contempt of the Legislature.

Now he has the gall to come back and ask for yet another increase in his travel expenses. How is it that this minister requires yet more money for office furniture? I suggest that in a year of restraint the plush chairs and the chesterfields and the coffee tables that he had in his office last year should suffice for another year. I suggest that he doesn't need a new credenza, a new chesterfield, some plush chairs and rugs every year. The people of the province of British Columbia — particularly, the public servants — are being asked to show restraint. Indeed, they're not being asked; they are being required by statute introduced by this government to show restraint and to tone down their expectations in terms of wage increases.

Why is it that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is not prepared to set an example? This is the most shocking display of insensitivity I have ever witnessed by any government in the history of the province. The standard has become Pouilly-Fuisse and Broadway shows for the cabinet, and restraint, poverty and suffering for the taxpayers of British Columbia who provide that money to them. A day of reckoning is going to come when this government and every member will have to answer to the people. I expect the laid-off coalminers and the laid-off forest workers in the riding of Kootenay, and all those farmers facing a most difficult time in the Cariboo and the north part of our province, are going to ask the members for those areas to rationalize the government's performance over the past number of years. They are going to ask: "How did you vote when you were challenged to curb the extravagance of those cabinet ministers who demonstrably violated the public trust? Did you support them or did you vote to curb their abuse of taxpayers' money?" That is a valid question. Each and every one of you will have to account to the people of the province of British Columbia, which is as it should be.

There is some humour here, to think of Sugar Daddy running around New York in a big, plush Cadillac, and his colleague drinking fancy French wine at $37.50 a crack. But that humour fades when we think of the people we represent in the province; when we think of the hardship that small industries, small businesses and large corporations are facing; when we think of the human problems that the laid-off workers are facing. There is chaos in the province of British Columbia, absolute chaos in terms of the social implications

[ Page 7947 ]

from this economic downturn that we're facing on every front as it affects family unity, people in conflict with the law, all of the social aberrations that flow from people living in poverty — uncertainty, insecurity in terms of jobs — all of the fear and the psychological depression abroad in the province of British Columbia today is answered by extravagance of the most greedy kind by this government, Mr. Chairman. It's sinful, it's obscene, and this government should resign in toto as a result of this conduct.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I have the honour to address you, Mr. Chairman, and say I am definitely opposed to this amendment. I'm irrevocably opposed because it's not an amendment, it's an attack that's unjustified. I will tell you what it is: it is known as the scurrilous syndrome.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: If you want to look at the dictionary, you used the same word yourself. The dictionary will tell you that "scurrilous" means low obscenity and coarse abuse. If that's not what we have here today, then I don't know what my name is. It also refers to the debate as vulgar and evil, and that is what we have heard today in this House: the scurrilous syndrome of attack. And that scurrilous syndrome applies exclusively; it fits every head in the House, because the idea is attack, throw the mud and stick somewhere. If there is any justification in fact, if they were based on fact, then I would accept them. But they have no facts, none whatever. They have not yet waited for the minister....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'll ask the committee to come to order, and ask the hon. member for Dewdney to relate his remarks to the amendment to vote 28, the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Hon. Chairman, you asked me to relate my remarks.... I'm relating to the fact that we have here a scurrilous attack, and that is relating to the issue, and that is a scurrilous attack. I made it clear that it is. I hope I do not displease the Chair when I say so, because I wish to repeat it. That negative attitude is doing damage not only to this House but also to this province.

It's time that we understood. The Leader of the Opposition was talking about understanding. Referring to the public accounts committee, he said they were blocking the vouchers.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair will advise the hon. member that when the Leader of the Opposition made those remarks with respect to the other committee, he was asked to discontinue them. The Leader of the Opposition did so. I will now ask the hon. member for Dewdney to address his remarks to the Committee of Supply.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I don't question that, but at the same time, Mr. Chairman, I should point out that the vouchers were not blocked; the copying was blocked. This is what I call the scurrilous attitude of that opposition, dealing in obscenities without facts — no facts whatever. If we are to sit here and listen to this kind of lack of material, lack of substance....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the committee please come to order, and will the member please address the amendment.

MR. MUSSALLEM: All right, I'll address the Chair, if the Chair will give me a moment. I refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who referred to the gold-dust twins. The Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in a House committee, merely said "a nigger in the woodpile," and it took three weeks to get over that remark. Yet he can use gold-dust twins, and he says it’s not racist. I say it's a racist remark, and I say it's rotten and you should be disgusted. We know what the gold-dust twins are, and you know too, but you don't have the nerve. You make a mistake and you cover it up. That's a scurrilous attack, and it's time this nonsense stopped. I don't mind the opposition bringing facts before this House, standing on facts, but when they go on supposition and expect us to listen, I think it's gone to far. It's time we came to a halt and worked as a parliament.

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

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, the point of order I want to rise on is that the member for Dewdney, on three separate occasions now in the course of his intemperate remarks, has accused the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources of filing false documents to public accounts — filing false documents with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), with respect to his own expenses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That remark of the hon. member for Skeena is not a point of order. The hon. member for Dewdney will continue on the debate in order, being relevant to the amendment. Of course, the committee is reminded that all members are responsible for their own remarks in this committee.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the member for Dewdney has said that comments that we made were not based on facts. The comments we made were based on copies of documents that the minister has his own signature on that we obtained from the Ministry of Finance. If that is the case then the accusation of the member for Dewdney is that the minister filed false documents, and that is a point of order. You should ask the member for Dewdney to withdraw his attack on the minister's integrity.

MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, it is going to be very difficult to keep the House in order if we are going to allow members of the opposition to rise on a point of order and enter the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a point of order either. Just so that we can sort this out, did the hon. member for Dewdney impute any dishonourable motive to another member during the course of his remarks?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Of course not, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 7948 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then the hon. member for Dewdney continues on the debate.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I think that we are all in such good humour now that it is time for me to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, not only do they waste money, but they want to waste time too. Let's work tonight instead of this half-day business. Let's get on with the public business and start working at nighttime too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not debatable.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I certainly think it should be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 22

Hon. Mr. Williams requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

MR. HOWARD: I rise to pose a question to the appropriate authority to determine when Your Honour will come back to the House with a ruling on the question of privilege that was raised a number of days ago relating to the Minister of
Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland), and thus clear the air of the accusation that he is faced with. When could Your Honour do that?

MR. SPEAKER: As quickly as possible.

MR. HOWARD: That's what you said last week.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will withdraw that remark.

MR. HOWARD: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. That's not what you said last week.

MR. LEA: I'd like to debate the motion to adjourn. Mr. Speaker, I don't think that we should adjourn until tomorrow at 10 o'clock. I think we should adjourn until later this evening, because I think it's imperative that we now hear all of the reasons why we should be here working and not taking so much time off. I think that what we should do is debate in this House this evening the fact that the workers in this province want more money. They want more money for such frivolous things as higher mortgage rates, nutritious diets, payments on their car. Maybe they can get some money to pay for all the increases that have gone on — licence fees, medicate, hospital charges, all of those frivolous things the workers want to pay. At the same time, I think we should give serious consideration to the more meaningful amounts of money that cabinet wants to spend on some of those things that they want to spend it on. I mean, they want more money to go to Broadway; they want more money for fancy French wines. It seems to me it would be irresponsible for us to leave here without discussing those frivolous demands of the workers for mote money for their mortgage payments, for medical services, and for all of those things that those workers want frivolous amounts of money for.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the point of order is taken care of. I was attempting to ask the Speaker if he would discharge the Sergeant-at-Arms, because it was inconvenient for him.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for that observation. The member for Prince Rupert continues.

MR. LEA: I guess, to sum it up, we've already proven that they on the other side like to squander the taxpayers' money on all of the frivolous things that they can think of: going on trips, holidays, giving money to their wives' organizations, all of those things. Now we'd like to know just how lazy they are. That's what we'd like to know. They won't even come back here and work when they have to. They spend money in the same amount and the same force that....

They're lazy. They're as lazy on one end of the scale as they are ready to spend taxpayers' money on every darned personal whim that takes their fancy. I think it's a crime that we have to adjourn this House until tomorrow morning and not discuss some of these items tonight, not come back here and work. At least if they're going to spend money like that, let's make them work for it.

[ Page 7949 ]

MR. BARRETT: I wish to address my remarks to the advice given to the House as to whether or not we should adjourn.

We are facing a very unique situation in this province in terms of high unemployment and a turndown economy. The people of this province look to this Legislature — and the working of this Legislature — to find some solutions to their problems.

I don't think any citizen in this province would be opposed to us working a little bit of overtime towards getting them a little bit of work themselves. If the debate in this chamber could be as fruitful as the government intended it to be when it called this session, then surely by us spending a few more hours in the evening proposing things that could alleviate unemployment, high interest rates, the loss of businesses and of homes, the loss of jobs.... It is our duty to work overtime on behalf of those people to find solutions to those problems.

We are asking the government to sacrifice a little time and go back to an evening meeting so that we can get on with the debate and deal tonight with specific proposals on projects, policies and initiatives that this government can take to alleviate those people's problems. We have thousands of people on welfare and unemployment insurance. We have hospital beds closing. We have programs restraining jobs and opportunities throughout the whole province. Where else can the people look for comfort and leadership other than to the legislators? Nobody would be upset if we were prepared to work a little overtime on their behalf. Perhaps in the coolness of an evening some thoughtful debate could take place here that would make generous, thoughtful moves on behalf of the people of this province so that they can develop some hope and planning for their own lives.

There is nothing wrong with an additional session tonight. There is nothing wrong with our coming back and working a little harder. There is nothing wrong with everybody presenting their point of view, which would help to allow the citizens of British Columbia to believe that here, in this chamber, there are enough people who care to give at least that comfort to those citizens.

Not since the 1930s has this chamber been faced with the problems of a depression. No one wants it. No one wanted it then, and all the work and energy of people since that time hoped it would never visit this province again. It is a fact that while we debate the adjournment here tonight, this province is being ravaged by a depression. Where else can the people of this province look if not to this Legislature and the legislative members who are willing to work a little overtime to find solutions to their problems? Where else in a free society can the unemployed, the small businessman and the large corporation look in times like these, other than to this chamber, to find some solutions?

Right now we are being looked at, right across this country, as another government that can't respond to people's problems. The whole question of whether or not legislative assemblies and the federal government itself can provide solutions to today's problems is what is in people's minds now. People are beginning to question the very value of government, let alone its lack of policies.

We come here today, and we've got an opportunity to sit tonight and discuss these things, and I don't think that opportunity should be thrown away. On behalf of the people of British Columbia, I think we should stay a few hours tonight and debate those issues on their behalf. Surely to goodness, there are some ideas from every corner of this House. Surely to goodness, there are some proposals. Surely to goodness, there is a desire, a wish, by all of us, regardless of what party or region we represent, to find solutions to today's problems. Surely to goodness, we can give a few extra hours tonight to that effort. I'm prepared and my colleagues are prepared to put in that extra effort.

I appeal to the members of this House to consider what the public expects from us. Does the public expect us in a crisis, in the midst of a depression, to just walk away from this chamber without debating important issues that relate to their mortgages, their homes and their jobs? Surely to goodness, the public expect legislators to work a little overtime, to sacrifice a little bit of their thoughts and ideas so we can get people at least feeling that somebody cares. Tonight, as we contemplate adjournment at 6 o'clock, the vast majority of the citizens of this province are sitting down to their supper tables. They're worried, Mr. Speaker. They're sitting down to supper with their children and hoping and talking about what's ahead for them tomorrow. In speaking to this motion to delay the adjournment.... There are many husbands and wives in this province who, in terms of double incomes, depend on one or both incomes just to meet mortgage payments. Now they've lost a job, and a single family has to pay a double-income bill. There are car payments, furniture payments, the price of food and clothing, and the question of second and third mortgages. Mr. Speaker, we've been here since April 5, and we've had no leadership in terms of a few extra hours at night to start dealing with these problems.

The ministers of the Crown who are responsible have feelings; they have approaches and attitudes. Surely to goodness, tonight, in a good solid debate, they could state what their concerns are, and how they're reacting as ministers to those concerns. What is a few hours out of our personal lives tonight, compared to the lack of hope of tens of thousands of citizens of this province?

Mr. Speaker, this government came together as a coalition offering full employment, an opportunity and hope for citizens. In their pamphlets they appealed for votes on the basis of saying they had solutions to economic problems. Now is the time for them to implement those solutions. Tonight is the night for them to start talking about those things.

What is the purpose of the government being here other than to walk away at 6 o'clock and have another night of misery pass in this province in the midst of depression? We haven't asked to sit here every night. This is the first time in weeks that we've asked for an evening sitting. That is why we are speaking on this debate. We believe that one night would at least demonstrate to the citizens who are paying our wages here and are paying for this House to function.... At least they can begin to feel that somebody cares somewhere. Caring may not pay their bills, but at least feeling somebody cares is a step towards the kind of economic recovery we want. What would be wrong with our evening debate? What would be wrong with us spending a few more hours here talking about those concerns, sharing opinions, debating points of view and at least broadcasting to the citizens of this province that this group of legislators do care?

What is really at stake is faith in the system. What is really at stake out there is the disillusionment of the people towards the whole electoral process and the party system. What is really at stake is being demonstrated by populist moves around separatist arguments as a solution. We should

[ Page 7950 ]

address that and recognize the fact that there is a malaise in the body politic of this province. There is a belief by the public that this chamber cannot find solutions, that parties cannot work together and find those solutions and that all politics are irrelevant to them. It is our duty to spend a little extra time and prove those people wrong — prove that this place can do something on their behalf

I have not known a depression in this province like the one we have today. There is not a city, town, village or neighbourhood in this province that is not touched by the ravages of a downturned economy. Would it do us harm to spend an extra evening here debating those problems and trying to convey to the people of this province that at least we are going to search out ideas and proposals and look for answers? Would it inconvenience anybody if they came back tonight and had that kind of debate? Would it not be an elevating proposal for the image of this Legislature, to show that it cares enough to come back for a few hours to at least talk about what is happening in every home in this province?

I am not opposed to working a little overtime if it got one person back to work. I am not opposed to working a lot of overtime if we could save one person's house. I am not opposed to spending my time and energy and the will of this group on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia to try to work out some effective remedies to the problems they face. There is not an MLA in this chamber who doesn't go home to his riding and hear the tragic stories of individual families — beyond Social Credit and beyond the NDP — and what is happening to them in their lives. They don't have a stake in the political partisan identity that brings us here; we do, and we're not ashamed of that. But once here, surely to goodness we have a stake in finding some solutions, or at least in talking about hope for solutions for those people. One night out of our lives is not going to hurt us, but one night out of our lives may help someone out there. Let's do it. Let's come back tonight. Let's have a debate and fight for the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely no question that there are problems in our province, indeed there are problems in our country, and I would say those problems are being discussed in this Legislature. I'd also say they will continue to be discussed in this Legislature as long as we have to sit in this current session. I'd draw to the attention of the official opposition that we do have an order of business, and that order of business is being followed. We do have Committee of Supply and we intend to proceed with Committee of Supply and bills.

There has been a somewhat remarkable shift in tactics by the official opposition in the last couple of days. I can well remember the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) taking very serious objection to the Premier's speaking five minutes after 12 o'clock noon, notwithstanding that under the motion on the first day, the adjournment hour was 12:30 p.m. That was only two or three days ago.

Mr. Speaker, in order to put in some more hours and indeed commence, as a result of this motion, at 9:30 tomorrow morning, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. HOWARD: The motion that was under debate, which had been moved earlier by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations, was that we adjourn until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. Now he's moving a second motion till 9:30 a.m. If he's prepared....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well, he moved that the House adjourn. We have a motion before us. Whatever the procedure, the proper thing for the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations to have done would have been to ask leave of the House to withdraw his other motion and move a motion to come back at 8 p.m. That would find support on this side. Otherwise, he's just playing games.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, under the point of order we cannot go into debating the merits of the motion that's before the House, but the motion by the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations is the adjournment of this debate, not the adjournment of the House. So the question clearly before the House — and I'll state it again so there is no confusion in anybody's mind — is adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, the mover of the original motion, who now seeks to move adjournment....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You don't understand, do you, dummy?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Take off your earphones and get tuned into this Legislature, Mr. Member.

When the mover of the motion got up originally he proposed that this House adjourn until 10 a.m. tomorrow. Then he took his seat. Other speakers got up and spoke to his motion, and then he was recognized. As the original mover of the motion I would anticipate that he was recognized, his second time up, so that he could close debate. He's cut off other members from having the opportunity to speak, and now it is obviously his duty to go ahead with the motion. What's he going to adjourn it for, Mr. Speaker? In order that he can speak to the motion again tomorrow? He's obviously risen to close debate on this motion in a second turn.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I have enough information on the other point of order. I'll answer that point of order and then accept the point from the member for Prince Rupert.

It is only on a substantive motion that a member has a right to speak to the question a second time. And it is only on a substantive motion where the debate is closed by the mover standing to close that debate. The motion to adjourn a debate — or for that matter to adjourn the House — is not a motion that falls under that description.

MR. LEA: That was exactly the point of order I wanted to talk about. I don't know how he got the floor, because, as you point out, you can only speak once to the motion. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations already had. Then when he got up again, I submit he shouldn't have been recognized except on a point of order, because he'd already spoken in the debate. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that you can recognize anything he said, because he was on the floor improperly.

[ Page 7951 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, a review of standing order 42 suggests that, indeed, a member may speak twice to any question only if it is a substantive motion and if he rises the second time to close the debate. Therefore the hon. Minister of Intergovernmental Relations indeed did not have a right to gain the floor, and indeed was recognized in error. The Chair apologizes to the House. Therefore we must continue the debate.

MR. BARBER: No government is lazier than the Social Credit government. This administration has refused consistently over the last four years to do business in the evenings as has traditionally been done in this Legislature for years and years and years. No government is more incompetent than the Social Credit government. Witness the performance of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations just a few moments ago. But remember as well Seaboard, the Ministry of Deregulation, the heroin treatment program and the Princess Marguerite.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We can now debate only the reasons for coming back to work at some other hour than the one suggested. We cannot now talk about incompetence, or administrative responsibilities. We must now discuss reasons why we should not come back to work at the hour appointed.

MR. BARBER: One of the reasons is the proven incompetence of Social Credit. It seems useful that this Legislature offer more advice and at greater length than the short banker's hours that the coalition wants to offer and wants to follow. One of the reasons why we should not adjourn until tomorrow morning is the proven incompetence of the coalition, requiring greater direction from the Legislature in order to clean up its affairs.

No government is lazier and no government is more incompetent than Social Credit. However, we can only presume from the bungled attempt by the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) to adjourn this debate that they have no intention of working this or any other evening. We have to ask why, and in debating this motion — asking why we have to ask what it is they're afraid to debate.

Is it possible that they are afraid to debate the estimates of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources — Broadway Bob, as he has been described by some? Is it possible that the coalition is afraid to debate the estimates and the travel expenditures of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, whose work, allegedly in the public interest, we were examining before 6 o'clock this evening? If they prosecute their own motion and manage to succeed in adjourning debate until tomorrow, what is it, precisely, that they hope to avoid this evening? Well, obviously they hope to avoid working. That much is clear, and that much is traditional with Social Credit. We know that they prefer to avoid working. They don't like to work, they're not comfortable working, and they're not happy working in the evenings at all and, frequently, on other occasions as well.

That being the case, we have to ask what it is they're afraid of debating. We take for granted that they're afraid to work. What is it that they don't want to debate this evening? Some time ago the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) released a number of most positive and imaginative proposals for economic recovery. Is it possible that they are afraid to debate these proposals this very evening? We don 't think they should be. In fact, we think the opportunity should be created tonight to debate the proposals for economic recovery that have been advanced by the official opposition over the last several weeks. These proposals include economic recovery in forestry, mining, agriculture, health — an important enterprise in this province — and tourism.

The New Democratic proposals for economic recovery could be debated this evening, Mr. Speaker, and they should be as well. Is it possible that they are afraid to debate these positive proposals for economic recovery that have been put forward by the official opposition? Is it possible that they are unwilling to debate those materials which they could debate this evening and which appear on the order paper — for instance, various proposals that have been made by members of the official opposition, again in the name in economic recovery, that appear on the order paper as private members' bills or as motions?

Is the laziness of Social Credit so deeply ingrained that they refuse to debate these matters this evening as well? Mr. Speaker, if they propose to continue to defend their own motion, they must account to the people of British Columbia for their own laziness. That laziness is a matter of public record. They have repeatedly and unfailingly, with the weight of their majority, voted against proposals we have made that this House should sit in the evening. They have never said why. They have never provided any rational or even half intelligent account for their refusal to work nights. W.A.C. used to be willing to work nights; in fact, sometimes nights turning into mornings. That was an abuse no one accepted. It was a form of dictatorship no one agreed with. At least we are not in those days again.

We are not proposing that this government sit until 3 in the morning; but we would be interested in seeing whether they are prepared to work at 8 in the evening. This was a motion traditionally presented to the House at this time. It is a motion which this lazy coalition opposite has apparently decided they are not prepared to have debated favourably. If they are not prepared to work then they are not fit to govern, draw their salaries or hold office in the executive council. If they were prepared to work and to govern they would be prepared to come back this evening and advise us as to their program for economic recovery. So far they have failed to do so, except in the single instances of certain ministers who have a personal program for economic recovery. This includes wine. New York shows and vast expenditures on personal travel.

For instance, the personal economic recovery program of the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) could be debated tonight. If we were to adjourn until 8 o'clock this evening rather than until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, this debate would be a subject of great interest to the people of British Columbia. It might not be of such great interest to the coalition. They are not interested in meeting tonight in order to find out about the incredible waste, the selfishness and personal greed of cabinet ministers who would take trips to New York for God knows what purpose, apart from seeing Broadway shows and wasting money on long black limousines. The people of British Columbia might be very well served if we had that debate this evening. The people of British Columbia would be well served if the Minister of Energy, for instance, took the occasion this evening to answer the questions we put to him this afternoon about his personal waste and his personal habit of sticking his

[ Page 7952 ]

beak in the trough and wasting money on business that is not public business, but is private business. This too could be debated this evening.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is seeking now to enter a debate which might properly be in order under another motion, but certainly not under this one.

MR. BARBER: I am happy to accept your advice, Mr. Speaker, and happy to ask what the government is afraid of. Are they afraid to proceed with the estimates of the Minister of Energy? If so, we can guess why. Are they afraid to proceed with other bills on the order paper? If so, we can imagine why. Are they afraid to proceed with calling of private members' bills that might get them into some political difficulty? If so, we can understand why. If they are not afraid to debate these things they shouldn't be afraid to debate them this evening. If they're not afraid of work they shouldn't be afraid to work tonight. If they're not afraid of falling further and further into public contempt they shouldn't be afraid to provide honest answers to the questions we've been asking about the personal waste, extravagance and habits of high living of Socred cabinet ministers. All these things could and should be debated this evening. They will be debated this evening if this motion fails, as it should.

Primarily, what should fail is the attempt to obstruct the proper business of this House. That attempt was obvious in the clearly illegal motion of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. We are glad you saw fit to demonstrate that it was improper, and clearly just a sleazy attempt to make it impossible for this House to debate what the House clearly should be debating: in this instance, the hour of adjournment. We are glad the Speaker saw fit to make it clear that the government had no business moving such a phony and illegal motion and such an improper attempt to avoid debate on this motion.

The motion itself is in order, and we debate it as follows. What have you got to lose by coming back to work tonight? You don't have to listen. You can go to your office and do crossword puzzles. They've got nothing to lose if they've nothing to hide. If they have anything to hide they have no business being government. What are they trying to hide by avoiding debate this evening? Are they trying to hide the answers we've been seeking about the waste and the personal extravagance? Are they trying to hide from the fact that they have no program for economic recovery, no policy of hope, no policy for prosperity at all? They are trying to hide from the public that simple fact. Perhaps they are trying to hide their own laziness.

They hope by ineffectually — and illegally at one moment — debating this motion, to cover up from the vision of the people of British Columbia the fact that this coalition is simply not prepared to do the job they're being paid to do. They're prepared to do other jobs that they shouldn't be paid to do: drinking fancy bottles of wine and going to New York. They shouldn't be paid for that at all. This too could be debated this evening. When the government refuses to work in the way that traditionally this Legislature has worked, you have to ask what their real agenda is. Does it include flying home every night at vast expense, charging a per diem while they do so?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please hon. member. To discuss an agenda which might take place should the motion be passed or not passed is not in order at this time.

MR. BARBER: We're trying to draw to the attention of the House, and thereby to the attention of the public, that there are many matters that could be debated tonight if this motion fails. If it fails, as it should, it could be replaced by the ordinary motion that we adjourn until 8 o'clock. If it fails, as it should, this Legislature will be in business and could be debating programs for economic recovery, among other things. We could be debating any number of estimates that the government may care to put forward.

We can predict, though, that if the motion does pass, this government will once again be off the hook on debating matters of urgent and real public interest. That includes the wasteful expenditures of vast sums of money for the personal travel habits of members of the Crown, and the personal drinking habits of members of the Crown as well. Those things could be debated, but those things won't be debated if the majority has its way. They won't be debated because the government is embarrassed about the revelations today about the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. They're embarrassed about the revelations of his high living and fancy cars, embarrassed about the revelations that he goes to New York and attends Broadway shows instead of attending to public business. He may say that he was also attending to public business, but we're going to be awfully skeptical. We're skeptical because we've heard him make other statements in the past that turned out to be equally incorrect. We've heard him make other statements in the past about juvenile delinquents at the Empress, for instance. But I know you're going to say that's not specifically relevant.

We've waited for a long time for this debate, in a sense, Mr. Speaker. We've waited for some time indeed to have evidence of the willingness of this government to do an honest day's work and present an honest government's policy. We've seen evidence of neither. Lacking that evidence, we can only argue that if this motion should fail, this House should be recalled at 8 o'clock this evening and work on behalf of the people of British Columbia, rather than so that the personal interests of the members of cabinet should prevail.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in this debate for a few moments. I have been in this House since 1967 and experienced hours of debate, such as the member for Victoria has mentioned. I have seen the business of this House carried on in the way that he would like to suggest would occur if we were to return this evening at 8 o'clock and, I presume, to adjourn at the hour of 11 p.m. However, the member conveniently forgets that the hours prescribed for debate in this chamber, in this session as in previous sessions, have been precisely those which were prescribed for this Legislature in earlier years on a weekly basis and passed unanimously.

I was surprised, not at the sanctimonious tone of the member, for which he is well known, but to hear him suggest that they have been waiting for this opportunity to conduct this particular debate. Yet for all of this session the motion which is currently before the House has been proposed by the House Leader and has on each successive day been adopted by the House without question. Therefore one has to wonder whether the members of the opposition are not merely being

[ Page 7953 ]

facetious in the conduct of debate at this time. If the members of the opposition really had any matters to bring before this House I would expect that we would have heard them bring such matters forward during the opportunities which have been presented so far. But I find to may surprise that this group which wishes to work so hard finds great difficulty in fielding a full membership on any day. I will consider the Journals of the House very carefully to determine when it last was that all the members of the opposition were in attendance at the service of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. That may well be in order under another substantive motion, but it's not in order at this time.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since we are presented with such specious debate on the part of the opposition, I would move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 34.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is adjournment of the House.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Under standing order 34 the motion to adjourn is always in order and is not debatable, hon. members. Is there a point of order?

MR. NICOLSON: On page 404, restrictions on motions for adjourning the House and the debate.... No, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw that.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS 22

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

The House adjourned at 6:46 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

42 The Hon. T. M. Waterland, to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 42) intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 13, by deleting paragraph (b)

SECTION 18, by deleting "Section 11" and substituting "Section 10."