[ Page 8887 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Computerized tourist services. Mr. Hall –– 8887

Loss of seedlings. Mr. King –– 8888

Use of Aqua-Kleen in Osoyoos Lake. Mr. Skelly –– 8888

Use of 2, 4-D in the Okanagan basin. Mr. Skelly –– 8888

Distribution of lottery tickets. Mrs. Dailly –– 8889

Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 62). Report. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 8889

Fire Services Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 63). Report. (Hon. Mr. Williams)

Third reading –– 8889

Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 66). Report. (Hon. Mr. McClelland)

Third reading –– 8889

Election Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Wolfe)

On proposed section 25 (A) –– 8889

Mrs. Dailly

On proposed section 25 (B) –– 8889

Mrs. Dailly

On proposed section 28A –– 8890

Mrs. Dailly

On proposed section 29A –– 8890

     Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to section 32 –– 8890

    Mrs. Dailly

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

On vote 36: minister's office 8891

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Hall

Mr. Howard

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Barber

Mr. Barrett

Mr. Lea

On the amendment to vote 36 –– 8909

Division

On vote 37: government financial support –– 8909

Mr. Stupich

On the amendment to vote 37 –– 8909

Division

On vote 38: Provincial Capital Commission –– 8910

Mr. Stupich

On the amendment to vote 38 –– 8910

Division

On the amendment to vote 39: compensation stabilization program –– 8910

Mr. Stupich

Division

Appendix –– 8911

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. HALL: It's always a pleasure, I'm sure, for members to have members of their own family in the gallery. At this time of year, school being finished for a while, many of us have the benefits of having our children visit us. This is the case today. I would like the members of the assembly to welcome my daughter Tracey, along with one of her friends, Brenda McCauley, who are in the House today.

MR. RITCHIE: It's a pleasure indeed to introduce to the House today friends to British Columbia, Mr. and Mrs. Mort Burman, who are visiting us from Los Angeles. Would the House please make them most welcome.

MS. SANFORD: Seated in the members' gallery today is John Bright, who is here from London, England. Mr. Bright is station manager with the BBC in London, and is on a four-month visit to Canada on a bursary financed by the Commonwealth Relations Trust. He's very interested in the Legislature. I hope we'll make him very welcome this afternoon.

MR. BRUMMET: I take great delight and pleasure in being able to introduce to the House today 14 young people from the Fort Nelson Indian band. These pupils range from grades 4 to 8. They are taking in the Legislature as part of a tour provided by the Fort Nelson Indian band for their diligence and effort in their schooling. Accompanying the students and looking after them is Kathie Dickie from the Fort Nelson band; with her is her sister Linda Dickie from Victoria, and Miss Susan Gower, a teacher in Fort Nelson. I would like to remind the House that these people are used to northern hospitality, so I would like the members to extend themselves and give them a real rousing welcome.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I have three guests in the gallery today: David and Janet Podmore and their daughter. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to welcome to the House the daughter of one of our members, who is also a member of the cabinet; Kim Heinrich and her friend Dean are wishing to see the kind and gentle way the opposition deals with her father.

MR. SEGARTY: In the gallery today from Brentwood, in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands, is Lieut.-Col. Thomas Stephenson. I'd like the House to bid him a welcome this afternoon, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis).

Oral Questions

COMPUTERIZED TOURIST SERVICES

MR. HALL: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism. The tourist industry in British Columbia has many times recommended a computerized information and reservation system for the province. In view of the fact that a cost-benefit study has shown the advantages of the system, can the minister advise why she has not implemented it?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I'd like to thank the member for his question. He's quite right; a study was done through TIDSA. When the results of that study were analyzed, the practicality of implementing such a system in British Columbia at this time simply wasn't there. It would have served some people who are already working on a computer system, such as the major hotels and airlines, but it would have left out a lot of the smaller industries in other parts of the province.

So it was decided that it would be best to continue to explore the feasibilities and watch as high technology, in this and other areas which can be of benefit to tourism, comes to a plateau where, should that be the decision, we do enter into either automated visual displays in information centres, reservation systems, or many of the other opportunities that will be available. Until the technology has stabilized so we can go into a system that is highly profitable to the industry, is practical economically, and is one in which everyone can take part so there's no discrimination, we decided that we should delay that decision.

MR. HALL: A TIDSA technical report was presented to the government over two years ago. Parts of that report have been re-presented three times in the past six months. Why has there been no action on that study?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I believe I answered the question, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The minister has the question.

MR. HALL: I heard no answer, Mr. Speaker. Maybe you had an advantage over me. That technical report has not been addressed by the ministry. However, her silence about that major study is eloquence itself.

A further question. Can the minister confirm the observation by industry leaders that the minister has been spending the Tourism budget for political gain and that the maladministration has been a contributing factor in the recent resignation from her staff by Assistant Deputy Minister Plul?

MR. SPEAKER: There is considerable argument in the question, but the minister answers?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Contrary to the hon. member's last statement, the record will show that I did answer his question. Perhaps he wasn't listening. The report was studied and it's this government's commitment, and mine as Minister of Tourism, to see that when we spend tax dollars for a purpose we do it with full understanding of its cost implications, its effectiveness, and the benefit to everyone. The decision was made to delay any implementation of a reservation system until such time as that could be established. High technology is moving very quickly. It's very costly and at times it isn't as effective as we'd hoped.

As to political gain, I would like to assume some modesty in answering that. When I look through the annual reports of Tourism British Columbia I notice the hon. member, when he was the Minister of Tourism in 1972, couldn't resist putting his picture in several places, not only inside but on the cover.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: We have the examples in Beautiful British Columbia magazine in the year 1974. Guess

[ Page 8888 ]

whose picture is there, Mr. Speaker? A message from the minister of the travel industry, the Hon. Ernie Hall....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister has now gone considerably beyond the scope of the question.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I have some wonderful Sunset magazine advertisements on the ferries in British Columbia, and you'll never imagine — the name of the Hon. Robert Strachan addresses that....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister has now gone considerably beyond the scope of the question.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HALL: The second member for Surrey is merely attempting to find out what contributory reasons there are for the resignation of the assistant deputy minister, which makes a round dozen that have gone through that revolving door in that ministry — photographs or no photographs.

MR. SPEAKER There is a question there? The minister has the question.

LOSS OF SEEDLINGS

MR. KING: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Forests. Yesterday a press release was issued by the ministry, indicating there has been a loss of two million seedlings this year in the Prince George and Vancouver forest districts. Can the minister indicate to the House the approximate cost to the public of that loss of two million seedlings?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The cost of producing seedlings is in the order of 15 to 20 cents per seedling, and our losses this year are probably quite modest. The production of seedlings is, as the member knows, almost an agricultural operation, and weather conditions quite often cause a loss. I could get the exact figure for the member if he wishes, but it's in the order of 15 to 20 cents per seedling to produce it to the planting stage.

MR. KING: Can the minister also indicate to the House how far this loss will set back the program of bringing the unsatisfactorily restocked forest lands up to date with the harvest? We're some two million acres short of our reforestation program; how far will this set back attempts to catch up with the current harvest?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It won't set back the program at all. In any management of that type of operation you must make allowances for unavoidable losses, and we do that. Our reforestation program is advancing at a very rapid rate. During the period of the last government, I think the maximum number of seedlings produced was in the order of 65 million, and already 97 million seedlings are being produced in Crown forest nurseries in the province.

MR. KING: Perhaps the minister is quite satisfied with the loss of two million seedlings that don't even get planted in the ground, but the taxpayers hardly would be.

MR. PHILLIPS: Wipe the frown off your forehead.

AN HON. MEMBER: My, they're upset.

MR. KING: They're very sensitive about further bungling by this government, and squandering of taxpayers' money because of inadequate planning. My question to the minister is, could he not have transferred at least some of those seedlings to other forest districts where the climatic conditions were more appropriate for planting?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order; the preamble was not.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would point out the direction given by the Speaker not too long ago when he said the preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence.

The member is trying to imply some political or administrative failure because two million seedlings were lost, and why couldn't we have moved them and planted them somewhere else. I'm afraid this government doesn't have close control over weather conditions in the province, although that member may feel that he does. By the time the snow had gone and the weather became too dry, the seedlings had flushed. We could have spent 20 or 30 cents per seedling to plant them, but we might just as well have planted toothpicks; they wouldn't grow into trees in any event. We don't intend to waste taxpayers' money carrying out useless operations.

USE OF AQUA-KLEEN IN OSOYOOS LAKE

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Were B.C. Environment ministry officials present at the U.S. Army Corps. of Engineers' illegal application of Aqua-Kleen 20 on the American side of Osoyoos Lake, which later drifted into Canada at four times the acceptable B.C. concentrations, thereby affecting domestic and irrigation water intakes and contaminating beaches on the Canadian side of the border?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MR. SKELLY: Did the Corps of Engineers consult with the minister or the Ministry of the Environment with respect to drift conditions, concentrations, water intakes and recreation-use areas on Osoyoos Lake prior to applying 2,4-D on the lake?

HON. MR. ROGERS: They did not consult with me. They may have consulted with staff in my regional office in Penticton. I will take that part of the question as notice.

USE OF 2,4-D IN THE OKANAGAN BASIN

MR. SKELLY: One final new question to the Minister of the Environment. In 1978, the advisory committee on the control of Eurasian water milfoil in the Okanagan Lake system recommended a complete review of the progress of the Okanagan Lake 2,4-D program at the conclusion of the 1980 season. They indicated that even if there were a major improvement, the use of the chemical herbicide 2,4-D should be phased out within three years. First of all, was the 1980 study carried out? If so, what were the results of that major review? And what plans does the minister have to phase out the use of 2,4-D in the Okanagan basin, according to the recommendation of that committee?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I think that the member doesn't expect me to have all of the answers to those

[ Page 8889 ]

questions at my fingertips. I will take the matter as notice and bring an answer back to the House.

DISTRIBUTION OF LOTTERY TICKETS

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Provincial Secretary. A number of retailers have complained of a general deterioration in the distribution of lottery tickets ever since the minister brought in his new scheme. This deterioration is affecting the sale of tickets to the purchasers. I wonder if the minister will agree to meet with these retailers?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Burnaby North asked a similar question some days ago, and I thought I responded at that time. Her preamble was inaccurate in this respect: the changes in the lottery distribution system were not the initiative of this minister but a change in the Western Canada Lottery Foundation procedures for distributing tickets.

In answer to the question, I'll be happy to meet the retailers. I've already done so on a number of occasions.

MRS. DAILLY: On a supplementary to the minister, I wonder if he would confirm that, despite his previous answer, one of the main reasons for bringing in this new distribution is to divert lottery sales from the former lottery tickets to the government's own new lottery, 6-49, which is primarily to finance megaprojects to help this government politically?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is a categorical no. The two ticket systems are completely different and completely separated. My information is that sales of the traditional lottery tickets, which have been available under the system she's referring to, have maintained their level of previous years from week to week as the new distribution system has taken place. We're monitoring it very closely, and we're anxious that the participation by the retailers does not fall off and that the financial benefit to the former distributors does not suffer in the process. So I can say to her that the week-to-week sales of the traditional lottery tickets are maintaining a level commensurate with last year.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

ATTORNEY GENERAL STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Bill 62 read a third time a passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

FIRE SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Bill 63 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Report on Bill 66, Mr. Speaker.

UTILITIES COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Bill 66 read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1982
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Section 25 approved.

On proposed section 25(A).

MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment standing under my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

The basic purpose of this amendment is to provide for people who vote under the absentee provisions to have the same right to register the day they go in to vote if they find that they're not already on the voters' list. In other words, it would grant that same right to the voter who is not registered. We cannot understand why the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) did not extend that same right to these people.

HON. MR. WOLFE: May I just say, before responding to the member, that I never cease to be amazed at the wonderful job done by the Queen's Printer. We have before us the Orders of the Day for 2 p.m. on Tuesday, having been already amended by the many changes which took place this morning. To make all those changes in the order paper is a wonderful thing that they accomplish in a short period of time.

The member asked a question under her amendment to section 25(2). Simply put, regarding our venture into the polling-day registration procedure, we have found that in other jurisdictions that have done this they have not included the advance poll. At least at this stage, we were not prepared to include availability for polling-day registration at the advance poll. Similarly I believe the amendment includes the suggestion that a person could register in a constituency other than his own. This would also be very difficult to administer. So on those two counts, plus the fact that the motion is out of order by virtue of the further expenditure of public funds, we're not able to accept the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment fails, hon. members, by virtue of standing orders.

On proposed section 25(B).

MRS. DAILLY: This is probably irrelevant now, because the Provincial Secretary has not seen fit to accept my other amendment. This amendment was simply to provide the proper voting certificate which would allow someone at the advance poll to vote.

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

HON. MR. WOLFE: The amendment is no longer necessary, by virtue of the non-acceptability of section 25(2).

[ Page 8890 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that would fall in the out-of-order category as well, and the Chair so rules. There is no debate on it at this time. The motion has been ruled out of order.

MR. MITCHELL: Do you mean to say I can't talk on why the minister should have it in there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's right, hon. member, you can't.

Sections 26 to 28 inclusive approved.

On proposed section 28A.

MRS. DAILLY: I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper as 28A. [See appendix.] The purpose of the amendment is simply to broaden and reinforce the rights of access of candidates or their agents during a campaign period to voters who live in apartments, mobile-home parks and hotels. The reason we're putting it in, even though we know the Residential Tenancy Act allows this access, is that we feel the Residential Tenancy Act is sometimes not really strong enough to allow proper access for candidates' agents. So we feel it would be better if the Provincial Secretary would accept this amendment for expanded access and place it in the Election Act, where we feel it really should be. I so move.

HON. MR. WOLFE: For the reason given by the member, we are not prepared to accept that amendment. As she mentioned, it's already taken care of under section 27(3) of the Residential Tenancy Act. I believe this provision is somewhat differently worded. We're concerned about the overlapping of the two different laws. So we're not prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 29 approved.

On proposed section 29A.

MRS. DAILLY: Section 29A is one of the most important amendments by the opposition. I move the amendment as it appears in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

During second reading we covered the reasons in detail for bringing this in. I noted at that time the need for the limitation of election expenditures to a certain sum of money and also for full disclosure. I do not believe the Premier was in the House at the time. Just in case he didn't take the time to read all my speeches, I thought perhaps I should briefly go over the reasons for this amendment. I really find it almost ridiculous that I should have to stand up here and explain to the Premier of any government how important it is in 1982 to have a limitation on and detailed public disclosure of the amount of money spent during an election campaign.

Mr. Chairman, I know that you, the Premier and the Provincial Secretary are well aware that the federal government has this legislation and that provinces other than B.C. have similar legislation. We in the opposition have taken the time to place on the order paper, in great detail, what we consider would perhaps be of some assistance to the government in revising the Election Act to include this.

A government such as Social Credit, with its history of having had some very serious problems in explaining to the public of B.C. just where their campaign funds come from and how they are spent, would, I think, find that acceptance of this amendment might help ease some of the nervousness and grave concern people in this province have about how this government may proceed in the next election to use campaign funds in a manner not considered desirable. I do not know why the government would see fit to want to hide that sort of thing. If they cannot accept this amendment, it means that their past indiscretions have not been absolved, despite the fact that the Premier said there was going to be a careful watch on this through the Social Credit Party. Until he accepts this on behalf of the government and asks the Provincial Secretary to really.... We're entering into another election period that is going to cause many people grave concern, because they do not have full disclosure.

I know we hear comments about contributions from unions. The NDP is presenting this because we are always prepared to make complete and open disclosure of campaign funds. And we're prepared for a limitation.

I think we've made our points very clear. I was going to say that I would impeach the government — I wish I could do that. I would implore the government to sincerely look at these amendments. I think we could enter into another election campaign on a much better footing on both sides, without any unnecessary accusations against each other, if full disclosure were accepted. I hope the Provincial Secretary will comment favourably on this.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I want to thank the member for her amendment, but I would have to point out that this amendment is out of order for two reasons: it creates an offence contrary to the prerogative of the Crown and involves expenditure of public funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On that, hon. members, the Chair has no alternative but to rule the amendment before us out of order, and I so rule. The amendment therefore fails.

Sections 30 and 31 approved.

On section 32.

MRS. DAILLY: The amendment on section 32 again primarily refers to an amendment which, unfortunately, was not accepted by the government, but I wish to move this amendment as it appears in my name. [See appendix.] This would provide that section 80 ballots are ordinary ballots. We just put this amendment on the order paper because we felt it would be necessary to do so if the government accepted it. Apparently they are not going to accept it, but, Mr. Chairman, I would still like you to call it, and I so move.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. WOLFE: As the member quite properly pointed out, we cannot accept this amendment. It has the effect of causing the ballots of newly registered voters who register on voting day to be deposited forthwith in the ballot box without being engaged in further verification procedure. I think it is a very necessary element of the new polling-day registration that those ballots be held back in a separate envelope and verified as to their authenticity before being put

[ Page 8891 ]

in the ballot-box some days after, during official count day, as the member well knows. Therefore we cannot accept her amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Section 32 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Although the forms are attached to section 32, shall the forms as specified pass?

Forms approved.

Section 33 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Bill 13, Election 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.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

On vote 36: minister's office, $188,673.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have just a few remarks to make, as you can see, with respect to the operations of the ministry. Before the committee reviews the votes I wonder if I could offer a couple of comments regarding the accomplishments that we have achieved during 1981-82, but particularly our objectives for 1982-83. When I say we, I make it very clear that I include all those involved in the Ministry of Finance, whether long-time employees or relatively new. I happen to feel that I am fortunate to have an outstanding group of public servants whose loyalty to the province of British Columbia is beyond question, and who have been prepared to accept most of the challenges which have been offered to them in the course of these two years in particular.

Excluding the contingencies and compensation stabilization vote, the total budget for the ministry for this year is $81.3 million. We felt that we had to show leadership within government; this, therefore, represents an increase of only 2.4 percent over the comparable amount of $79.4 million for 1981-82. It reflects the many measures taken in the last fiscal year and further action to be taken in this fiscal year to increase the efficiency of the ministry while at the same time meeting or exceeding our objectives. Mr. Chairman, I would like to think that the Ministry of Finance is one example of what the 1982 budget is all about: that is, attempting to do more with less from the public of British Columbia.

In reviewing recent major accomplishments the following highlights come to mind. After a lot of work and input we developed the Financial Administration Act, which clearly defines the responsibilities and provides what can be described now as a modern statutory framework for public sector financial management in the province of British Columbia. We're encouraged by the fact that we've had interest shown in the Financial Administration Act, as it has been proclaimed in recent months, from other jurisdictions in Canada. I don't believe that we've had inquiries from beyond the borders of this nation, but certainly it is of interest to a number of other provinces and, indeed, to the federal government as well.

In conjunction with the FAA we've had the development of a comprehensive set of financial administration policies approved by Treasury Board to ensure uniform interpretation of the new act, and to recommend implementation procedures to ministries. We have worked very closely with ministries in considerable detail with this new document called the Financial Administration Act, replacing statutes which had become very familiar to ministries and to managers in government. The process of seminars was used, as an example, to ensure that everyone who had the need to know of the workings of FAA was fully informed and had the opportunity to ask questions and to make suggestions to us. A great deal of that work has gone on over the past number of months.

Further, we have had the development and implementation of new accounting policies approved by Treasury Board, which are reflected in the most recent public accounts before the Legislative Assembly, in what I believe to be an improved format for the 1982-83 estimates, permitting easier comparisons with the public accounts and to provide program managers with greater flexibility to respond to program demands within well-defined legislative and management constraints.

A major reorganization of the ministry was implemented in 1981-82; it was based on a master plan completed actually in 1980, and the structure which we have now allows the ministry to be more responsive to the complex economics, financial and management issues facing the province. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, within very recent weeks I've been able to announce the further reorganization of the ministry, or a refinement of the reorganization in terms of the economic and policy branch and Treasury Board, now headed by Mr. David Emerson, who is well known to most members of this Legislative Assembly. Mr. Emerson, I think, will join us on the floor in the course of the debate of these estimates. I would also refer to the presence on the floor of my deputy minister, Larry Bell. who has proven to be of tremendous assistance in the major changes which we have undertaken in the ministry in something just over two years.

An aspect of the activity within the ministry relates to responsibilities as fiscal agent for a number of provincial Crown corporations and the raising of about $1.87 billion in long-term financing to meet the capital requirements of those Crown corporations and the development of fiscal agency agreements between the Ministry of Finance and the Crown corporations, particularly British Columbia Hydro, but not exclusively. Parenthetically, Mr. Chairman, I carry a responsibility for the Provincial Capital Commission, and I'll be happy to answer any questions which are raised in that context.

Looking ahead to the remainder of the 1982-83 fiscal year, the major thrusts for the ministry include enhancement of the efficient and effective collection and administration of tax revenues. This is being accomplished partly through the establishment of a collections branch within the revenue

[ Page 8892 ]

division to provide more effective collection of all assessed and other taxes, the addition of eight new auditor-inspectors for the consumer taxation branch, and the continued monitoring of fees and licences to ensure compliance with cost-recovery principle.

Further enhancement of the management of our assets and liabilities: we've placed great emphasis on this within the ministry to identify, first of all, the assets and liabilities of the province. This enhancement is to be accomplished by broadening the investment powers for the management of government, Crown agencies, and trusteed account financial assets; by investigation and implementation, if proven desirable and feasible, of master trust arrangements for the investment of public funds; and by the implementation of fiscal agency agreements with Crown corporations regarding capital borrowings. These fiscal agency agreements, while perhaps sounding somewhat dull, I think are extremely important in order that the guidelines and several responsibilities between Crown corporations and the Ministry of Finance are clearly identified in advance, rather than as we move through a particular activity.

There are many more objectives for the ministry in the course of this fiscal year. Each branch has been very ambitious in its goals for 1982-83; as I said at the outset in a somewhat different way, I compliment them on their accomplishments in the past year, and for their enthusiasm, their eagerness for continued improvement in 1982-83 and beyond.

Mr. Chairman, with those few remarks, I welcome the debate on my estimates and look forward to answering whatever questions I can. I am now available to the committee as they wish.

MR. STUPICH: First of all, I would like to agree with the minister that there have been considerable improvements in financial reporting in the last couple of years. If there had been more mistakes, or if something had gone wrong, I would expect him to take full responsibility; since improvements have been made, I give him the credit. He may want to pass some of that on to his staff, but that's up to him. He's the one responsible in this House; he should take the blame when blame should be attached, and he should take the credit when credit should be attached.

Certainly there is a good deal of credit due the minister for the improvements that have been made. I don't necessarily agree with the Minister of Finance that he should take credit for the fact that his budget has been kept under such tight rein, without looking at some of the items within the Ministry of Finance. I'm not sure it's good to say that certain things have been kept under tight control.

For example, take government financial support. I haven't had a chance to look at this as much as I would have liked, but I believe it does include the revenue-collecting work of government. It's my information that over the years — and I suspect it is still the case — there just hasn't been enough examination of tax returns. I remember being told by a former deputy minister of finance that an additional sales tax auditor made something like four to six times the amount of added revenue to the Crown. I don't see anything in the estimates that leads me to believe the government is tightening up on that at all. The additional revenue is revenue the Crown is entitled to. People are remitting less sales tax than they collect, and I think that sort of thing should be checked up on. Legislation was passed earlier increasing the fines for offences. I don't agree with that, and that was argued at the time; but I do believe in collecting everything that is due the Crown. The minister might have been well advised to have included more provision for sales tax auditors, for example, and perhaps others.

Another item is the Provincial Capital Commission. I do not intend to discuss this at any length, but one of my colleagues will; perhaps the minister will wait until that submission is made. My only concern at the moment is that I believe we should all be proud of the work being done in the provincial capital. I am not pleased to note that there has actually been a reduction in the number of dollars for that.

The compensation stabilization program: again, I'll not discuss that at any length at this time. It's a new program, almost a million dollars, and there have been comments recently on exactly what we are achieving from that compensation stabilization program. There seem to be people employed with little or nothing to do.

As for contingencies, I suppose the minister is hoping that the figure under that item will be enough to cover everything that contingencies is supposed to cover.

I'd like to get into another aspect. On occasion in the House we've asked the Minister of Finance to bring us a little more up to date on the figures he used in preparing the budget. We suspect that those figures are no longer valid. The minister has shared some comments with people outside of the House and has been encouraging us in the House to wait until the quarterly report was ready. We would have liked to have had the quarterly report before the estimates came up. I'm not suggesting that his estimates have been timed so that the quarterly report wasn't ready. It is just about the last one to come before us, and he couldn't have waited much longer if he was going to have his estimates approved before we got to the end of the road. Mr. Chairman, if that minister has information — and I would think that by now he would have it — this is the time when he might present to the members of the House a little more of it on what exactly is happening with respect to the government accounts.

I'm quoting from a story dated May 14, 1982, in which the minister is quoted as telling the Vancouver Sun that "there has been little change in his forecasts of government revenue for 1982, although, he said, there are some 'worrying points around the periphery.' The consensus among private-sector spokesmen interviewed Thursday was that the government must revise its estimates downward to perhaps as low as zero percent growth." Mr. Chairman, this was May 14; by July 20 I would think that it might be even less than zero percent growth — at least that's the feeling we have; we don't know.

On another occasion the Minister of Finance was speaking at a meeting of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, and at that time he was saying again that there'll be no tax increases in B.C. because the private sector cannot afford them. At that time he predicted — or at least the reports indicate it to be the case — that there would not be all that much change.

Perhaps the minister was quite correct in saying that his forecasts in government revenue for 1982 would not be changed very much. The forecasts printed in the budget.... Perhaps by the time he spoke to the Sun on May 14 he had a different forecast and didn't expect to have to change that very much. What is the situation on July 20? What does the minister expect will be happening to the provincial government revenue? What has happened in the three months ending June 30?

[ Page 8893 ]

At the time the budget was being debated we predicted that some of the minister's estimates of revenue were grossly overestimated. In particular, we pointed to forestry and said that the 21.4 percent increase in forest revenue to the Crown was one that was indeed grossly overestimated. In addition, we said that the sales tax revenue, which is a reflection of the total economy of the province, and also a reflection in part of construction activity, must be very much overstated too. We predicted that retail sales would be down, and there are newspaper stories to the effect that they're down — not as much as some people anticipated or feared, but nevertheless down. We wonder what is happening to the minister's forecast with respect to sales tax revenue and income tax collection, with unemployment being certainly much higher than predicted when the minister spoke in the House on April 5. Again, if people aren't working, they aren't paying income tax. I would suspect that the minister's estimates of that source of revenue, income tax, must also have been grossly overestimated. Corporation tax revenue, while it's not as big an item as the others, with corporation after corporation reporting losses.... Surely in that area as well the minister must have been way out in predicting the revenue coming from that source.

I wonder if the minister is able to bring us into his confidence today and tell us something about what is happening to his budget in relation to the first quarter which has gone by.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I'll deal first with the remarks made by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich). The hon. member asked about the audit and inspection process in the Ministry of Finance. He was referring, I assume, essentially to consumer taxation, where most of the activity takes place. I think there has been the complaint for some considerable time that there are not enough auditors, and it is true that an efficient auditor-inspector can and does produce a number of times more than his or her salary in the course of the year. We have eight new staff, five inspectors and three auditors. We anticipate that they will find about $1.8 million additional revenue. We're trying another approach — a new approach, I believe, and I'm subject to correction — and that is to ensure compliance through education; that is, assisting the tax collector, the person who is collecting on behalf of the Crown, as to how it should be done and the way in which it should be carried out. I think we could be faulted in past years for not having attempted that educational process to the fullest extent possible.

There is a difficulty as well, Mr. Chairman, which I think the member will understand very well, and that is notwithstanding the fact that we have eight new staff in this section, there is a very severe problem in recruiting. These individuals are in great demand. That, I think, has been going on for some two or three years, and we're looking for auditors or inspectors, qualified men and women. I think the private sector will confirm that they are in short supply. It is a particular talent which has been in demand, not just in these few months; it's been the trend for quite some time. We hope to fill vacant positions as and when possible on the basis of the availability of the individual, not on the basis of any constraint or unwillingness to do that.

To the larger question. The member has asked for me to take the committee into my confidence with respect to the first quarter. I don't have the first-quarter report. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was fair....

AN HON. MEMBER: I can get you a copy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There's an interjection from another member that he can get a copy. Well, I'm not sure that it's been printed yet. I have not seen, even in draft form, the first-quarter report. It will be on time. It will be available in the last hours of July or, more likely, because of the calendar break, the first two or three days of August. I think that matches pretty closely the release date of the quarterly report in previous years since it was introduced by this government.

With respect to real growth, we now are expecting something of this size: we're still on the plus side, but not significantly. It is due in large part to such projects as northeast coal and others which have been debated at length in this chamber in the course of this and the last session. I'm going to give the member the three percentages. We're forecasting a real growth increase of 0.4 percent for B.C. as opposed to the latest forecast for Canada, real growth in decline minus 2 percent and the latest available figure in the United States, minus 1 percent. I'm not sure that that is as of July 20, today, but it's the most recent forecast that we can offer.

Before I entered government or this chamber, I watched this kind of forecasting. I am a layman; my experience has been practical, in local government, provincial government, regional districts and so on. In turning to professionals — and I think I might find some agreement in the committee — there has probably not been a time such as this, where forecasts can fluctuate so rapidly, in the working memory of many professional economists. It is a very strange art at the best of times, and right now one has the feeling that it is even a little less reliable. I don't say that out of criticism, but because of all the variables which occur and the numbers which are produced out of the United States.

There are those who have the distinct impression — they are not unanimous; economists never are — that the United States economy bottomed in May. I don't offer that as an ironclad statement from the Ministry of Finance; I simply allude to it. But I've heard that from more than one source. There are economists forecasting a decrease in interest rates over the next three to six months in the United States. That, of course, will have an impact on the Canadian economy, particularly the British Columbia economy. There are those, on the other hand, who are forecasting more bad news in terms of interest rates in the United States and Canada, in that order. I don't want to suggest to the committee that I subscribe to one or the other, but I think that any objective observer at the present time will agree that those whose job it is in the private sector or advising government as to what is going to happen in the next month, six months or year, are working in a rapidly and dramatically changing environment.

We saw a very significant increase in the United States housing starts annualized in May. I believe the figure was — I'm going from memory, but I think I'm correct — annualized at 1,086,000. I was awaiting the figure yesterday, knowing that it would be released on the 19th. The figure reported in the press — certainly in the Vancouver Province and in the Globe and Mail — is an annualized figure of 911,000. That's down, obviously, from the blip which occurred in May — the 1,086,000, or for round figures, 1.1 million. We also hear some encouraging information with respect to building permits being taken out in the United States.

I don't want, at this early stage, to filibuster my own estimates. The point is that we still see a slight positive

[ Page 8894 ]

growth for the provincial economy in the year now before us. That has come down from the very early estimates in mid-1981 and from the figure presented to this House which formed part of the background for the budget of the fiscal year 1982-83. On the other hand, it has not yet had an opportunity to reflect some of the positive developments announced in the last two, to three, to four weeks. I will have to stay with that figure for today.

With respect to revenues, we do see that there has been a slippage in revenues from a number of sources. The member mentioned several. One in particular, though, was income tax. As he knows, income tax has such a lag. Indeed, it can go back over two years with adjustments, recalculations and transfers to the provinces. That curve tends to flatten out. Whereas the actuals might show some dramatic swings, with these adjustments going back into prior years, the curve is much flatter in that area.

We see the retail sector in British Columbia, without question, in decline. Therefore our revenues under the social services tax — the sales tax — are in decline. It would be pointless for me to pretend otherwise before this committee, or in dealing with anyone interested in the provincial economy. We, on the other hand, see some encouraging signs in the revival of the real estate market, which may lead to an improvement in the relatively near future in the purchase of durable goods. That revival perhaps is so recent that it is not yet capable of being identified with any accuracy.

The challenge which faces us in government and in the ministry at this point in the fiscal year, with the third quarter just concluded, is to ensure that our expenditure pressures are maintained at the lowest possible level. That is what the Premier has been speaking about, and certainly that is what I've been actively engaged in: because of the slippage in revenues, avoiding the widening gap between expenditure and revenue in the province of British Columbia. I can only assure the committee that we are going to make a concerted effort to hold the expenditure increases to an absolute minimum in order to cushion the impact. If we were to do nothing in that area, then I think we would be very seriously faulted by the people of British Columbia during these very volatile times.

MR. STUPICH: I'm a bit intrigued, about the minister sticking with a target of 0.4 percent real growth, when almost everything he mentioned indicated that it's going to be something less than zero, rather than a little bit more, with the exception that he's hoping for a turnaround in housing starts in the States. That was mentioned. That will be a long time reflecting on B.C.

The other things he mentioned were a couple of good announcements for the province of British Columbia which I don't think will be reflected in economic activity in the year ended March 31, 1983. I wonder whether he can indicate in what area of the economy he expects some growth to take place, because in most areas there is a decrease. It has been said that the only economic activity in the province that has been actually increasing has been unemployment insurance. That, as well, will start decreasing soon when people have used up their unemployment insurance and switch to welfare. Apparently the only economic activity that is showing any signs of increasing at the present time, unemployment insurance, is also going to go down. There must be some area of the economy where there is going to be real growth if we're going to end up with a break-even position, which is 0.4 percent.

I'm not surprised that the minister doesn't have the quarterly report — or even some of the figures, I would think. I expect the sales tax revenue included in the report for the month of June will be that which is collected by July 20 — we're now on an accrual basis. That being the case, some of that money is still coming in today. I perhaps feel a little better about quarterly reports now that they're not coming out quite as promptly as they did formerly. I can recall the second quarterly report ever issued in the province of British Columbia being printed and released to the press five days after the end of the second quarter. On October 5, 1976, we had the second quarterly report; it was released by the Premier on that occasion. I suspect that was more a political document than it was an historic document reflecting receipts and disbursements.

So I'm looking forward to seeing the second quarterly report; this year I think it will be a more meaningful report. There is something I would like to have in that report that, I believe, has not been in reports up to this point. Unless the minister has already started that, it won't happen this time but sometime in the future. While the quarterly report does compare the estimated expenditures with the actual expenditures on a quarter-by-quarter basis, even month-by-month, it hasn't done that with respect to revenue. It reports the revenue collected, but it doesn't compare what has been collected in that first quarter, or whatever quarter it is, with what was estimated to be collected in that quarter. I think I'm right in that, and if that could be included in the reports they would be more meaningful.

I'd like to get into another area and invite the minister to comment on this, and this is again with reference to the speech that he made to the Victoria Chamber of Commerce. He was taking some pride in the fact that "British Columbia took action two years ago to prepare for the economic rainy days." I'd invite the minister to comment on that and also compare it to page 22 of the budget speech, which indicates that in the year ended March 31, 1981, there was a drawdown of $313 million in the consolidated revenue fund; there was a drawdown in the 1981-82 estimates — and perhaps it's still in the estimates, but by now it should be pretty well refined — of $356 million; and, of course, there is a drawdown in the year we're currently in of $279 million. It would appear that in those three years — some of it is still to come, but going back to 1980-81 — while the minister has taken some pride in having built up a cushion that enables him to carry on, they have not been building up a cushion since the year ended March 31, 1980. We don't have the figures here for March 1980, and I haven't tried to work them out — I'm not sure just how I could, anyway; there are so many changes in accrual basis accounting — but it would appear that we have not been building up that kind of a cushion in the province of British Columbia. Rather, we have been using up a cushion that was built up by previous governments, governments that have been building up cushions from the 1950s on — not every year, but up until March 31, 1980, cushions have been accumulated. It would appear that since then we have been drawing down on those cushions, not drawing down on them just in 1982-83, but drawing down on them starting in 1980-81 — I can't say about the previous year. So I'd like the minister to comment on that with reference to his remark to the effect that we took action two years ago to prepare for the economic rainy days. The action we took two years ago, it

[ Page 8895 ]

would appear from this, was to start drawing down on the rainy-day funds that were accumulated by previous administrations.

MR. HALL: Mr. Chairman, I want to change the subject slightly. I note there are a couple of questions in my remarks. I want to explore with the minister a number of points that have come to my attention not only in my role as a member of this House but also as the chairman of the public accounts committee.

I came to this House some years before the present Minister of Finance and year by year have seen the information presented to us regarding the budgets and the supply which we have to grant to Her Majesty for the service of the province. That is essentially what we're doing here in committee today — discussing exactly how many dollars are required to service the programs of all the various ministries. Each individual member of the House has to deal with the quality of that information, and this minister has this added responsibility, over and above the normal administrative responsibility of the Ministry of Finance, for that particular information, which is absolutely essential to a private member's career — private, day-by-day, political career. It's been my task from time to time to speak on this, not only in a private way in the public domain but also in the political club, if you like, that we all belong to — when one's asked to sit on panels and discuss with other politicians and academics the whole question of accountability. After all, this is an accountability session in a way that we're going through now; it's part of the accountability chain.

It seems to me that unless the quality of information that we get is absolutely the very best obtainable, each person in the House is impeded in the performance of his or her duties. What kind of information does the member really require? The member requires the estimate — that is, the best guess of this particular gentleman we're discussing today — of what it's going to cost and where he's going to get the money to do the work envisaged in the forthcoming 12 months, part of which is already gone. Secondly, we need the last set of books that he can lay his hands on for us to examine by way of record — the budget papers supporting his various ideas and the various facts at his disposal. That information combines with each member's basic knowledge of the economic underpinnings of the province — the basic data, the population, what one percent of sales tax produces, what the gross provincial product is. All of those raw materials, the simple one-liners, produce part of our tools of the trade as politicians.

How can we do our work better? How can this Minister of Finance help us do our work better? Simply by improving the quality of the information. While there's been a definite improvement in many of the things that this minister has done — and I'm on record already as saying so not only in this chamber but outside — there has been, in my view, some slight slippage in the provision of the amount of information that we really require. There has to be some consolidation of the material we have to deal with as we're examining the record. We have to be able to compare more easily last year with this year, department with department, ministry with ministry. We have to be able to compare performance not only in this province, but similar programs and ministries in other provinces.

In my view, that's where electronic data-processing comes in. It seems to me that it's possible these days, with that particular marvellous invention, to break things down into standard objectives of expenditure. Using the coding methods that are available and well based in this province, we can start comparing our performance in British Columbia with performances elsewhere, all helping in the accountability chain. It should be possible to express those performances in terms of productivity, if you like. There are ways of expressing clerical and programmatic performance in a productivity way. It's possible for those things to be expressed every which way — per capita, movement, are we first or tenth? How do we spend each particular share of our budget as compared to the particular share for education, for example, in the province of Alberta or Nova Scotia? The need for that standard objective expenditure data to be agreed to across the country, to have the same objectives, is now obviously paramount.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I've hinted at a number of questions, and I'm sure the minister has the general drift. Is there any movement by ministers of finance to standardize that kind of procedure so that we can, as members of the House and decision-makers...? We like to think we're decision-makers, but sometimes I think it's really not that simple, that we're not making as many decisions as we think we are, that there's a policy of organized drift. But that's a conversation for another day. I think we should be able to get this information more quickly, and be able to deal with it in that way.

That's the first general topic of discussion that I'd like to throw out on the occasion of having the Minister of Finance's estimates before us: the quality of information that's provided. It's absolutely essential that this be constantly worked on and improved.

The second point again deals with quality. That is, over the last 70 years auditors and accountants have agreed, slowly but surely, on a definite standard of accounting practices and procedures in the private sector. Every auditor or accountant who signs a financial statement attests to that fact. Whether he's operating a bubble gum factory in Prince Edward Island or sending off space rockets in the United States of America, each person knows that his books are being examined on exactly the same principles. That is not true in the public sector. There are no generally accepted standards of accountancy in the public sector. This situation has totally bedevilled the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants. Only now are we grappling with the erection or compilation of an acceptable set of standards for public accounting.

Those standards — which, as I say, are adequate, accepted and understood by everybody in the private sector — are inadequate and variable across the public sector. Every set of public documents I've seen.... May I hasten to add, in case you think I am suggesting for one second that we have some sort of runaway auction set of books in this province — I am not — that our set of books in this province, especially now that we have a consolidated set of statements, is among the best. There's no doubt about that. However, the conditional statements applied to our set of books still make it unsatisfactory and difficult to compare with others. I'd like to ask the minister what specific and special efforts are being made by our Ministry of Finance to play our important role as a leading industrial province — number two or number three in the country — in making sure that standards of public sector accountancy are constructed and adhered to.

[ Page 8896 ]

Not only do we have our own house to look after, not only do we have this first figure of $7.7 billion to look after, which is in the budget presented by this gentleman on April 5, but we also know that 50 cents out of every one of those 7.7 billion dollars goes out the back door quite legally — all signed by at least two people, or somehow or other authenticated in every which way, as transfer payments — there to escape the kind of scrutiny we're having today, and the kind of scrutiny we have in Public Accounts, by the comptroller general and by the auditor-general. That's not to say that some of them aren't scrutinized magnificently. But they're not scrutinized the way we scrutinize them here. We don't have those standards of scrutiny for 50 cents in every tax dollar.

It seems to me, therefore, that those three things should be bothering us, as well as the $1.95 luncheon that this minister may or may not have had from time to time. These things should bother us just as much as profligacy, bad policy — and there's plenty of that — or mistaken policy — and there's plenty of that. They should receive our attention — and congratulations when we see good legislation, as we have from time to time. Once in a while we've seen some of that. On those hopefully constructive notes, I ask the minister if he would — without suggesting for a second that he filibuster his estimates — make some response.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will first answer the points made by the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), and then I think I have a couple of answers to give to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), from when he last took his place in this debate.

The second member for Surrey has made a very good point. We are striving in this province — and, I think, in other provinces as well — for a continuing improvement, not in the volume but in the quality of information which is available to the elected members sent here to pass judgment on what the government of the day offers, and also to those who must work under the laws which we draft and pass in this chamber, whether they are advising clients or collecting a particular tax or are required, in one way or another, to respond to the government's requirements and regulations.

I note that the member said that the quality of the information has been showing an improvement — the accountability is coming along quite well. But he made the point, with validity, that we have some distance to go in the public sector, whether it be in British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec or the Atlantic provinces. He observed that there has been "some slight slippage of information." I think that was the precise phrase he used — observing that, on the one hand, there have been improvements but that, on the other hand, some of the tools with which we all work are not as efficient as they should be. We share those concerns with the member, Mr. Chairman. While he did not allude to it specifically, I know that this general topic was discussed very recently at the meetings of chairmen of public accounts committees across the country and of auditors-general, who met concurrently in Victoria a few weeks ago.

The annual report for the Ministry of Finance is, I regret, not ready for tabling today, but I hope it will be ready for tabling within a very few days. I spent most of the weekend prior to this one reviewing it, and I suggested some points which I think will improve the document. This year, for the first time in the annual report out of the ministry, we are attempting to compare an item such as our cost of operation within a section of the ministry with the cost of the same operation in other provinces. This is not said boastfully, because in some instances we don't show up that well. But it is important for a member sitting in this Legislative Assembly — on one side or the other — to be able to say that consumer-taxation activities cost this much per thousand dollars collected or per number of accounts and that they cost more than that in another province, less than that in still another province. I would like to have the members' observations — privately and publicly, Mr. Chairman — as soon as the annual report is tabled. The moment it comes to me from the printers, I will bring it to this House for tabling. That could be within a very few days.

I might mention that British Columbia convened the first meeting of provincial comptrollers-general in February of 1981, just a year-and-a-half ago, to discuss, among other things, the very kind of accounting standardization to which he has referred. I believe this is now an ongoing annual meeting; the next meeting is scheduled for October of this year.

He referred to the CICA. The institute itself.... Perhaps he has the report on his desk. We're cooperating fully with the CICA committee which is studying public-sector accounting standards. There is no doubt that there is room for improvement in the public sector in this country in terms of accountability, but perhaps more importantly in terms of standardization — that was the word which I think both of us have used — so that whether you are examining British Columbia, Alberta or Saskatchewan, you are at least comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. We have sought the guidance of the institute then, and we have shared our experience with other provinces.

The member, towards the end of his remarks, referred to the fact that while we engage in strenuous debate here over what ministries expend, we are still with relatively little debate passing about 50 cents out of every dollar to QUANGOs — that delightful anachronism for quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations. Mr. Chairman, the member is right. We've had debate in here, and we've had debate in the ministry as well, with respect to the fact that that money is passed to those organizations, Crown organizations of one kind or another, almost as a matter of course. It concerns me greatly. It concerns me that one-half of the dollar is given very detailed, lengthy, exhaustive scrutiny in this chamber, or in another room in this building, but the other half is not subject to the same kind of control. I know that some of my colleagues in other provinces share the concern, to a lesser or greater extent, depending on their circumstances. I can only speak for myself in here in this regard.

The Financial Administration Act provides the basis for ultimately correcting that lack, through amendment. That won't happen within the next two weeks or two months, but I think it should happen. I think that the money which we do pass over with relative ease and in relatively good time to these QUANGOs should be subjected to the same kind.... They won't like it, but until we firmly address that half of the dollar we are failing in our responsibilities to the public; not totally failing, but falling short of the mark. I will disagree with that member strenuously on other matters, but I think that there is agreement among some members on both sides of this House with respect to that absence of control. Therefore I can expect within the next two or three days....

MR. HALL: Your vote to go through.

[ Page 8897 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I can expect within the next two or three days that I will have letters of annoyance and letters expressing concern that I do not rely on some of these agencies, because I've had those before when I've made similar remarks outside this chamber. But that's fine. That shows that in identifying this problem we're hitting a nerve. It is not good enough for us to simply worry about the one-half dollar and not the other half. We've made some movement to that end, and I think it is an obligation we face to go the entire distance in the very near future.

Mr. Chairman, I was a little puzzled by the observations of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) concerning the quarterly reports where we show estimated expenditure as we move through the year but not revenue to the extent that he would wish. He may want to expand on that. I don't have a quarterly report immediately in front of me.

AN HON. MEMBER: I happen to have one here.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You just happen to have my copy? Mr. Chairman, we can debate that then without taking the time of the committee; we can wait until he expands further on that.

He spoke about a rainy day and alluded to a speech that I made in Victoria and a similar speech I made in Vancouver earlier this spring. In response I would say to the member for Nanaimo that in 1979-80 we had a resource revenue surplus. For 1980-81 we placed those in special accounts. That was the identification early on of rainy-day money, which has been drawn down for the 1982-83 fiscal year and which we spoke about at length in the budget debate. That was very much the activity which was occurring in that period, going back into the fiscal year 1979-80.

MR. STUPICH: I would like to draw the minister's attention to table 2 on page 22, which indicates that the consolidated revenue fund, which includes the special purpose funds, was drawn down in the year ended March 31, 1981. Perhaps he can come back on that later.

MR. HOWARD: I was interested to listen to the minister talk about expectations with respect to interest rates in the United States and Canada, or prognostications of lower interest rates by some people who claim to have the inside knowledge. When it comes to interest rates, generally speaking, we know the damage they have caused.

It's interesting to note in passing that it was this government, with this Premier, who not too long ago went to Ottawa and importuned the federal government to continue on the course of high interest rates. It was this government and this Premier who went to the Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Trudeau, and urged him to follow a policy of high and increasingly high interest rates to deal with economic matters in this country. The results, of course, are felt within this province. Never since then has the Premier or anybody in this government had the courage to rise, either in this place or outside it, that I have heard of, and indicate that they were in error a few years ago when they advocated high interest rate policies for this nation.

Since this government took office in 1976 we can trace the fiscal difficulties that we have had. We can trace a succession of complex bookkeeping arrangements and imaginative bookkeeping arrangements by the two Ministers of Finance in the Social Credit regime since 1976, and show that by their imagination they have accomplished the presentation of a picture about fiscal matters to the people of British Columbia that is not in accordance with reality or the facts. They've been relatively careless in the custodial relationship they have with respect to taxpayers' money.

The member for Nanaimo, on a number of occasions, has very adequately, carefully and clearly outlined the financial circumstances existing at the time this Premier took office. He has very clearly pointed out that the debt of some $261 million was the result of a manufacturing process. It was the result of this government, in 1976, attempting by that process of creative bookkeeping to blacken the name of the preceding administration.

I don't need to go into the details of our fiscal situation at the time of the change of administrations, but I do point out that after this government took office there was a declaration of a budgetary deficiency of $261,447,790. In the fiscal year 1976-77, five separate borrowings of funds were undertaken by this government in pursuit of satisfying that fictionalized $261 million debt. To point it up very clearly, I would say to the committee — this is from records provided by the government, not by me — that on March 15, 1977, more than a year after this government had been in office, it sought to borrow and did borrow, 15 days before the end of the first full fiscal year during which this government was in office, the amount of $11,477,790. That's the precise amount of money necessary to satisfy the fictionalized $261,447,790 identified more than a year earlier as being a budgetary deficit.

This government borrowed more than $11 million, 15 days before the end of the fiscal year, 15 days before they declared a budgetary surplus of $76 million. There was no need whatsoever, regardless of what may have existed a year earlier, to borrow that additional $11,477,790. It was borrowed solely and precisely for the purpose of keeping alive fictions. They're still engaged in that kind of activity. I only mention that to indicate the commencement point of our financial difficulties today; the creative bookkeeping concepts followed by two Ministers of Finance in this government has resulted in a situation where the general public simply does not know what the financial state of affairs is. They keep getting different figures from time to time.

When this minister became minister, and upon the introduction of his first budget. we saw the estimates of expenditure over the previous fiscal year increase by some 20 percent. There was roughly a billion dollar increase in expenditures, directly under the authority of this minister. It's almost as if he were a drug addict loose in a dispensary. He found, so we are led to believe, millions upon millions of dollars of extra money. He could perceive of nothing else to do with it except spend it and embark this province on a spending spree and a state of profligacy and squandering throughout all ministries that we are now living to rue and are now realizing was improper.

[Mr. Richmond in the chair.]

In the following fiscal year, 1981-82, we saw another massive budgetary increase of some 20 percent. Unable at that time to keep up with the expenditure philosophy and psychology that he and the Premier had engendered in the cabinet, that was the year that the minister found it necessary to impose tax increases: sales, personal, gasoline, and even the hotel room tax — the only people he excluded from the hotel room tax were his friends who live in the Union Club

[ Page 8898 ]

over here — to the extent of some $625 million in that particular fiscal year. From the commencement of this minister's stewardship over the accounts of this province the theme has been one of "spend, spend, spend." The exploits of Broadway Bob, which came to our attention in now infamous revelations, took place during his first fiscal year in office, 1980-81. That was the fiscal year in which the minister himself had public funds expended on his behalf to visit certain events in the city of New York. Not too many weeks ago he had to rise and say that yes, he found that and he undertook to — and in fact did, so I'm told — return that money to the Crown. But that was the result of the "spend, spend, spend" philosophy of this minister, this government and this Premier commencing in the fiscal year 1980-81.

This minister issued a Treasury Board directive which appears to have been disregarded by those in his cabinet to whom it was directed. This was the Treasury Board directive identified as No. 10-80, issued May 20, 1980. It was the one that established a control and a policy with respect to hospitality expenses and the use of funds designated for certain purposes, and how it should be followed. That was the Treasury Board directive which gave direction to Broadway Bob before he went to New York in June, the following month. It says that any functions in excess of $2,500 must be approved in writing by Treasury Board before the function takes place, and that functions up to $2,500 must be approved in writing by the minister or the deputy before the function takes place. Apparently no such authorization was given by either Treasury Board or...even though a telegram was sent from the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development authorizing an expenditure of $5,000 for that visit to New York.

MR. MACDONALD: For a couple of nights on the town.

MR. HOWARD: Whatever it was, they must have felt that $5,000 was sufficient; otherwise they would allocated more. But that was done, Mr. Chairman, without any apparent authorization — that we can discover — by Treasury Board before the event, even though on May 20, just a few weeks before the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) embarked upon that escapade of his in Times Square with limousines and Broadway shows and the like, the Minister of Finance, as chairman of the Treasury Board, affixed his signature to a document that says: "You can't go unless you get Treasury Board approval for events over $2,500. You can't go unless, if it's up to $2,500, you get approval in writing from the minister or the deputy. And it goes on and on.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Speaking of the triple-A rating, the minister of Finance himself had the insulting temerity to indicate in this House that the purpose of his trip to New York in the fall of that year of 1980 was to put on a show that exceeded that of Jimmy Carter in the city of New York in order to influence the lending institutions to give this province a triple-A rating. He knows that that is not the way the system functions. He knows that no matter how many lavish banquets he might have put on in the city of New York, that would not have any influence whatsoever on Kuhn Loeb or Salomon Brothers or any of the other groups in the syndicate that handle borrowings for British Columbia on the New York market. They cannot be bought off by banquets. But the minister indicated that that was the result, thus implying that that was the purpose of his trip and he succeeded.

What I very briefly want to point out in a quick overview of what has happened is that we apparently are in some difficulty in this province by having a shortfall in income and an excessive amount in expenditures. I want to point out to you that it was this minister in his first budget who embarked us upon that course of excessive expenditures. It was this minister who presented a budget to this House which we in the NDP voted against, which showed a 20 percent increase over the previous year, flying directly in the face of the declarations of his own Premier, who said that budgetary increases in expenditure on the part of government should never exceed the rate of inflation. The minister doubled it in his first year in office. He doubled the increase with respect to the relationship with the rate of inflation — roughly 10 percent rate of inflation, a 20 percent increase in expenditures — and the same the next year. Now, regretfully, we are living in a period of time when the people who are being injured by that careless attitude and approach of this government are none other than the taxpayers in the province of British Columbia.

No amount of gentle conversation on the part of the minister or involved, intricate statements with figures and percentages in them can deny the fact that we are in fiscal difficulties as a direct result of the carelessness of this government, this minister and this Premier, who set the cabinet and the deputy minister structure and the whole public service at the top level — starting in the fiscal year 1980-81 — on a course of spending and squandering as much money as they could possibly get their hands on. Public accounts, which have been referred to and are being considered by the public accounts committee, for the fiscal year 1980-81 — the first year that this minister presented a budget to this House — show clearly the commencement point of that profligacy.

It's regrettable that when the minister started his conversation today about the introduction of his estimates, he didn't indicate to the general public that he had indeed made an error when he started preparing for and presented his first budget. That would have been much more helpful, beneficial and in keeping with the practice that should be expected of a government: namely, levelling with the general public. When you make a mistake, say: "Yes, I made a mistake." Instead the minister seeks to embark in the other direction, and if there are problems or difficulties, it's everybody's fault but his. If there are problems or difficulties, it's not this Premier or government that caused them; it's President Reagan in the United States. And if it isn't him, it's Prime Minister Trudeau in Ottawa.

Admittedly, Trudeau and MacEachen have caused a great deal of the problems that we have in this nation; they are following the course advocated and presented to them by this Premier in 1978, namely a course of high interest rates. That was an error, a major mistake in policy direction by this government, and it hasn't got the courage to 'fess up to the general public and say: "Look, we made an error. We've reversed ourselves. We want to go in the other direction and try to straighten it all out." A minister who would make that kind of declaration sincerely and openly to the general public would have a far better chance of having his fiscal policies accepted by the general public than is likely if he continues on his present course.

[ Page 8899 ]

MR. BRUMMET: I regret that so much time has been spent in this Legislature by members of the opposition going over the same ground. I wonder if the Finance minister could calculate how much it costs to keep this Legislature open each day, each week, each month.

MRS. WALLACE: Maybe we shouldn't be here at all.

MR. BRUMMET: Wait your turn.

When this Legislature is in session, and when it serves a purpose, then that money is well spent. But these members of the opposition, who claim somehow or other to be acting responsibly for the taxpayers of this province, show perhaps the greatest irresponsibility that I think I've seen in my lifetime. We're talking about thousands of dollars a day. I have a hard time calculating how much it costs to keep this Legislature in session for an extra month. I would say that we have extended the sitting of this Legislature by at least a month, for no other purpose than to have the opposition go over and over again, for no other reason than their partisan, political purposes, the few thousands of dollars involved in the expenditures of the minister whom they are talking about.

I'm not trying to make light of those few thousand dollars. I'm trying to put them into perspective. As a member of the public accounts committee, I know that since May 10 the auditor-general and her staff have been there every Monday morning that we've sat — and figure the cost of that — because they were on call to that committee to study and investigate a roughly $6 billion budget from the year covered by the the auditor-general's report. Instead of getting at that $6 billion, instead of investigating it to see how this could save the taxpayers of the province money....

When we have dealt with this responsibly, we have come up with suggestions that could save hundreds of thousands of dollars in this province. Instead, we have been subjected to the silly, political activity of the opposition. I would say that hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted. You talk about irresponsible spending of taxpayers' money. We spent three or four weeks on one $60 invoice, one $72 invoice and one $35 per diem. We had the auditor-general, her staff and all of us sitting there for hours, dealing with $100 or $125.

MR. NICOLSON: How much does it have to be before it matters ?

MR. BRUMMET: I'll tell you how much it has to be. It has....

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman of committees have said on many occasions that we cannot examine what takes place in a standing committee of this House except upon a report of the committee. I want to save the time of the House, that's all — and save some money.

MR. BRUMMET: Pretty sensitive, aren't you?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member rising on a point of order is correct. The detailed evidence before the committee cannot be discussed, but the topics in general can be discussed in this committee.

MR. BRUMMET: I was not concerned about discussing the detail, except that we have had that member of the opposition talk about expenditures of ministers' travel, how that is a waste, and how it hurts the taxpayers of this province. I am trying to put in perspective that realistically, in other ways, because of the opposition's petty politicking, we have actually wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money in this province. Because of their petty politicking and irresponsible actions and statements, we have had to neglect the major concerns that that committee could have been studying. But so be it. Let's leave that committee.

Now I can understand the politicking, and I can certainly see why the opposition would take an issue such as the spending of the ministers and point it out, and bring it to the attention of the public, because they see that as serving two purposes. One is to safeguard the taxpayers' money, and the other is to use it for their own political gain. They'll do anything in a quest for power. I can understand that. But what I cannot understand is the constant repetition in bill after bill, in estimate after estimate, in every committee, of prolonging these expensive activities of government in order to carry on over a few dollars.

I am convinced, as I think the public in this province is, as are most responsible people in this House, that there is an investigation that has been scheduled and is underway. The opposition will have ample opportunity, if they're not satisfied with that investigation, to again attack. The only thing they understand is to attack. They have attacked every program this government has undertaken, whether it's good.... Naturally they think it's bad. They've seen fit to attack every program. That is understandable; oppositions do that. But when we have spent hours, days and weeks going over the same items, which will be investigated, which can be dealt with properly.... We are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money in this province to satisfy their petty politicking.

I don't know at what point we can come to our senses in this place on that. We've heard that same speech from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) on every topic that has come before this House. Look at the time they have spent in various technical approaches in here to waste time, to try to score political points. You talk about waste; let's put it in perspective. At least when the ministers were travelling and doing some spending, remember that spending was in the year 1980-81, and somehow the opposition is trying to link it to these times. It doesn't make high spending right at that time because times were better. But they constantly link today's restraint program with that spending at that time, and they are a year or more apart.

So what I'm trying to do, Mr. Chairman, is put into perspective what we're talking about here. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money in this province in order to score political points over a few thousand dollars. That certainly is upsetting to me, and I think to many members who could be doing something far more productive and much more useful than listening to the political claptrap that we've had to listen to over and over again here.

The member for Skeena, along with many of his colleagues, is quite concerned about the fact that a debt from their time in office is being dealt with by this government. They don't like it.

MR. NICOLSON: We were never in debt.

[ Page 8900 ]

MR. BRUMMET: Well, I don't know what socialism sees as debt, but in most of the real world, bookkeepers decide that when you spend far more than you take in, that is called a deficit.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) please come to order.

MR. BRUMMET: We've learned to expect that from that member.

Any bookkeeping simply says that if your expenditures exceed your revenues, that is a deficit. During the NDP years, not only did they spend far more than they took in, but they also spend everything that was left in the pot by the previous government; yet they maintained.... And I can see why they're so sensitive about that, because they would like the people of this province to think that they can manage the affairs of this province fiscally. Yet over and over again in everything that they have had to prove — not just that they had to talk about, but whenever they had to act — they made it very clear, in short order, that they knew how to spend and they weren't concerned about where the money came from, because socialism simply says that we can always take things over afterwards. You know, that's how you recover — you take over, you nationalize things. For heaven's sake, so what if you nationalize!

We've certainly got a fantastic example of nationalizing our energy programs. I might point out that it had the full support of the Leader of the Opposition, who now tries to dissociate himself from the federal government. But at the time that the national energy program was announced, that Leader of the Opposition went to a B.C. Federation of Labour conference and stood up and said: "The only thing wrong with the national energy program is that it's not moving far enough or fast enough." My goodness, if it had moved any further or faster, we'd be completely wiped off the map by now, because look at what that program has done to the economy in this country; look at what the taxpayers are paying for that silly nationalization scheme under the guise of a national energy program. I think he was suggesting even further steps should be taken at the time.

MR. NICOLSON: What's wrong with Canadianization?

MR. BRUMMET: We're not talking about Canadianization; the oil industry was basically Canadianized. We're talking about the nationalization that you people supported and the price every person is paying at the gas pumps, every taxpayer in this province, every natural gas user — the amount of money that they are paying for through the nose for that nationalization scheme.... Let's keep it in perspective.

MR. NICOLSON: It's Canadianization.

MR. BRUMMET: Canadianization — nuts! We owned the oil then; we had the gas then; we had investors coming in here and putting our people to work. When you started nationalizing it, trying to call it Canadianization, then what did we have? We've got no jobs, we've got the oil industry moved out, and we've got higher prices. And you talk about Canadianization.

MR. LEA: Try BCRIC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BRUMMET: Well, I'll tell you, BCRIC would be in a lot better position today if it wasn't for that silly national energy program and those federal policies which have discouraged investment.

MR. NICOLSON: We'd be a lot better off if it weren't for northeast coal, too.

MR. BRUMMET: Here they bring up northeast coal again. I would like one of those members in this House who keep attacking it to have the gumption to stand up and say that if they became government tomorrow they would cancel the northeast coal project and all the jobs that go with it. I'll challenge any member of that opposition to stand up in this House or anywhere else and say that they would....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: You take your turn; you stand up after I'm finished. You won't have the guts, because Prince Rupert has never benefited more from anything than it has from that northeast coal project and all of the other spinoff effects. Certainly it hasn't been because of the efforts of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who prefers to live here on the Island and let the Social Credit government look after doing things for Prince Rupert. He stands up and smirks. He can do whatever he likes, but I would like him to stand up in this House and say that he would cancel the northeast coal project if he had the authority or if he were government.

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: You'll get your opportunity in a minute. You'll say all kinds of things, but you'll never say that you would cancel that program. They constantly attack this government for proceeding with it, but they wouldn't have the gumption to say that they would cut it down.

Mr. Chairman, I've got a bit carried away here because of the heckling, but I did stand up to try to do one thing: put something in perspective. Their attack is understandable, their politicking is completely understandable, but the hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money that has been wasted because of their prolonging it, and repeating over and over again the same relatively small amounts that you couldn't even calculate in terms of a percentage....

I would also like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that virtually all of that discussion has been based on allegations and stolen documents. Most of it has been based on nothing more than that. This opposition is not prepared to wait for any of that to be confirmed or properly decided upon. They've used the allegations and they have wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money of this province on the basis of allegations. I have to think back to last year when the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and some of his staff were attacked over and over on the basis of allegations. When it finally went to court, all of those allegations were proven unfounded. They haven't even had the decency to apologize to the taxpayers, to the people of this province. When I consider the examples they've set before, I am certainly not prepared to consider everybody guilty because the socialists

[ Page 8901 ]

say they are guilty. I think we need to put things in perspective. I am not, regardless of what any of the next socialist speakers will say....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET: Oh, we even know what you're thinking — and it's very little.

I have not been trying to defend wasteful spending by any minister or by any arm of government. I have not made any attempt to do that. If it has been improper, it can be shown. If it has been excessive, I think that can be shown — and can be remedied. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers' money that this opposition has wasted by prolonging and repeating, I think that any of that kind of waste — as they call it — pales in comparison.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister has some notes of questions and I'll give him some more, if he'd rather have it that way.

In a press release put out by the minister on April 23, 1982, there's one paragraph I'd like to comment on. "In the capital markets available to Crown corporations, cost advantages exist for certain classes of capital acquisition through lease arrangements." I'm curious as to what sort of cost advantages there might be. I can see cost advantages to individuals, or to corporations, and taxpayers are able to get some real advantage from lease arrangements. In general I can't see any tax advantage to either the Crown or a Crown corporation, unless it is in instances like the sale of ferries, where, it was to the advantage of some public corporation operating in the private sector which is able to take advantage of the Income Tax Act and is able to pass on some of that advantage. That may be what the minister is referring to in this press release. I'd like to know whether that is the case.

The minister has talked about Ottawa running up a deficit of $20 billion. I understand that Ottawa's deficit is a cash flow deficit of $20 billion. The minister has been very critical of Ottawa for running up that tremendous cash deficit. It is tremendous. It certainly outweighed everything the federal Minister of Finance tried to do in his most recent budget. I think it would have had a much better impact on the community had it not been associated with a more than doubling of the expected cash deficit.

I'm not sure that the minister is not living in a glass house when he complains about that. In the current year, the minister proposes to borrow an extra $2.4 billion in the names of Crown corporations. That means that B.C., the government and the minister as fiscal agent for these Crown corporations will be going to the market for $2.4 billion, which is one-eighth of the amount that the federal government is going for. It works out to a little higher proportion than our population is, or whatever other economic measure you want to use. I believe it's higher than average among Canadian provinces. I'd better not say that. I'll simply say that if the amount that B.C. will be going to the market for is $2.4 billion — I doubt that this includes everything; I expect that there will be further borrowing for B.C. Rail, because earlier it was expected that we could finance that out of current revenues, and now we know that can't be done — and the federal government is going to the market for $20 billion, it seems to me that the situations are not that far apart. I would welcome the minister's comment on that.

I'd like to ask the minister to bring us up to date on the Housing and Employment Development Financing Act. We were told how important this legislation was. It received royal assent on June 25, 1982. The minister, at the time, said: "It is important to create employment by financing housing and other capital projects." I'm wondering whether the minister can bring us up to date on whatever negotiations he's having with Ottawa as to the exclusion from income of interest earned by the people who invest in these bonds, or alternatively some arrangement where there will be a reduction in income tax payable by the recipients of these bonds.

If the minister is able to tell us anything about that, I might have some other questions, depending upon what the minister's response is. I'm not suggesting that I feel any happier about that program than I did when the legislation was being discussed, but at the moment I think the question is: how are we getting along with Ottawa in our discussions? Just to comment about that, every other western province — Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta — has been able to provide some special interest program for their citizens for residential mortgages and, in some cases, for small business financing problems. B.C. has not done very much along those lines. The one thing that it has held out so far has been these housing and development bonds. I think it's important that we find out something as to how that's getting along. I wonder if the minister wants to comment on some of the questions raised by some of the members.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the opposition's official critic for finance, there are two or three things.... I think I answered everything from the previous set of questions.

MR. STUPICH: You were going to took at page 22 of the budget.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes. I'm in not in any way attempting to frustrate the committee, but I think we can clarify the problem for each of us if we meet sometime in my office, because I disagree with the interpretation.

I don't want to suggest that the member is necessarily inaccurate in some of his statements, but if you look at the 1982 budget document, table 2, page 22, under consolidated revenue fund, with the footnote, actual '80-81, $313 million negative indicates that the fund was set up and we started to spend from it in that year in a stimulative way — and that's not a zip phrase; I don't use it today as a zip phrase — to stimulate the economy. That is why, in large measure, the 1980-81 recession did not have an impact on the province of British Columbia. There are charts available which show the United States growth in real GNP in quarterly percentage changes and show how dramatically the U.S. GNP dropped in that second quarter of 1980. I think the member in his remarks earlier this afternoon said that we had worked to set aside rainy-day money in 1980-81. We had started to set it aside as well as to put it to use. That is clearly spelled out.

Following that, in the quarterly report for the nine months ended December 1981, the member will note on page 17 funds which were set up in 1980 and which we have drawn on in the 1982 period thus far. Those funds which we set up in 1980 are shown under operating balance, March 31, 1981: downtown revitalization, $24.8 million; energy development, $9.4 million; forest and range resource, $122.6 million; lower mainland stadium, $44.2 million; northeast coal development, $15.6 million; provincial computerization of

[ Page 8902 ]

libraries, $3 million; urban transit, $55 million. The list may miss one or two, but essentially those were the funds set up in 1980. They are referred to in table 2, page 22 of the 1982-83 budget, and these are already showing, in the quarterly report, the effect of some drawdown as of March 31, 1981. I'll try to go through it once more if that's what the member wishes, but beyond that we could perhaps discuss that less formally.

The member for Nanaimo has referred to the press release of April 23, 1982, which spoke of cost advantages through lease arrangements. The reference there, and I apologize if it was not clear — I don't have the press release immediately in front of me — but when we speak of cost advantages we're speaking of cost advantages to the people of British Columbia, not to those who might be the other participant in the lease. We have people actively exploring lease opportunities for us. That is not to say that they will be taken up, but we see a saving to the provincial taxpayer, in some instances, of between 75 and 150 basis points under leasing versus long-term borrowing. Those leasing opportunities can dry up or they can expand, and the actual saving can vary from time to time through the course of a given year; nonetheless, I think that in a program where we are acting as fiscal agents in the Ministry of Finance for a number of Crown corporations it would be almost irresponsible of us to ignore that opportunity. Again, that is not to say that we are committed to lease irrevocably as a fundamental policy. Nonetheless, when the opportunity presents itself, we want to be fully informed. There is that measure of cost saving from three-quarters of a percent to 1.5 percent, again depending on circumstances at the time. So it's well worth examining.

The member for Nanaimo spoke about the projected $2.4 billion borrowing by British Columbia Crown corporations in the course of this year. He will, I'm sure, realize and acknowledge that some of that amount would be accessed through the Canada Pension Plan funds, which are made available to us for this kind of purpose. So that's a gross figure, rather than net. We'll have a philosophical discussion again, because the member, who served as Minister of Finance in the 1970s under the former government, has drawn a comparison between the federal deficit and the projected provincial borrowing for 1982. Maybe we should have the debate today. Surely the member will admit that the federal deficit of which he speaks, about which both sides have expressed grave concern, is an operating deficit, whereas, while debt is incurred under the borrowings we undertake for Crown corporations, it is a capital debt. It is a very carefully structured debt. It is a debt which will be repaid by the entity in whose name it has been borrowed. I will not reflect on how it was described previously.

The estimate for British Columbia Hydro this year is $1.4 billion, so you have some feeling of the borrowing which will occur for others. The gross is $2.4 billion, including what we can access from Canada Pension Plan; $1.4 billion of that is for Hydro. Therefore the amount which is to be borrowed for.... We could work with a figure of about $350 million being available through CPP this year.

I'm sorry, I have very real difficulty.... I don't think it's good enough if the member or some other member takes his place in the debate to say: "A debt is a debt is a debt." As we have said, and as others have observed, the most significant problem in Canada today is spending more for operating purposes in a single year than you take in. That is the situation nationally, and it is the situation in a number of provinces: a planned, projected, budgeted deficit, with $1 billion coming in and $1.3 billion going out for the purposes of operating the province. I use that as an example, whatever province it might be and whatever number you want to attach to it. Clearly, in my conversations with those who are the ultimate investors in bonds issued by the government of the day in British Columbia, whether it is the present government, the previous government or the government before that, the investor looks very favourably on a debt for capital purposes which can and will be repaid by the activity or the agency which has borrowed the money, rather than by a government simply saying: "Well, these are the programs we want to undertake, and if we're going to spend more this year than we will take in through the levying of taxes, the imposition of fees, and such revenues as occur.... I have a very real problem in comparing the two. We spoke earlier today about apples and oranges. The federal deficit is a very bad apple on the national scene.

The member also asked — and this was his last question in this set, I believe — for an updating with respect to our negotiations with the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, regarding the housing and employment development bonds. I wrote to the federal minister just a few days ago, having received a letter from him a few days prior to that. The letter is available for tabling at the conclusion of this afternoon's sitting. I will be happy to give that undertaking. I can quote from it and then I shall table it, because I'm sure it is of concern to all members of the Legislature.

The letter to which I refer in terms of tabling is my reply to Mr. MacEachen. In sum, the federal minister has turned us down with respect to cooperation, although the most recent information, which was received within the last few days, is that perhaps there is an opportunity for a meeting to review. I've written what can only be described as a very straightforward letter to Mr. MacEachen, indicating that I'm writing in response to his letter, in which he indicated that the federal government will not provide an income tax exemption for our proposed British Columbia housing and employment development bonds.

I continue by saying: "I must say I am extremely disappointed in your response, especially in light of the consultation paper entitled 'Inflation and the Taxation of Personal Investment Income' which you tabled with your June 1982 budget." I have answered some of the concerns which the Minister of Finance for Canada expressed in his letter to me and I have asked for reconsideration. In my final paragraph I say: "I would ask that you reconsider your negative response to our housing and employment development bonds. For the reasons outlined in this letter, I believe they are superior to your indexed term deposits, at least in the short term." I then conclude the letter with one or two other observations.

That is the most up-to-date information I can provide to this House and this committee with respect to a proposal advanced by the government of British Columbia, and which I frankly feel has been given short shrift by the federal minister. In order that the record be very clear, it was alleged earlier this year that in fact we had made no contact with Ottawa. I think that observation was made not by a member of this House, but by Mr. Nelson Riis of the NDP federally. The fact is — and it's easily supportable — that we made very early contact with the Ministry of Finance for Canada with respect to the kind of thing we were looking at. It was dealt with in the throne speech in a general way, and was then elaborated upon later. But in the interval, from throne speech

[ Page 8903 ]

until budget day of April 5, certainly a number of meetings and consultations took place.

We were not satisfied with the letter received recently from Mr. MacEachen. I think it is an unfortunate position, and I hope he is going to reconsider. On the basis of an invitation to meet with him to discuss it, or with his officials to discuss it at the officials level, I will certainly want that to happen.

As a reminder, Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion this afternoon, I will table this letter.

MR. STUPICH: It may be that some of my questions will be answered by the letter. But I haven't seen it yet, so I'm at a disadvantage.

Assuming that the federal minister is raising the concern that taxpayers in British Columbia would get some special advantage not available to taxpayers in other provinces, what arguments would the provincial minister advance to say that this program should be implemented in the province of British Columbia, and whether or not the same tax advantage is given to taxpayers in the rest of the country?

Has the minister, in calculating the effects of this program, calculated the potential loss of provincial government revenue? It will appeal, I would think, only to people in the top income tax brackets, those with taxable incomes in excess perhaps of $50,000. So it's a very limited group to which we are appealing. A lot of those people, being very sophisticated investors, would want to make sure that they would be gaining something from this, not simply breaking even, and certainly not losing. I would think there would be a substantial loss in provincial government revenue, and I trust the minister has taken that into account.

Getting back to leasing for a moment, the minister didn't mention ferries, which I thought was perhaps the only possible answer. He did say that the Crown is able to enter into arrangements, or at least is considering possible leases, because it is cheaper in some circumstances to lease rather than enter into long-term borrowing. I would think the Crown is able to borrow in the short or long term, more cheaply than almost anybody with whom it does business; that is, in supplying things we would be buying or leasing. That being the case, the supplier of that equipment or whatever would be paying a higher rate of financing charges, so presumably does it only to make some money. I'm at a loss to think of any circumstance in which someone doing business with the Crown would not make more money by leasing than by an outright sale. On the other hand, I can't see how the provincial government would come out ahead in a leasing arrangement, unless there is, as I say, some special tax advantage — depreciation, capital cost allowance over a longer period of time. They can in effect take advantage of the taxpayers generally, and there's some loss of revenue to British Columbia from that as well.

I don't know if the minister has any more he can tell me about that. I'm still puzzled by it.

He left the door open for me to go a little more into this question of the difference between borrowing for capital purposes and borrowing for operating purposes. When I referred to the federal government deficit of $20 billion, I did say — and perhaps the minister didn't catch it — that I don't know to what extent it is an operating deficit and to what extent it is a cash deficit. I haven't looked at the federal budget yet; I haven't had a chance. After we adjourn I'll have time to read things like that. I'm not sure whether the figures I've seen mean that the federal government will have to go into the market for $20 billion to cover its cash requirements, including what it needs for everything it's doing, or whether it's simply for operating expenditures. It makes a difference.

Also, there's some question in my mind as to how you differentiate between capital and operating expenses. I can see that in a business. I can see it in my own business. However, it becomes a little foggier when dealing with government accounts. It used to be, for example, that public works was a department of government — in those days we talked about departments, not ministries — and buildings that were being built, including the Douglas Building across the street, were charged against operating revenue for the year or years in which they were being built, as was the museum and things like that. Certainly those are capital projects in an accounting sense, but they were being paid for out of the current revenue of the days in which they were being built.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

With respect to that. B.C. Buildings Corporation is now a Crown corporation; it's one of the Crown entities that make up this figure of $2.4 billion that we're borrowing this year. B.C. Systems Corporation is another Crown corporation, one established by the present administration, that is borrowing for what it calls capital projects. Currently, any work of that kind, any leasing or acquisitions — and some acquisitions were made prior to this government's taking office, computers and that kind of thing — were charged against operating revenues of the day. Now they're defined as capital expenditures. They're thrown into a Crown corporation and that's considered to be capital debt. To quite an extent, therefore, the extra $2.4 billion that we're borrowing in the current fiscal period would have been included under current revenue and expenditures using definitions that were in force just six years ago. I've mentioned just two Crown corporations; there are others. The Urban Transit Authority is another new one that was established.

It seems to me that the ground changes. You stand in one position one day and then you move a little bit, and all of a sudden something new is a capital expenditure. The government might go even further in that field, As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, you'll recall that in the opening speech delivered some time in November 1981 the Legislature, the people of the province, were threatened — or promised, depending on your point of view — that the government was looking at further privatization of government activities; I think those were the words used. It would lead one to wonder whether other activities conducted by government are going to be converted so that further borrowing could be done by a new Crown corporation and taken out of current revenue. There's no suggestion which ones. There still hasn't been any suggestion. We've been waiting for the other shoe to drop. We don't know what the government has in mind; we don't know whether they've abandoned that.

I notice that one commonwealth family has privatized hospital care. I see some applause from across the way; they think that would be a great idea. I certainly hope that Minister of Finance doesn't think he's getting some support for that possibility from the back benches. There are others. Maybe highways might be privatized. Certainly highways are capital in the sense that buildings are capital, and that other activities are capital expenditures.

[ Page 8904 ]

HON. MR CURTIS: Not likely.

MR. STUPICH: Not likely? I'm pleased that the Minister of Finance says it's not likely.

What I am saying to him is that the definition of capital has changed within public accounting, at least. When we talk about $2.4 billion extra borrowing, some of it is for items that were not considered capital not too long ago. If the minister would like to carry on this discussion a little further, and perhaps persuade me that he has a different approach and point of view on some of these, I'd like to hear from him.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that any reference to privatization which has been made in the House is not relevant to the discussion which the member and I are having, because the sort of....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) interjects, and I would suggest that either you're going to permit the question to be put under my estimates or it would be dealt with under the Premier's estimates.

The member for Nanaimo and I are speaking of capital projects. Notwithstanding that which has been followed for a good many years in this province, I personally subscribe to the view that simply because one is building a building — as an example — in a given year or 18 months, the cost of that building should not be paid for by the taxpayers of those 12 to 18 months. I trust the member opposite is not offended when I describe that as a simplistic description of my philosophy. If the life expectancy of a facility — whether it is a vessel, a terminal, a building, a school or, in the case of a municipality, a recreation facility or a municipal hall — is 25 years, for example, that is the span over which the cost of that building should be spread. That has not always been stated with great feeling from this side of this chamber. I'm very keenly aware of that, but it is the philosophy of this government, has been for some time and, I expect, will be for some little time to come.

The member started this portion of his debate by returning to the question of leasing. I would point out that ferries are potential candidates. We have no particular commitment at this point in time, to the very best of my up-to-date knowledge. Buses which are to be purchased in quantity are candidates for leasing, with a life expectancy of a good number of years. Again, when fleet improvement is occurring on a relatively massive scale, as it is through transit in British Columbia, then leasing might well be the appropriate mechanism for paying for those particular units. Miscellaneous pieces of equipment of a large size, such as railcars, are a possibility, as is certain office equipment — with an emphasis on the word "certain," because it would not apply to relatively small pieces of equipment; but for some of the more expensive items which are now found in the workplace it could be appropriate. In order to be completely frank with the Legislature, we've identified leasing. That's why the press release was issued on April 23. We've identified it as an alternative which should not be overlooked in the total borrowing program and span of government providing that which is required by its citizens I have very little more to say about leasing that will assist the member.

MR. STUPICH: The member hasn't been assisted very much yet on the subject of leasing, but is prepared to let that go for the time being until we have a specific example to deal with.

On the question of capital versus operating expenditures, the member, I must say, is more confused than ever. I think some of the minister's confusion is spreading across the floor. He mentioned several assets that have a fairly long life. Yet when I expressed some concern that they might be thinking of privatizing something like hospital care, and then went on to highways, he said: "Not likely." I thought the "not likely" was with reference to highways. We're not doing as good a job these days, but the Romans built highways that lasted for a couple of thousand years. I can't think of anything that would last much longer than a well-built highway. Even with the ones we're building today, certainly the roadbed to some extent lasts; the surface is not all that long, but in any other context it still would be considered to be a capital asset from the point of view of capital cost allowance allowed by Revenue Canada. Highways are in the 4 percent class, which is awfully low. So the minister is telling me that a building will last a long time, so that's a capital asset, and some piece of equipment will last a long time, so that's capital. I think — we should get this in Hansard — he was assuring me that highways would not be considered for privatizing, if that's the way the word reads; I'm not sure now. I'd like him to say on his feet if it is the case that they would not consider that. Yet I have to wonder how his definition is appropriate when a building, which has a much shorter life, I would think.... Pieces of equipment certainly have a much shorter life than a highway, yet they're capital whereas a highway is not. Not that I'm trying to persuade him that he should include highways in that privatization program, but I'm just questioning his definition.

We talked earlier about page 22 of the budget, and the minister offered to discuss this with me further, privately, if I wanted. There is no need to, because I think the minister now agrees with me. What I said in my initial reference to page 22 is that in the year ended March 31, 1981, there was a drawdown of the consolidated revenue fund. The minister's first response was that I had misinterpreted the table, that the drawdown simply meant that funds had been transferred from consolidated revenue account to special accounts, and that was why there was a drawdown. I then drew his attention to table 2 on page 22 and pointed out that it was a consolidation of special accounts and consolidated revenue fund and that the table indicated that really there was a drawdown in the year ended March 31, 1981. Now I believe when the minister answered the second time, he agreed with me that that's the case. I don't quarrel with that; if that is the way he sees it now and I see it that way, we agree. It's not a case of saying that there shouldn't have been or should have been or anything else; I'm simply indicating that in that particular period there actually was a drawdown.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, there appears to be an awful lot of side conversation going on. I wonder if we could at least do the hon. member for Nanaimo the courtesy of remaining quiet and listening to his speech.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I guess it's smoke period.

There is another question that I want to ask. At this point really all I'm asking is whether or not there is some way of

[ Page 8905 ]

getting the answer from the minister; I don't expect him to answer on his feet today. The minister made much in the budget speech and in other speeches in the community about the fact that no tax increases were being imposed this year with the exceptions of the increase in the rural rate taxation and one other that escapes my mind at the moment. But anyway, when one looks at the total context of the government financing, relatively no tax increases were imposed, but we all know that many user rates and many fees for government services have been increased. Some of these are provided for in legislation — perhaps they all are, I don't know. Many of them are imposed by regulation. I wonder whether in some cases they are imposed not even by regulation but simply by some government branch — not even the ministry itself but some government branch changing the fee for something.

If I put a question on the order paper, I wonder if it would be possible for the minister to respond as to how many user rate fees and how many fees for government service have been increased since January 1, 1982, and how much the government is expecting to increase its revenue from those sources in the course of the fiscal period 1982-83. Perhaps the way to handle that would be to put it on the order paper. If the minister would like to comment on that and tell me whether or not he thinks that's appropriate, or whether it's a question that he just can't answer, then I'd like to know that as well.

Mr. Chairman, I think that covers the questions I wanted to ask at this point. If the minister can respond to those questions, perhaps we can move on with progress or even resolutions.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the member excused me for a moment. I understand that he alluded to the limited tax increases this fiscal year. Then he went on, as he has before, to identify the fact that a number of fees have been increased across government. I can only say again that quite some time ago, in the Ministry of Finance, following my move into the portfolio in late 1979, we identified the fact that a number of fees had not been increased. Before anyone draws a conclusion from that phrase "a number of fees had not been increased...." They'd been left untouched for many years, and it follows that if a particular fee is held at an unreasonably low level, the subsidization which occurs is then borne by all taxpayers, who may never make use of the item or the particular service which is taken up.

In some instances these are voluntary acquisitions of a service or an item. I think of an individual who would like a large aerial photograph of a particular portion of the province of British Columbia; frankly, if that individual wishes or requires that in his or her business or whatever, perhaps in a municipality, then I think that the rest of us who do not particularly need the large aerial photograph of the constituency of Nanaimo — no reflection on that, Mr. Member.... I don't see why we should subsidize. Now that's a very basic explanation of the philosophy, but on a government-wide basis and with the cooperation of my colleagues in government, we have increased a number of fees.

I will use only one more example, and that is, Mr. Chairman, that it seemed ludicrous to me that in greater Victoria, where I live — in Saanich and the Islands — I am required once a year to take my vehicle through the motor vehicle testing station. I look at the expertise which is available to ensure that my automobile is safe. I look at the equipment which has been paid for by the public of British Columbia, the taxpayers over the years, and which is paid for as equipment is renewed. Until quite recently I was paying $1.75 to have that vehicle tested. Surely, that is not fair to someone who....

MR. STUPICH: That's not the question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's not the issue. But I do want to take a few moments on this, because I feel quite strongly about it.

That is not fair, Mr. Chairman, to the individual who does not live in an area where testing occurs to this extent or to an individual who does not own an automobile. It's subsidization by that individual — unwilling subsidization.

To get to the specific, as I understand the member's question, he would like to know how many fees have been increased since January 1, 1982, and the revenues therefrom. Is that correct? I understood that he would like to put that on the order paper. I will make every effort to reply on the order paper, and I am sure that I can accommodate the member in that regard.

MR. STUPICH: I was afraid for a while that the question got lost in translation, but that's all I wanted. I was wondering whether it was appropriate to put on the order paper how much the revenue for the fiscal period 1982-83 would be increased with respect to those fees.

MR. BARBER: I have a few questions for the minister in regard to his capacity as minister responsible for the Capital Commission. What financial commitment has the government made, or is the government prepared to make, toward the construction of a convention centre in Victoria?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you want to give all your questions?

MR. BARBER: One at a time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I invited the member to offer two or three questions at a time. It's not essential, but it....

MR. BARBER: I prefer one at a time. It's easier to follow.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What commitment has been made at the present time? There is no commitment by the government with respect to a convention centre in Victoria.

MR. BARBER: Are negotiations currently underway or anticipated in regard to a proposal for a convention centre in Victoria?

MR. KEMPF: You're all against it.

MR. BARBER: That's not true. We voted for it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, if you would maintain order.... There are no negotiations underway that involve my office and, to the very best of my knowledge,

[ Page 8906 ]

none that involve the Provincial Capital Commission. It's within this context that the member is asking the question, Mr. Chairman. There may have been some discussions at the staff level of the Provincial Capital Commission. There may have been some opinions expressed by a member of the Provincial Capital Commission, but no negotiations as he and I and this committee understand the word.

MR. BARBER: For the sake of the typically ill-informed member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), not once but twice in a recorded vote the NDP voted in favour of the Victoria convention centre. We weren't against it; we are for it. My colleague Mr. Hanson and I are for it today, yesterday and tomorrow.

Can the minister indicate whether or not he is prepared to consider a proposal from the city of Victoria for the construction of a convention center? If so, what are the ballpark figures the minister would be prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues and to the people of greater Victoria for the construction of such a centre?

HON. MR. CURTIS: When the member mentions ballpark figure, I assume he's referring to a dollar estimate. The question is quite hypothetical at this point in time. In answer to the earlier question I indicated that there are no negotiations underway. I have been informed that a proposal or proposals are being examined by the city of Victoria. I did receive a call much earlier this year from the mayor of Victoria wondering if we might discuss this matter. Nothing further occurred. I don't fault him for that, but there was no further request for a meeting.

It is difficult for me to indicate ballpark figures. Is this a facility which might be located on privately owned space? Is it a site which is readily available to the Crown? I have difficulty in giving the member any assistance, considering the hypothetical nature of his question. In general, I might say that not only would I await a recommendation from the city of Victoria but, inasmuch as we're looking at this as the Provincial Capital Commission, I would await a recommendation from the Provincial Capital Commission for any such consideration of a facility in or near downtown Victoria.

MR. BARBER: To put the question another way to the Minister of Finance, is the cupboard altogether bare? Or, theoretically, could funds be made available should a proposal come forward which, in principle, met the acceptance of the minister and his colleagues in cabinet?

HON. MR. CURTIS: It would be extremely difficult in this fiscal year for me to advance any proposal to my colleagues with respect to a convention centre where the bulk of the cost fell on the provincial government. But I want to say parenthetically that we appear — for reasons which will be of interest to some members from this area and not of so much interest to other members — to have missed a lot of opportunities over 75 years for a convention centre of one kind or another in Victoria.

In answering the member's question, in the event that a proposal came forward which had the clear and majority support of the city council of Victoria, and that there was some opportunity for the Provincial Capital Commission to participate, recommend or cooperate, then, not in this fiscal year, but on the basis of it being a firm, committed plan, I think we could respond favourably in terms of identifying the site and, hopefully, finally making some progress.

Again, the member knows as well as I the very chequered history of convention centres in this city. That's not said in a negative way. Even if we were in a position of significant revenue surpluses, given the provisos I offered — majority support by the city of Victoria, support or involvement by the Provincial Capital Commission, if deemed appropriate — you wouldn't start that building until late 1983, I think; unless the member suggests that he would like to see it located on the waterfront, but I'm not sure I want to go through that again.

MR. BARBER: As the Minister of Finance, so too myself. We are both native sons of Victoria, and although he's older than I am, he's just as aware as I am, if not a great deal more so, of the as he puts it, "chequered history." The city, of course, is not currently planning under its present administration to locate a convention centre on the Inner Harbour. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether or not other plans are being drawn up for the use of that site for some other purpose.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. In a very recent discussion with the newly appointed chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission, Phillip Holmes, and in earlier discussions with the chief executive officer — who, regrettably, is going to leave us for a private contract in the Caribbean.... I don't know if the member was aware of that or not, but Mr. Giles is leaving. I might say that I certainly have wished him well and will wish him well before he leaves the city of Victoria. From those two recent conversations — the one with the chairman, Mr. Holmes, was just ten days ago — we have no plans, other than some tidying up, for that particular site of which he and I have spoken before.

MR. BARBER: I'd like to restate for the record today that my colleague from Victoria (Mr. Hanson) and our colleague from Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) support, in principle, the construction of a convention centre in Victoria. It would be as good here as the one will be in Vancouver. It's a shame that the deal offered in Vancouver was not available in Victoria. However, that is another discussion for another time.

In regard to the site, clearly it is not acceptable to the current council, and to many citizens in Victoria. I think it's wise that the minister is not proceeding with that site, because it's obviously not going to be allowed, so to speak, by the city of Victoria.

It was, as I recall, two Novembers ago that the Premier went down and turned the sod. I wonder if the minister could indicate what money has been spent in site and plan preparation for the convention centre at Wharf Street, one which he now acknowledges will never be built. What was spent on preparing the site, plans and consultative process for the convention centre that was to have been on Wharf Street?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't have that figure readily available. It was not a large amount. The member will know that some test holes were sunk. There was a reasonable amount of money spent in the development of plans and models, but we have not started site preparation, other than the tests to which I have alluded. I'm afraid that it would be difficult for me to answer that question today. He is correct

[ Page 8907 ]

that it was two and a half years ago. My expectation at that time was that we would today have a convention centre in Victoria. But that is neither here nor there for the purposes of this discussion. I can undertake to provide the member with the dollar figure which he has requested. It would take a few days.

MR. BARBER: I have a final question, also in favour of the development of a convention centre in greater Victoria. Is the government, in principle, prepared to enter into a joint venture agreement with, between and among the city of Victoria, the Capital Commission and private enterprise to pull together — on a mutually acceptable site, according to a mutually acceptable financial formula — a convention centre here? I want to say that I for one strongly favour those kinds of joint ventures between private and public capital, the spirits of private and public enterprise, and the mutual guarantees of efficiency and accountability that you find in private and public enterprise. I personally and strongly favour that joint-venture approach. I wonder if the minister could tell us whether or not he does, and whether or not that is a principle of approach that he would be prepared to accept, should a proposal come forward?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Given the relative vagueness of the proposal, I would be interested in looking at it. When he says, "with a private organization and private capital," one has to ask: who, what and where? That would have to be taken into consideration.

MR. BARBER: I'm just talking about the principle of a joint venture.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In principle, yes. I think I would refer the member to my earlier answer that, given the right location, economic circumstances and kind of approvals — particularly at the civic level, which is key — I would certainly welcome a recommendation from the Provincial Capital Commission.

There's a very important difference, with respect to the PCC, in the way in which I relate to the commission. I do not wish to direct the commission. I have attempted to return to the earlier approach where the commission makes recommendations to the minister and the minister then carries those forth to cabinet, hopefully for approval. The members of the Provincial Capital Commission serve, as some members will know, with absolutely no pay. They give their skills and hours of time, and they are recognized all too infrequently. They're rather unique in British Columbia these days, inasmuch as they give so much free time; they're unique in that kind of organization. I'm not speaking of other boards, hospital boards and so on. I want the commission to feel free to say, "This is a good idea: that is not a good idea; we will recommend this to the minister," and then I will take it from there. I do not expect these individuals to serve on that commission merely to be a rubber stamp for the minister responsible, whoever that may be.

MR. BARBER: I'm glad the minister feels that way about the Capital Commission. As he knows, I was a member of it myself for a time, and I respect the energy and the will to work. I respect the volunteerism and the many years of contribution that the Capital Commission has made. I had a brief opportunity to see it for myself. I think it's an excellent body. It's got a very good chairman, Mike Young. He recently retired, and did a very good job as chairman of it. I hope Pip Holmes does an equally good job, and I'm sure he will.

What I ask the minister, though, to consider by way of policy is that marriage of ability which you find when the private and public sectors get together on a joint venture. The private sector is — or can be — marvelously efficient; they have an internal capacity for efficiency that's really admirable. They have efficiency, and that's useful. The public sector, on the other hand, has accountability that the private sector does not have, and that's useful too. In that way, both the engines of efficiency and the principle of accountability can be found, married and established when joint ventures go forward. I'm absolutely convinced that unilateral action is out of the question on anyone's part. The city cannot afford to build a convention centre by itself: the province should not and will not build it without the consent of the city; and apparently, as well, in these financial circumstances money isn't adequate to the purpose without the financial involvement of the private sector.

[Mr Davidson in the chair.]

Unilateral action on no one's part can do the job, private or public — private at the corporate level, public at the municipal or provincial level. I think the only opportunity we have to put together a package that's affordable and prudent, built well and sited properly, is that package of efficiency and accountability that you obtain when you get public and private enterprise working together on the same team. I think the only way we can afford it is to combine those fiscal resources as well as those organizational ones. I commend that as a principle to the minister, and if he's able to follow it he'll have our full support.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There are those occasions when I disagree strenuously with the member who has just taken his seat, but this is not one of those occasions. In the event that the Provincial Capital Commission — and I can only speak from that aspect in this government — sees the opportunity for that combination of private, public — public meaning provincial — and civic.... Given the agreement on site, given the availability of dollars, given the acceptability of the private component — I think that we would all agree on that point.... Given that, I would certainly attempt to carry forward a recommendation coming to me from the Provincial Capital Commission.

MR. BARRETT: I have a brief question of the minister. I have correspondence from the district of Summerland. They have a unique problem, in that they have a breakwater that they inherited that is not normally within municipality responsibility. It is out of repair. They want to set aside some funds in the future for maintenance, but they need some money for repairs to bring it up to the level that they can handle the maintenance cost.

It's the Summerland breakwater. This letter is from the mayor of Summerland, Mr. K.M. Blagborne. Do you know the mayor?

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The mayor...

[ Page 8908 ]

MR. BARRETT: ...passed away. I know that. He asked where the letter was from. I regret very much to hear that the mayor passed away, but I still have the commitment to raise this issue on behalf of the district of Summerland. The request was for a renewal grant of $300,000. Since it's unique in terms of the problem, I thought I would raise it with the Minister of Finance and leave it with him. I don't expect the minister to announce today that the department will give a grant of $300,000. I don't want to make an appeal on the basis of raising any false hopes, but I had promised the mayor that I would raise it, and I'm doing so. All I want is perhaps for the minister to acknowledge that it is a unique problem and that he'll take a look at it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, yes, it is sad that the major of Summerland passed away two days ago, I think, or yesterday. I will undertake — and there are those in my office right now who are making notes of the commitments that I've made — to review this, notwithstanding what you've said in your opening remarks, Mr. Member, with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) as well as any other appropriate minister. I will do that.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to ask the Minister of Finance a brief question. I couldn't help but overhear the discussion regarding the convention centre or the provincial government contribution to a convention centre in Victoria. I don't like to promulgate the rural-capital argument; however, I do feel that it perhaps should be considered that all the taxpayers in this province now are contributing toward many of the attractions in Victoria, including the parliament buildings and the Provincial Museum. I have no quarrel with that. I'm very proud, as a citizen of British Columbia, of our Provincial Museum, but I do feel a bit of concern about continuing requests where the major attractions and facilities are already provided by the taxpayers of the province. It seems that that is where the concern is to put more. For instance, if a convention centre is being considered for Victoria, with a provincial government contribution toward it, I'm sure that would be at least a $10 million request.

I'd like to ask the Finance minister to at least consider the merits of.... That $10 million would provide at least $200,000 to fall on 50 communities throughout the rest of the province of British Columbia — or 25 communities at $400,000. If you consider one-third to be what the provincial government would be contributing, these communities would be getting something like $600,000 facilities. I'm talking about communities that, despite the efforts of their smaller populations, do not have libraries in many cases; they have no local museums and, believe me, there is a rich history that should be preserved in many of those communities. A facility worth $600,000, say, assisted by a $200,000 grant in 50 communities in this province, would do a great deal of good and would also spread some of the traffic, so that we don't have to keep adding subsidies and more ferries to bring people to and from the Island. I have no quarrel at all with Victoria and the Island doing well, but I would think that the minister might at least consider the extensive benefits that would be created in these smaller communities as benefits to the local people and as attractions for the tourists — to bring them to other parts of the province as well — if, say, $10 million were spread around 50 communities in the province, rather than in the place that has it all now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This discussion with the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) and the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has been in the context of the Provincial Capital Commission. Any reference to recreation facilities projects and so on would be more appropriate in another ministry, which has been before the committee.

I would like to try to put this into perspective, however. The Provincial Capital Commission was established by the W.A.C. Bennett government in — I'm subject to correction — 1954 or 1955. It goes back a number of years. It draws a relatively small amount of money from the provincial treasury, with a small staff. Their total estimates this year are $778,239. Obviously, when the commission was established under its former name, the Capital Improvement District Commission, the point was made that this is the capital for all British Columbians who come here, individually, by the busload or by the ferryload on occasion. I think the commission has kept faith with the intent of the original mandate.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, it has expanded somewhat. Nonetheless, the commission is required, obliged and requested to examine this as, Mr. Member, your capital as well as mine — I don't live in it, but I live near it. It was not too long ago that the boundaries were extended to include some of the more outlying areas. I hear what the member has said, and appreciate that this is part of the north-south dialogue which transcends political affiliation on more than one occasion. I respect what he says. But I do offer the comment that the Provincial Capital Commission and the same organization under its earlier name is, I think, important for all British Columbians, notwithstanding that its activities are centred in the capital of the province.

MR. LEA: I think that we'd all agree — northerners, southerners, people from the Kootenays — that certain facilities are only applicable for the capital, or should be in the capital, because it's the capital for us all. That's true, but as the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) points out, that isn't necessarily true of all projects, and especially for a recreation centre or for a convention centre; we all need those no matter where we live, or would desire to have them, and they don't necessarily apply to a capital. Museums and other cultural centres that you can only afford one of in the province — we all look at the capital as the place we'd like to have them.

What the member for North Peace River left out is that we had a program initiated by our government, but voted for by the Minister of Finance and his colleagues at the time — the recreational facilities fund — that's been cancelled. The money that did come to smaller communities has been cancelled. The only one that remains alive is the money that we're putting into a stadium in downtown Vancouver. That's where the votes are, and that's why it's going there. I don't agree with the minister that it's a nonpartisan thing, because it isn't. A program that was cancelled for your community, Mr. Member for North Peace, for yours in Omineca, for Skeena, for North Island, all of us who don't come from downtown Vancouver.... We've had those programs transferred, and the money has been transferred into where the votes are. That is partisan politics, and we've been shortchanged. The program was there; it's been cancelled because of a political

[ Page 8909 ]

direction to put that money in Vancouver where the votes are. It's as simple as that.

MR. BRUMMET: I would like to say to the Minister of Finance that I would like to have my question and suggestion stand as I presented it, not as it has been twisted and warped by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) for his political purposes.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleague for Prince Rupert not to pay too much attention to the member for North Peace River. He was elected just like every one of us, and he has every right to make an exhibit of himself in this House whenever he chooses. I think he's spoken more often and contributed less than most members; nevertheless, he has the right to do that.

This is a period of restraint. We have made that point over and over again. Yet when we're talking about restraint, the Minister of Finance, of all people, proposes to increase the amount he's going to spend on travel and on office expenses. I move that vote 36 be reduced by $9,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 29

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), who is always lecturing the House on rules and points of order, is reading a newspaper in the House. He's like a socialist: they always preach one thing and do something else — like that other member saying we should be in the House, and he's off to Europe on a vacation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Thank you. The Chair has the point of order and would draw standing orders to the attention of all members.

Vote 36 approved.

On vote 37: government financial support, $80,361,082.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the principle is the same but the principal is different in this case. I'd like to move that vote 37 be reduced by $19,730,587.

Mr. Chairman, I recall that last year when I was going through these motions I compared them to the number of hospital beds that would reopen, which is much more appropriate this year, of course, and we may be doing some of that later. But in this vote there are some interesting examples. Professional and special services increased by almost $1 million; that's an increase of 36.7 percent. We've heard nothing from the minister to indicate why all that extra money is needed in that area.

For travel, government financial services, an increase of 10.2 percent; advertising — to tell us what a great job they're doing — an increase of 17.3 percent; BCBC — they're cutting back on staff but they need more room for them or the costs are going up — 6.7 percent; and the biggest of all, Mr. Chairman, interest on public debt, which is nothing less than a political boondoggle. Mr. Chairman, the amendment stands.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman. It's appropriate to point out, and I think the member knows, that this does not relate to any travel undertaken by the minister. If we are interested in the travel item alone, it is there because we found it necessary to make repeated visits to Ottawa with respect to the established programs financing activities and other transfer payments. There has been much need for us to meet with other provinces and with the federal government to protect provincial revenues. That is why that is increased.

Mr. Chairman, I don't want the impression to be left with the committee that this represents a significant increase in staff. It shows clearly that the 1981-82 staff was 1,265 persons, and the staff envisaged in this vote is 1,300. That is a very small increase for an extremely important division of the ministry.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 28

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

[ Page 8910 ]

Vote 37 approved.

On vote 38: Provincial Capital Commission, $778,239.

MR. STUPICH: Earlier, I commented very briefly on this before the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber). My concern then was that it's a very worthwhile program and one on which we are spending less money than last year. But in this instance I would like to point out that, of all things, travel has gone up $2,700 and office expenses have gone up $750.

I therefore move that vote 38 be reduced by $3,450. I just don't know why it costs more for people on the Capital Commission to travel when they're all living here in Victoria.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

NAYS — 29

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

Vote 38 approved.

On vote 39: compensation stabilization program, $882,890.

MR. STUPICH: I move that vote 39 be reduced by $882,890.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, this particular motion, as forwarded, is unfortunately not in order, as a motion to eliminate a program can only be negatived by a vote against. This particular motion is therefore out of order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but there is a typographical error in that. The figure should have read $882,880, and I thank you for drawing my attention to that.

From the time this legislation was first introduced, the opposition was opposed to the program promulgated by that legislation. Since then little has been accomplished except that a handful of people have found employment. That leads us to believe that the government itself realizes that it made an error in deciding that one relatively small section of the community should bear the total cost of fighting inflation, high interest rates, unemployment and everything else. We're hoping the government was won over by the argument. The fact that they haven't done anything leads us to believe that that's the case, and it's proper that we should move this particular amendment.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS 23

NAYS — 29

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

Vote 39 approved.

Vote 40: contingencies, $97,535,000 — approved.

Vote 41: financing transactions, $2,350,000 approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report great resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled a letter referred to in Committee of Supply.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.

[ Page 8911 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

64 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Environment the following questions:

    With respect to section 45, Water Act, R.S.B.C., chap. 429 (B.C. Regulations 240/60 and 501/81) —

    1. What pulp mills in the Province hold water licences?

    2. In the case of each pulp mill what amount of water is licensed for industrial use?

    3. In each year 1972 to 1981 what was the water licence fees and annual rental paid in the case of each pulp mill?

    4. Are any licence fees delinquent and if so, for which mills and in which years?

    The Hon. C. S. Rogers replied as follows:

    "1. The following pulp mills in the Province have water licences: Belkin Paperboard Division of Belkin Packaging Ltd., Vancouver; B.C. Forest Products, Crofton; B.C. Forest Products, Williston Lake; B.C. Timber Ltd., Castlegar; B.C. Timber Ltd., Prince Rupert; Canadian Forest Products Ltd., Howe Sound; Cariboo Pulp and Paper Company, Quesnel; Crestbrook Forest Industries Ltd., Skookumchuck; Crown Zellerbach Canada Ltd., Campbell River; Eurocan Pulp and Paper Company, Kitimat; Finlay Forest Industries Ltd., Williston Lake; Intercontinental Pulp Company, Prince George; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Port Alberni; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Nanaimo; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., New Westminster; MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., Powell River; Northbrook Pulp and Timber Ltd., Prince George; Ocean Falls Corporation, Ocean Falls; Prince George Pulp and Paper Ltd., Prince George; Tahsis Co. Ltd., Gold River; Western Forest Products Ltd., Woodfibre; Western Forest Products Ltd., Alberni; and Weyerhauser Canada Ltd., Kamloops.

    "2. The amount of water licensed for industrial use for each pulp mill is:

    "3. In each year, 1972 to 1981, the total fees paid by each pulp mill was:

[ Page 8912 ]

    "4. None of the licences are in arrears and Water Management Branch records show that there were no delinquent accounts during the period 1972 to 1981."

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

13 Mrs. Dailly to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 13) intituled Election Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

SECTION 25A, to add a new section which reads:

"115.1 (1) Where a person claims to be entitled to be registered as a voter and attests that

    (a) his name does not appear on the list of voters for the electoral district in which he resides, and

    (b) he believes that no original application for his registration as voter is included with the original applications furnished under section 93, and

    (c) he will be unable to attend at a polling place on ordinary polling day, and

    (d) he is unable to attend at a polling place in the electoral district in which he ordinarily resides,

the person may apply before any deputy returning officer during the hours of the advance poll and make application for registration as a voter in the electoral district in which he ordinarily resides.

"(2) The application must be on the form required by sections 7 and 8.

"(3) For purposes of determining the entitlement of the applicant to vote, the deputy returning officer and the returning officer have the powers and duties of the registrar, including the registrar's powers under sections 14 and 15.

"(4) A returning officer or deputy returning officer shall, when acting under this section, require an applicant to produce at least 2 documents that provide evidence of the applicant's identity and current residence satisfactory to the returning officer or deputy returning officer.

"(5) Where the returning officer or deputy returning officer receives an application made in accordance with this section, he shall, if satisfied that the applicant is entitled to be registered as a voter, issue to him a voting certificate in Form 31 which the applicant shall first sign in the presence of the returning officer or the deputy returning officer.

[ Page 8913 ]

"(6) A person in whose name a voting certificate is issued and who wishes to vote shall surrender the voting certificate to the returning officer or deputy returning officer at the advance poll where it was issued.

"(7) Upon surrendering the voting certificate, the returning officer or deputy returning officer shall require the voter to sign the poll book in accordance with section 115.

"(8) The voting certificate and the application for registration as a voter made under this section shall be sent by the returning officer where the application is made to the returning officer for the electoral district in which the voter purports to cast a ballot.

"(9) Where a person claims to be entitled to be registered as voter and attests that

        (a) his name does not appear on the list of voters for the electoral district in which he resides, and

        (b) no original application for his registration as a voter is included with the original applications furnished under section 93,

a person may apply at the advance poll for registration as a voter in that electoral district.

"(10) The procedures specified in section 80 shall be followed in considering an application made under subsection (9). —

SECTION 25B, to amend the schedule by adding Form 31 as attached.

"FORM 31

ELECTION ACT

(Section 115.1)

VOTING CERTIFICATE

SECTION 28A, to add a new section which reads:

"169.1 A person to whom a candidate or their authorized representative has produced identification of his/her status shall not

        (a) obstruct or interfere with, or

        (b) cause or permit the obstruction or interference with, the free access of a candidate or their authorized representative to

    (i) each residence in a building containing two or more residences; or

[ Page 8914 ]

    (ii) each residence in a mobile home park; or

    (iii) each person occupying a room in an inn, hotel or motel; or".

SECTION 29A, to add a new section which reads:

"178.1 (1) The chief agent of any registered party that, through registered agents acting within the scope of their authority as such or other persons acting on behalf of the registered party within the actual knowledge and consent of an officer thereof, incurs election expenses on account of or in respect of the conduct or management of an election that exceed in aggregate the amount defined in 178.1 (2), commits an offence.

"(2) The maximum permitted expenses are

        (a) in an electoral district in which there is an official candidate who has the endorsement of the party, the aggregate of ten cents per square kilometre and the product of multiplying one dollar by the number of names on the list of electors for that electoral district when the writ of election was issued; and

        (b) for a central campaign of a registered party, the product of multiplying fifty cents by the number of names on the list of electors in the electoral districts where that party has an official candidate.

"(3) For purposes of this section, 'official candidate' means a person who is a candidate at the election who has filed with the returning officer after the issue of the writ a letter signed by the leader of the Party endorsing the candidate, whereupon the candidate shall be entitled to have the party designation shown on the ballot. Candidates failing to file such a letter shall have no designation shown on the ballot.

"(4) Where an offence is committed by the chief agent of a registered party against this section, the registered party is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars.

"(5) Every registered party shall, within 30 days after becoming a registered party, appoint an auditor, unless the party has previously appointed an auditor who continues to hold office as such.

"(6) Where an auditor of a registered party ceases to hold office as such, ceases to be qualified as an auditor or becomes ineligible under subsection (7), the party shall, within 30 days, appoint another auditor. 

"(7) No returning officer, deputy returning officer or election clerk and no candidate, official agent of a candidate or registered agent of a registered party, or the partner, employee or clerk or any of them, is eligible to act as the auditor for a registered party and, if any such person so acts, they are guilty of an offence.

"(8) The auditor appointed by a registered party shall make a report to the chief agent of the party on each return of receipts and expenses of the party for a fiscal period and on each return in respect of election expenses of the party prepared during his term of office and shall make such examination as will enable him to state in his report whether in his opinion the return presents fairly the information contained in the accounting records on which the return is based.

"(9) An auditor, in his report pursuant to subsection (8), shall make such statements as he considers necessary in any case where

        (a) the return to which the report relates does not present fairly the information contained in the accounting records on which it is based;

        (b) he has not received from registered agents and officers of the party all the information and explanation that he has required; or

        (c) proper accounting records have not been kept by the registered party, so far as appears from his examination.

"(10) An auditor of a registered party shall have access at all reasonable times to all records, documents, books, accounts and vouchers of the party, and is entitled to require from the registered agents and officers of the party such information and explanation as in his opinion may be necessary to enable him to report as required by subsection (8).

[ Page 8915 ]

"(11) The chief agent of a registered party shall transmit to the chief electoral officer in respect of each fiscal period of the party, a return of the party's receipts and expenses, other than election expenses in relation to a general election, for the fiscal period, substantially in a form prescribed by the chief electoral officer, and the auditor's report made to the chief agent under subsection (8) in respect thereof.

"(12) A return referred to in subsection (11) shall set out

    (a) the amount of money and the commercial value of goods and services provided for the use of the party by way of loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift in the fiscal period by each of the following classes of donors, namely, individuals, corporations the shares of which are publicly traded, corporations the shares of which are not publicly traded, governments, trade unions, corporations without share capital other than trade unions, and the number of donors in each such class,

    (b) the name of each individual, corporation, trade union, unincorporated organization and association, listed according to the classes of donors referred to in paragraph (a), who made a loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift in the fiscal period for the use of the party the amount of which exceeded one hundred dollars or who made loans, advances, deposits, contributions or gifts in the fiscal period for the use of the party the aggregate of which exceeded one hundred dollars and in each such case the amount of the loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift or the aggregate of the loans, deposits, contributions or gifts made by him or it in the fiscal period,

(c) the amounts of money expended on operating expenses of the party including travel costs of the leader of the party and other party officials, and

(d) the total of all other expenditures, other than election expenses in relation to a general election, made by or on behalf of the party, and shall be transmitted to the chief electoral officer, together with the auditor's report referred to in subsection (11), within 6 months after the end of the fiscal period to which the return relates.

"(13) Where a loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift for the use of a registered party is made by any local association of a political party, the return referred to in subsection (12) in respect of the registered party shall, if the amount or value of the loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift exceeds one hundred dollars, include the name of each individual, corporation, government, trade union, unincorporated organization or association whose loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift to any local association exceeded one hundred dollars and was comprised in the loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift by any local association for the use of the registered party and the amount or value of the loan, advance, deposit, contribution, or gift by each such individual, corporation, government, trade union, unincorporated organization or association.

"(14) For purposes of subsection (13) where any of the donors cannot be identified, the return referred to in subsection (12) shall include with respect to each individual, corporation, government, trade union, unincorporated organization or association that made a loan, advance, deposit, contribution or gift to the local association that exceeded one hundred dollars in the fiscal period of the registered party to which the return relates as if such loans, advances, deposits, contributions or gifts had been contributions or gifts for the use of the registered party.

"(15) The chief agent of a registered party shall transmit to the chief electoral officer in respect of each general election, a return in respect of election expenses incurred by or on behalf of the party in relation to the election, substantially in a form prescribed by the chief electoral officer, and the auditor's report made to the chief agent under subsection (8) in respect thereof.

[ Page 8916 ]

"(16) A return referred to in subsection (15) shall set out the amount of money expended by or on behalf of the party on election expenses and the commercial value of goods and services used for election purposes and shall be transmitted to the chief electoral officer, together with the auditor's report referred to in subsection (15), within 6 months after polling day at the election to which it relates.

"(17) A chief agent who

        (a) fails to transmit to the chief electoral officer an auditor's report and return within the time limited by this section;

        (b) transmits to the chief electoral officer a return referred to in paragraph (a) that he knows or ought reasonably to know contains any false or deceptive statement, or

        (c) transmits to the chief electoral officer a return referred to in paragraph (a) that does not contain substantially the information required by subsection (12) or (16) to be set out therein, is guilty of an offence.

"(18) Where an offence against subsection (17) is committed by a chief agent of a party, the registered party is guilty of an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred thousand dollars."

SECTION 32, to amend Form 30 by deleting the words "place the ballot in the ballot envelope" and by deleting the word "envelope" in the last line, so that the instruction to the deputy returning officer would read:

"Before issuing an ordinary ballot paper to this voter you must enter the voter's name in your list of voters, write a consecutive number alongside the name and have this voter sign the poll book. On the voter's returning the ballot paper to you, remove the counterfoil, and place the ballot in the ballot box."