[ Page 1385 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Harbour Board Repeal Act (Bill 25). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On Section I –– 1385

Ms. Sanford

Third reading –– 1386

Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act (Bill 30). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

On Section I –– 1386

Mr. Lockstead

Third reading –– 1388

Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 13). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On Section I –– 1388

Mrs. Wallace

Third reading –– 1389

British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeal Act (Bill 29). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1389

Mr. Lockstead –– 1389

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1389

Division –– 1389

British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeal Act (Bill 29). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Phillips)

On Section I –– 1390

Mr. Lockstead

Third reading –– 1390

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 17). Commit-

tee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On section 6 –– 1390

Mr. Howard

On section 7 –– 1391

Mr. Howard

On section 12 –– 1391

Ms. Brown

Mr. Cocke

On section 26 –– 1392

Ms. Brown

Third reading –– 1393

College and Institute Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 20). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich)

On Section I –– 1393

Mr. Rose

Mr. Howard

Mr. Veitch

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, I would like members to join me in welcoming Ken and Shirley Cotton from Sparwood, British Columbia, to the House this morning.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Leading us in prayers this morning was Archdeacon Greenhalgh of St. Matthias parish. I believe it is correct to say still of St. Matthias parish, although he has very recently retired. Perhaps the House would not only thank him for today but also wish him well in his well deserved retirement.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker.

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MS. SANFORD: I'm somewhat concerned that under section 1, with the repeal of the Harbours Board itself and the distribution of the assets now under the jurisdiction of the Harbours Board, some 4,000 acres of the best farmland in British Columbia will be transferred to the B.C. Development Corporation instead of the Agricultural Land Commission. I think that's unfortunate. When I mentioned this earlier, Mr. Chairman, during the second reading of this particular bill, I mentioned that to me....

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, section 1 is quite specific, and I think the assets would be better discussed under section 5.

MS. SANFORD: Yes. I have an amendment here, Mr. Chairman, so if you can just bear with me for one moment....

HON. MR. GARDOM: What section?

MS. SANFORD: Section 1 –– I feel that the board as outlined here and the corporation, meaning the B.C. Development Corporation, should not be the B.C. Development Corporation. I feel that when those assets are transferred, namely 4,000 acres of the best farmland, they should not go to the B.C. Development Corporation as required in section 1, the interpretation section of this particular bill. I feel that it is essential that that prime farmland not go to a corporation that is concerned about industrial development but rather to the Land Commission, which is concerned with the administration and preservation of farmland in British Columbia. It makes eminent sense that the B.C. Development Corporation should not be responsible for that land, but rather the Land Commission and those people who are concerned about agricultural land and about preserving and ensuring that that land is utilized in the best possible way for the production of food in this province. The GVRD wants this particular move made; in other words, that the land go to the property management division of the Land Commission and not to the B.C. Development Corporation. The municipality of Delta, in which this particular land is located, wants this to happen. The Land Commission itself would much prefer to see that land there.

For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I am moving that under section 1 we delete " 'corporation' means The British Columbia Development Corporation" and substitute " 'commission' means the Agricultural Land Commission." I have subsequent amendments that would alter other sections of the bill to accommodate that particular change.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, although the principle of this bill does consider the transfer of assets, the agreement on second reading was that the transfer of assets would go to a specific corporation; this amendment would therefore fail, as it really disrupts the principle of that section and the principle of second reading.

MS. SANFORD: I cannot accept your ruling on that and I have to challenge it, Mr. Chairman.

The House resumed Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during the committee stage of Bill 25, on Section 1 your Chairman made a ruling that an amendment from the member for Comox was out of order. That ruling has been challenged.

[10:15]

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS –– 27

NAYS — 16

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

[ Page 1386 ]

HARBOUR BOARD REPEAL ACT
(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 25; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Titled approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 25, Harbour Board Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 30, Mr. Speaker.

OCEAN FALLS CORPORATION REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 30; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: There has been quite a bit of debate in second reading of this bill. Section 1 of this bill is quite open and extensive, but I do have a couple of questions to the minister before this bill proceeds through committee.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I know you will, Mr. Minister. I know you'll try. I hope that you don't make one of your longwinded speeches — just answer some questions. We'd all appreciate that in this House.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The Premier says shame. Mr. Chairman, I'm shocked. If there's any shame attached to this bill, I think it belongs on the heads of the government.

I want to get to my questions. They are not too complicated, so I'm sure the minister will be able to answer them. I think there are some 11 or 12 employees still employed by the Ocean Falls Corporation. What happens to those employees? What happens to their status? Who will be paying them? Obviously the community will need maintenance — the plant, the dam site, the generators. Those kinds of things will have to be maintained and looked after. So I'd like to know what the future is and what will become of those employees.

I know that Mr. Williston and the government, according to the statements made by the minister, are looking at some sort of future potential for the community. I believe they're talking with some company at the present time, with some kind of smaller operation in view. But in the event that doesn't happen.... I know that those discussions have not been too fruitful to date. They may be. I simply don't know as I'm not part of those discussions. As a matter of fact, I hope they are. But in the event they are not, I wonder if the minister could tell me what he foresees becoming of the assets of that community: the brand-new school, the relatively new hospital clinic, the fire hall with a brand-new fire engine — all kinds of things. I could go on and on, but there's no point in me doing that. What I'm asking the minister is: what does he foresee happening to these assets? Will they be distributed throughout the central coast communities? Will they be put up for auction or what? What could happen to them? I simply don't know; the people up there don't know either. That's why I'm asking the questions.

While I'm on the topic of assets, there are a number of people who own their homes in Ocean Falls, primarily in the Martin Valley area, which is approximately one mile out of Ocean Falls proper. If the community should close down permanently, what will happen to these people who have bought property in good faith? They are fishermen and loggers. I don't recall offhand how many homes are directly involved. I am going to guess approximately ten — it may be more; it may be less. I honestly don't recall the exact number of homes in the area. But should the community close permanently, obviously these people will be left without utilities — primarily electricity — and these kinds of things. What are they supposed to do in that case? Will they lose everything, or has the corporation considered some assistance to these people? These are the kinds of questions I am asking the minister, and hopefully he may be able to give us some answers.

I wonder if the minister, Mr. Chairman, is prepared to let us know at this time the final settlement that was reached with the Ocean Falls Corporation and the Los Angeles Times. What was the payout in that particular situation? As far as I am aware, that figure has never been made public. Has that situation finally been resolved? If so, could we hear about it. With that I will give the minister the opportunity to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind the committee that the questions posed by the hon. Member for Mackenzie are quite in order under Section 1 and also under section 2. We can make the presumption when we arrive at section 2 that we have canvassed these items well under section 1.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I appreciate the member's questions. I certainly appreciate the member's concern, because it is in his riding.

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If the member will pay attention, I want to tell you that I appreciate your concerns. It is in your riding and I know that you have a great deal of empathy with the residents there, and I certainly appreciate that.

I want to point out to you, as I have said before, Mr. Member, that this is a proclamation bill. I have said that we have to come up with something by the end of October or we are going to have to move. We just can't go on. Now I don't want to build up your hopes, and I certainly don't want to mislead the Legislature, but I do want to tell you that since we have tabled this bill in the Legislature, some of the private sector have come forward and have said: "Hey, maybe we should move. You know we have that small fishing operation in there." As I say, I don't want to say, other than that, that there are some people coming out of the woodwork knowing that we're going to close the operation down and saying yes.

[ Page 1387 ]

[10:30]

We have tried, as you know, to get a particle-board operation in there using cedar chips. The technology has almost been perfected. I think that would be an ideal operation in there. I'm not entirely happy with our lumber industry in British Columbia, due to the fact that we haven't have some particle-chip board manufacturing facilities in this province. They're being built in other provinces. There are two in Alberta, one in Saskatchewan. I wouldn't want to say that it's because of the heavy investment in plywood facilities in this province, but certainly the demand for that particular board is growing. It's being used in housing. I think a lot of the plywood that used to be used is now being replaced by particle-board, which is lighter, and with some of the new techniques, some of the new glues they have, is certainly a better building material. I was noticing, driving around Tumbler Ridge, as a matter of fact, that the majority of the houses and apartment buildings being built are being built out of particle-board. So we're still working on that.

With regard to the employees, we will be fair and have negotiations with them. I certainly don't want to prejudge what the results of those negotiations will be here, but we will certainly negotiate with them and be as fair as we can.

The assets of the town, if we close it down, will have to be mothballed. There's no other way you can do it. We're not going to maintain a town; it will have to go into mothballs. I would like to think that sometime in the future when the economy picks up, maybe two or three years from now, somebody might come along.... Rather than tear it down and do away with it, I would like to think that we'd keep it in mothballs for a period of time until either a decision has to be made to wipe the town out entirely, or maybe something will come along. We still live in constant hope, of course. You know me — I'm a born optimist.

With regard to those people who have facilities outside of town, I think there will be enough activity that some of the utilities will have to be kept in there. I can't really say. We'll have to cross that bridge, Mr. Member, when we get to it. But again, we want to be fair and do as good as we can for those people who live there.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: In terms of the employees, I didn't realize that negotiations were now taking place. I presume Mr. Williston is meeting with these employees, who are members of the CPU. Perhaps the minister could clarify this for me: are you currently meeting with officials of the CPU regarding the future and possible termination of these employees?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Not at the present time.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Okay. That answers that question.

I would like to know too, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could clarify for me one of the possibilities that have been put forward. There's only one generator operating at Ocean Falls at the present time to maintain electricity for the few people left in the community, but I understand that there is a distinct possibility of a transmission line being run to the Bella Bella area, which would service some 1,200 to 1,400 people. At the present time that area is being served by a diesel-operated electrical plant. I understand that there's the possibility that the four generators at Ocean Falls.... The water's there, the dam is there, the generators are there. There's a possibility that B.C. Hydro could become involved and run a transmission line to the Bella Bella area. Obviously I can't know, since I don't have the studies, and I don't even know if studies have been completed, but I wonder if the minister could tell me if this option is being looked at or at what stage this possibility is at at the present time.

I just have one or two other small items. Well, I'm not sure they're small, but.... There is still concern about transportation into the area. I don't want to get into that under this bill. However, as the minister rightly points out, this is a proclamation bill. It may not be proclaimed free, for all I know — or perhaps for all the minister knows.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I won't let it go that long.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just for the record, the minister says he's not going to let it go that long. In the meantime, there is a severe transportation problem, which I'll discuss under the estimates of the Minister of Transportation (Hon. A. Fraser). The very fact that this is a proclamation bill — and the minister says that he's not going to let it go longer than a year — makes it almost impossible for, say, the B.C. Ferry Corporation or the independent transportation service now serving the area to make any plans. What this all boils down to is that it makes it extremely difficult for people up there to make any kind of plans at all. Perhaps the minister can remark on that — I don't know; I suppose it is really out of his purview in some ways.

I think that's it for the moment — particularly that one question, Mr. Minister; I would appreciate it if you could tell me a bit about that.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'd be happy to get you the details, but it's my understanding that the generating facilities would have to be gone over and upgraded if we're going to have any long-term use, regardless of what we're going to have. That's one of the problems. I would have to look further into that, and I'd be quite happy to get you more details on it. But to my knowledge, there is no present plan to build a line. Maybe that is something, sir, that we could look into. But I think there would have to be some fairly costly repairs done on the generating facilities themselves. I think I intimated to you that I had put a deadline of October 31 in place; if we don't get something by then, it will mean that it will be closed down before winter.

With regard to the ferry service and other transportation, that will all be taken into consideration.

With regard, Mr. Member, to the lawsuit of the Los Angeles Times, I know they dropped their suit. Again, I haven't got the details of the final settlement, but I know it was a very favourable one. As you know, I went against the recommendations of the lawyers and said: "We'll stand pat. I don't think they've got a case." Of course, in the long run we won out with a very favourable settlement.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. When this bill is proclaimed on, say, October 31, obviously the Ocean Falls Corporation will no longer exist, and Mr. Williston will no longer be chairman. Just so that we know where to go — so that the remaining residents up there know, so the union and other people know — does that mean that all future business involving that community will be conducted through your office? Obviously Mr. Williston will no longer be there. So who do we talk to? I would assume it would be yourself.

[ Page 1388 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Member, I appreciate that question as well. I would probably put Mr. Williston on a direct contract to my office and have him do the negotiations and clean up the last-minute details, so that you would have somebody to deal with.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you. That clears up that problem.

I presume that Mr. Williston would not be eligible for severance pay. Is that correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That matter might be better discussed in another committee. The minister may wish to answer.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't really wish to comment on it. As you know, Mr. Williston was appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. I think you're getting into another arena that's out of my jurisdiction. That will be decided by wiser men than I.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that is going beyond the scope of this bill, hon. member.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was rather curious. With all due respect to Mr. Williston — and I must say that he has been very cooperative with me, and he has worked hard on the future of this community — we are told daily in this House that we do have restraint. If Mr. Williston is going to be under contract to the minister with regard to these corporations, I would suggest that one paycheque, which is all most of us get, is enough. We don't need severance pay here, severance pay there, with one person getting paycheques from various corporations all over the place, particularly Crown corporations, in a time of restraint. And I say that respectfully. I know this discussion will take place in another arena, probably in the near future.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to inform the member that I shall certainly take his comments into consideration when the decisions are being made. I thank him for his suggestion.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Ocean Falls Corporation Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983
(continued)

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

On section 1.

[10:45]

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions for the minister on section 1, which is obviously intended to raise quite a sum of money for the government. Perhaps the minister would tell the House — I know he told us during the budget debate — just how many dollars he is expecting to raise, and whether or not those dollars are based on present use; or does he really believe that this increase in tax will be a deterrent? I don't think so, and I don't think he thinks so either.

I think this particular section is there to put dollars in the government's coffers and has nothing to do with trying to reduce smoking. I think that point should be made very clear. This bill has nothing to do with the health hazards involved in smoking, and section 1 is here simply to raise money for the government. It has nothing to do with trying to encourage people not to smoke, with trying to advertise the hazards of smoking or trying to induce tobacco manufacturers not to advertise and to be a little more outspoken about the hazards involved in tobacco. I would like to ask the minister whether or not he intends to use any of the funds that are raised under Section 1 for those purposes. Is he going to embark on any such programs to encourage people to kick the habit?

MR. CHAIRMAN. Hon. member, Ssction 1 clearly indicates pricing and not the merits or health aspects of the argument, which I think were covered quite adequately under second reading.

MRS. WALLACE: That is quite correct, Mr. Chairman, but I am asking the minister about the dollars he's going to raise by these increased prices: the one-cent increase in paragraph (a), a 50 percent increase; the one-cent increase in paragraph (b), a 37 1/2 percent increase; the one-cent increase in paragraph (c), a 20 percent increase. I'm talking about those figures and asking the minister what he intends to do with those dollars. How is he going to use them? Is he simply going to throw them into general revenue to offset his deficit, or is he going to use some of those dollars to counteract the problems and costs incurred in health care, in fire costs, in so many things that have been well documented?

I am asking the minister to tell the House how he's going to use those dollars. Is he prepared to use any of that money on an education program, or to encourage people to stop smoking and to give them some kind of support? I want to know how those dollars are going to be used. Is this section simply there as a money grab on behalf of a government desperate for funds, or does the minister really believe that by increasing those taxes he will discourage people from smoking and that his return will not be so great? What are his estimates? That's what I'd like to know. If his estimate is as I think it is, and as he indicated in the budget — that it's simply going to bring more dollars into the government coffers — then I want to know how he's going to spend those dollars.

[ Page 1389 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I would have a little difficulty answering all the member's questions in section 1, which deals with the rate of tax to be charged for the purchase of cigars — and that's all. Section 1 is specifically and clearly the increased tax on cigars. Therefore I would be happy to discuss that, if possible, somewhere else in committee stage of this bill, but more likely in estimates.

I would point out that tax measures are the responsibility of the individual holding the portfolio of Minister of Finance. Measures with respect to health, safety and well-being are the responsibility of other ministers — in this case, if it's health of individuals and fire and safety, then those questions should be directed, I would think, to the Minister of Health and the Attorney-General, at more appropriate times. Section 1 is cigars only.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point made by the hon. minister is extremely well taken by the committee. We have ample opportunity to discuss other ministers' administrative abilities in estimates. Clearly we are on a pricing section only and we must be specific to the clause before us while in committee on a bill.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the Minister of Finance the chairman of Treasury Board? Did he put any of this money that he's hoping to collect from increased taxes on cigars...? Did he agree to any request from the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) for expenditures to discourage the use of cigars in British Columbia and to advertise the problem that smoking and breathing of second-hand smoke is hazardous for everyone? Did he designate any of that money, in his duties as chairman of Treasury Board, for those purposes?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the committee has been advised that the administrative actions of the minister or any minister will be better discussed, and the committee will be better served, if these discussions are held during our estimate debates and not on a bill such as the one before us now.

Sections 1 to 10 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Second reading of Bill 29, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE
COMPANY REPEAL ACT

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Rising to move second reading and supporting the bill, I will not repeat the discussions I had in Bill 30, because the two are companion bills; one can't go without the other. So I will just forgo. I know that the members have read the deliberations I made on Bill 30. Therefore I move second reading.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister is quite correct. The bill is a companion bill to Bill 30, which has just gone through committee stage in this House. Quite obviously the two go together, and there would be little point in repeating all of the arguments that we've gone through in this House on Bill 30 for some days on end.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: No, I'm not going to. I don't know if you want to hear that whole awful speech again.

MR. LAUK: You gave this speech before the other bill, right?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: That's right.

MR. LAUK: Can you give me the pages of Hansard?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I've got it right here, Mr. Member.

But I might suggest to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that there is an aspect of this bill which perhaps couldn't be covered under Bill 30, and that is the impact of BCRIC and the privatization of B.C. Cellulose. All of these things could be brought into the discussion of this bill. I'm advised, however, that it would be better to save that discussion for estimates, so I won't — although I could, and I would be quite in order to — bring that discussion in under this bill. As I said, I have been advised that is the best place to raise that discussion on behalf of our caucus critic, Mr. Lea, who is unfortunately away this morning. I don't have any questions. As the minister said, it is an accompanying bill, and we will accept second reading of this bill.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I appreciate that you will certainly have lots of opportunity to ask me questions during my estimates.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 29.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 18

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

[ Page 1390 ]

[11:00]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, with leave, now.

Leave granted.

BRITISH COLUMBIA CELLULOSE
COMPANY REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 29; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Chairman, I don't have too many questions. Once again, as said under Bill 30 and on second reading of this bill, this is a companion bill to Bill 30. I would once again like to ask the minister a couple of questions.

I understand that it is quite possible that the minister now has a response to my question regarding the Los Angeles Times. Perhaps the minister could answer that question.

I suspect that I know the answer to this, but just to clarify or to make sure, I wonder if the minister could tell us how many employees are actually still under the umbrella or employed — excluding the employees of the Ocean Falls Corporation — by the B.C. Cellulose Company, and if there are employees or members of the boards of directors, or if there's a chairman, and if they're getting paid. Perhaps the minister could answer these questions.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Just the 12 employees that are at Ocean Falls, plus Mr. Williston and a secretary. We run a really lean ship over here.

In answer to the member's question with regard to the suit of the Los Angeles Times — and I could use this opportunity to get very political, but I won't do that — I am pleased to give the House the facts. I'm tempted to say — but I won't — that the Leader of the Opposition got up and made a great speech that we were going to get sued and all of this. The Times Mirror Co. is actually the owner of the Los Angeles Times, and they had sued the Queen and Ocean Falls for default in not fulfilling delivery of a newsprint contract. I didn't think that was nice at all because, of course, it's happened before from time to time that even newspapers haven't been able to take all of their production in a contract, so it wasn't.... So I said: "Well, just hold tough." Anyway, we counter sued saying that we had certain deliveries.... The L.A. Times was not paying for the former shipments. Then there was a court order. Where did the member go?

Mr. Member, I know that you are just waiting with bated breath to hear the final details of this settlement. I want to read this into the record. The court order was dated April 29, 1982, dismissing claims against Ocean Falls and the Queen with no costs awarded to either party. Now how do you like that for negotiations? It was a force majeure situation in the eyes of the court, and a court order was entered in the Vancouver court registry on May 3, 1982.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 29, British Columbia Cellulose Company Repeat Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 17.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (FINANCE
MEASURE) AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, sections 6 and 7 of the bill are companions. The explanatory comment says it is to clarify the circumstances under which the government can write off debts. The provision in the act now is that an authorized or specified person.... That may not be the Minister of Finance, or it may not be anybody in government; for all I know it may be somebody in the public service. I can't see where there is an identification as to what a specified person might mean. The provision now says the Treasury Board can authorize a specific or specified person to write off debt that is due and owing to the government. I take the word "due" in the sense of meaning that the debt has matured and is required to be paid. If there was, say, a term of a year of two or three or whatever that might be, it had to wait until that period of time came along. The alteration proposed is to eliminate the words "due and owing to the government" and simply authorize the person to write off all or part of the debt or obligation to the government that the authorized person considers to be uncollectable.

I think what this amendment will do, Mr. Chairman, is simply allow the government to play fast and loose with debts owed to the government. It is the removal of those words "due and owing" that would permit that to occur. It was this concept, contained in the bill before us, that provided that wide-open opportunity for the government to write off as uncollectable a debt of $45 million owed to the government by B.C. Rail. The debt was incurred on one day, and when the public accounts came out for that period it was written off on that same day, written off probably even before B.C. Rail cashed the cheque. I think with this change we can expect a further juggling of the finances of this province to suit whatever obscure ideas the government may want to present to the public about the state of the affairs of the province.

While this is not specifically germane to the point I just made, I want to point out how the government has also intruded into the otherwise independent operation of Crown corporations and interfered with Crown corporations activities, with respect to writing off debts. That's what we are talking about here. I am saying this permits the government

[ Page 1391 ]

to play fast and loose even more than they have done so in the past. For instance, there was a $2 million debt, in round figures, owed by B.C. Steamship Company to B.C. Ferry Corporation, incurred by that foolish process that the Premier and the government went through a few years ago about travel between here and Seattle, when they were using hydrofoils and renovating vessels from B.C. Ferry Corporation, taking them off one run and putting them on the other and saying that the Marguerite was useless and unsafe, even when the Premier's mother was travelling on it. As a result of that a $2 million debt was incurred and was carried on the books of B.C. Ferries as due and payable.

The Crown corporations committee, which is, in terms of its staff operation, anyway, going to be killed — murdered, I suppose, is the appropriate political term — in its report, and maybe one of the reasons that committee staff has been fired is that it was doing too good a job in examining the chicanery that was going on in the finances of this province, as far as Crown corporations were concerned.... The committee in its 1982 annual report found it unusual that one Crown corporation did not honour a commitment to another, particularly when both of them recognized the debt as being receivable. Essentially what that writeoff was was a windfall gain to B.C. Steamship Company of $2 million and — I don't know if you can use the words "windfall loss" — a loss to B.C. Ferry Corporation of the same $2 million. I submit that could only have come about by interference in the affairs of those corporations by the Ministry of Finance, Treasury Board or somebody who handles these particular items. I submit this change will permit the government to carry on further trying to hoodwink the public about debt and the state of the financial and fiscal affairs of this province and of its Crown corporations.

Section 6 approved.

On section 7.

MR. HOWARD: Section 7 is the same as section 6 in its essence and in its impact. It is interesting to note that nobody on the government side had a word to say about what I had just advanced. Obviously silence is agreement in that one.

[11:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the member. I was going to respond to his remarks under section 6, but 7 is a companion section. Currently only debts which are due and owing may be extinguished. Therefore a forgivable loan, the terms and conditions of which have been satisfied by the recipient, in terms of the process of the loan, cannot be extinguished. That is all that these sections achieve.

Sections 7 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, this is the section dealing with the increase in the homeowner grant. A number of my colleagues have spoken at great length about how intrinsically unfair this increase is, because it hits the segment of our community that can least afford it. I would like to suggest again to the minister that this section should be deleted. I have not prepared an amendment to this effect, because my experience in the past with amendments is that they are ruled in order but then they are not accepted.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Then they are shot down.

MS. BROWN: Yes. The Provincial Secretary agrees with me on that.

But I think it's worth raising this issue with the minister once again. Although a $25 increase may not seem like a lot of money to most people, the very group of people who are eligible for paying $125 are the ones who can least afford that to be increased to $150. I would like the minister to respond to this and explain why that group is the group singled out for the increase in the tax in that area.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I dealt with this in closing debate on second reading, and the member and I disagree. In fact, I think the member has based her remarks on some incorrect assumptions. It is true that in some cases the increase in the minimum property tax from $125 to $150 will have an impact on individuals who are on modest income, but I pointed out to the House the other day — and I remind the member again today — that in her rush to express concern about this she overlooks the fact that anyone 65 years of age and over who owns his or her home, and anyone who is designated under the act as handicapped, will continue to pay the $1 minimum property tax. This new minimum is going to affect about 50,000 properties province-wide.

I appreciate that the member is an urban member, as I am largely. But many of the properties that are so affected are rural properties, where the property tax levy is relatively low. What will occur, I think, is that the member and I will agree to disagree on this.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for repeating his comments about 65 years of age and over, because it gives me an opportunity to set him straight and let him know that I realize that it did not affect those people. However, there are a number of older people who are not yet 65 years old. It's true that most of the people who will be affected by this increase may be living on rural properties. Can the minister tell me whether any kind of research has been done, in terms of need, to find out how many people are going to be affected by this increase who aren't really in a financial position to deal with it? Has any research been done? You mentioned that there is a group for which it will be a hardship. How many people would that involve?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated to the member in this section that I appreciate that an increase in minimum property tax will have an impact on some who have moderate incomes. I cannot provide a precise number. As the member and the committee will know, there is no means test with respect to the homeowner grant, and it would therefore be difficult to identify those who perhaps should not receive the homeowner grant by reason of very high income. This government believes in the fact that the homeowner grant is a measure of assistance towards property owners. This is an increase only in the minimum amount payable. I cannot provide the member with the information she seeks.

MS. BROWN: In closing debate on second reading, Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that there was a possibility that this increase could in fact even be increased. Prior to any

[ Page 1392 ]

other increases being introduced, will there be a study to find out the number of people this will create an even greater hardship for? Will the government be making any kind of arrangement to lessen the impact of that hardship?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, in the event that another increase is given consideration at some time, I'm sure that I will have had discussions with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). I was being very candid with the House the other day in closing second reading. I cannot say with certainty that there will be an increase. We have the 1983-1984 measures in front of us in a variety of forms. I was simply expressing the personal view that over time the minimum property tax had been left untouched for too long, and in this portfolio I have attempted to increase it gradually and relatively regularly. I think it is probably beyond the scope of the section, but I restate that I see no reason to alter that general philosophical approach; perhaps not next year but in the year following. But I cannot commit not to do it, nor indicate the time when it might happen again.

MR. COCKE: I guess that's probably saying everything. The minister indicates that they will continue this policy of increasing the amount of tax payable, and he says he's doing so without any research to find out whom it's hurting. I find that shameful. It's very difficult to understand why a government whose policy develops over the years.... It's not as though this is the first time this has occurred. Yet he stands up in the House and admits that he doesn't know the impact. He admits that 50,000 people are affected. Of those 50,000 people, I'm sure a very significant number are in the group that he calls the moderate-income group — the people who are struggling to keep their homes and to pay their taxes. The minister stands up and says, "We will very likely go on with the policy that we have adopted." The whole question of the homeowner grant in the first place was to protect people and their properties — to hold those properties so that they didn't have to sell and get out of them and then find themselves in a situation where a landlord is their new master.

This retrogressive way of doing business is the kind of thing that's permeating government policy from one end to the other. Increasing health-user fees and all those kinds of things is exactly the same as you find in section 12 of this act. It's unfortunate that the minister acknowledges that he knows not what he does, yet he does it. More could be expected of a government. They seem to have all sorts of money for all sorts of things, but not for research in areas of grave concern. This is an area of grave concern to the opposition, if not to the government.

Sections 12 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

MS. BROWN: I know that my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) spoke at great length on this section, and so did 1. He probably wants to take further part in this debate, if he's listening. I will speak until he arrives.

Section 26 deals with full-time equivalents — is that the section, Mr. Minister? We don't call public sector workers people anymore; we now call them FTEs. We're not firing people anymore; we're eliminating full-time equivalent positions. We're using euphemisms. At least Michael Walker was honest in addressing a group of people in Regina last night, as recorded on the news. He mentioned that his recommendation to the British Columbia government was that it would have to fire at least 8,000 public sector workers, and that he hoped that other provincial governments would follow suit. However, the Minister of Finance tells us that the government is not firing people; it is eliminating full-time equivalent positions, as though a full-time equivalent position is a non-person, just a thing.

All this amendment does is give the government an opportunity to camouflage what it is actually doing, which is firing people, and to camouflage what is actually happening in terms of the ministries' new ways of reporting the estimates. Mr. Chairman, it's absolutely impossible to tell by looking at your estimates book which programs still have people working in them and which programs have completely disappeared, or how many people are actually working for the government in contracting-out situations. That's not covered by this amendment, either.

In introducing this piece of legislation, the minister told us that the reason that this amendment was brought in was because originally reporting did not include auxiliary and part-time workers, and so the decision was made to go with this new form of talking about full-time equivalents rather than talking about employees. As I pointed out to the minister when I took my part in the debate, most of the jobs of the people in the Attorney-General's ministry who are being fired are being contracted out, and there is absolutely nothing in this section to show how many jobs are being contracted out, how many people are still going to be on the public payroll in the form of contractees — or contractors, whatever the term is. The only thing this amendment does is give the government an opportunity to hide information and hide the facts. We've listened to all these speeches about how much the public service has increased. What the government has never done is admit that most of the increase has taken place during its term of office. The increase in the public service took place between 1976 and 1983, so they've created the problem and they're turning around and blaming the workers for the fact that they think there are too many people employed in the public sector.

[11:30]

I'm opposed to this amendment, and I would like to suggest that we should go back to the original way of designing our estimates: reporting on the manpower in the various ministries and programs and expanding that to include the number of people who are involved in contract positions with the government. If we really want to have an accurate picture, we have to use the original system and add to that the auxiliary workers, part-time workers and the number of people who will be employed by the government in the form of contracts, not this new system which doesn't tell us anything at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall section 26 pass?

MS. BROWN: Isn't the minister going to respond? That's the height of arrogance, surely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. No personal reflections, please. Does the member wish to continue speaking?

[ Page 1393 ]

MS. BROWN: It's not a personal reflection, Mr. Chairman. I just wondered if the minister would like to respond. I've made a brilliant suggestion; now what is he going to say?

HON. MR. CURTIS: There may be a very sharp division of opinion on that. This is a restatement of positions in the estimates, that's all.

Sections 26 to 41 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Committee on Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

COLLEGE AND INSTITUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 20; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. ROSE: The interpretation section is a very broad one, Mr. Chairman, and there are some interesting ideas in it. It calls, among other things, for the repealing of the definitions of the Academic Council, the Management Advisory Council, the Occupational Training Council and the Universities Council. If you repeal the definitions, then by definition you repeal the councils. As I indicated in my talk yesterday, this party is not opposed to the elimination of those councils, but we are opposed to the bill, and we intend to try to improve it. If we can't improve it, then we're going to vote against it.

I don't know what you seem to be nervous about, Mr. Chairman, because I am certainly attempting to keep myself completely confined to the clause. You seem to have the mike at the ready. It's almost like you're trying to be the fastest gun in the west. If you'd stop fiddling with your microphone.... I find it somewhat distracting but I realize that you don't mean to intimidate a new and untried member.

I welcome the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) back from his recess. It is nice to see him in the House again.

Mr. Chairman, we're concerned about this bill generally. To us it raises that whole spectre of government centralization. We are concerned about that, because we feel we should have shared power and shared decision-making. Decisions are better made by the will of the people, as broadly based as possible. The bill before us savages that concept and for that reason we are concerned about it. We're concerned because it is a part of the centralization mania, I would say, which I don't think is going to be good for our province. The government would say: "We're elected to govern and therefore it is up to us to govern." I agree with that concept and I don't think it's up to an opposition party to hold things up unduly; but I do think it's important to have reasonable, sensible, judicious debate, rather than having things rammed through holusbolus, and I do think it is important that the opposition be prepared to offer suggestions for improvement.

While I'm on my feet, I'd like to say that I intend, along with my colleagues, to put forward at least four amendments to this bill. I feel — and so do they — that it is unsupportable at the moment. It is part of a policy that we object to. It's not our job, as I say, to hold up legislation unduly, but it is our job to point out things that are not, in our view, to the benefit of the public, or to prevent the government from rushing headlong into dumb things that are going to make it difficult for people and, for that matter, for the government itself. So we intend to see to it, Mr. Chairman, that this doesn't happen in this case. This morning's Province....

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point I would remind the hon. member that debate in the committee stage of the bill is specifically relevant to the clause before us at the time. We are currently debating section 1 of the bill. Does the member have an amendment, or does the member wish to address specifically section 1? If not, we can carry on.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Chairman, section 1 is a very broad clause. It's an interpretation clause. I understand that I have, on each of these clauses, a half-hour, if I wish to debate these clauses — each clause if I wish to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One must be relevant.

MR. ROSE: The matter of relevance is a matter of judgment, Mr. Chairman. And I can quote to you from Beauchesne advice on parliamentary rules, given by that eminent expert, to the Chair and to people who are...not only to the speaker, but to the Chair, that the person who is speaking should be given the benefit of the doubt. I implore you to do just that in this case. I think it's important. This bill, and this particular clause, is part of a whole package towards centralization and the removal of the democratic process, in terms of the management of school boards, college boards, municipalities and the works. I think that under that broad aegis, Mr. Chairman — and I would certainly not want to quarrel with your interpretation — virtually anything to do with this bill or the package is relevant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be a good remark to make during second reading, hon. member. However, we are in committee. We are dealing with a section that deals with three councils, and I would ask the member if he could make his remarks relevant to that section.

The Chair recognizes the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: Could I draw to your attention that the section before us does seek to repeal the definitions of more than three things, I must submit: (1) "academic council, " (2) the definition of " corporation, " (3) the definition of "council, " (4) the definition of "management advisory council, " (5) the definition of "occupational training council, " and (6) "Universities Council;" and further, under part (b), the definition of "board, " by striking out certain words. I think if the Chair would look at the act that it is seeking to amend, and see just what those words are defined to mean.... I draw your

[ Page 1394 ]

attention to the word "council," for instance. It means, as the context requires, the management advisory council, the occupational training council and the academic council established under this act. So that's where it means three councils. "Management advisory council" is extremely broad in its application: the management of the college. I submit that the member is entitled to go into that aspect of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order as stated by the hon. member for Skeena is well taken. So is the hon. member's argument, because it was quite specific to the bill. If we can maintain that type of argument during our debate on this section, parliament will be well served.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I hope that henceforth in my remarks I will impress you with my direction, my lunge towards specificity and my desire to be specific, responsible, relevant and not repetitious. I'm going to say that many times.

In dealing with these various councils, it has been asserted by some that the abolition of these councils, which we don't oppose per se, was a cost-cutting measure, because if you remove — and, if you like, I'll repeat their names — academic councils, corporation councils and the various other ones — I won't go through them all because they're know quite well to everyone, including the minister and the Premier — it could be a cost saving. It's also probably an administrative saving in many ways with which my colleague will regale us as soon as I sit down.

But what I was about to get to was the point that government restraint measures will not necessarily save money. This might be one of them. Just because you eliminate certain kinds of councils that have been traditional, or cut back on college boards, it does not follow that you're necessarily going to save money. I wanted to support that, when I was called to order a little while ago, by quoting from this morning's Province. I realize, and I admit, that I didn't put it into a context, perhaps, that would cause the Chairman to embrace the thought that I was in order; he might even jump to the conclusion that I was out of order. But if you think about it, you'll see the link between the business of abolishing councils and restraint.

Professor Dobell, director of the University of Victoria School of Public Administration, teaching there the art of government to civil servants, says this about cutting back and government restraint, and its effect not only on educational matters but on the province itself. He believes: "...that overall restraint measures will raise rather than lower the cost of government, and that they have already done lasting harm to the province."

Further on in the article he pointed out that the things offered to the general public through this government, will perhaps have the reverse effects — reverse to their intended effects — and he does that I think eloquently: "The probable real cost would be in labour relations climate. They can't solve their problems through confrontation; they have to recognize the legitimacy of the consultative process." That's extremely important, and that's one of the things I want to add to this clause. I have no objection to the deletion of the others, but I am concerned that if we get into a situation where we have some other less democratic means of operating a board or a council, or of providing the information that these other councils did in the past without consultation, it may well lead to a collapse of morale on the part of the staff and faculty of these colleges.

[11:45]

Beyond that, we would have an example of things being imposed on people which will cause them to become not more productive or more efficient, if we could get a definition from the minister on that subject, but quite the reverse. That is the point I was trying to make when I was urged to seek my chair for discussion of whether or not I will be in order. The whole program is aimed first at centralizing power in an overwhelmingly dominant executive, and secondly at making the social climate of B.C. safe and attractive to foreign investment by limiting any source of countervailing power outside the ownership of property. That is what is at the root of our debate here with this bill. There will be no countervailing power from the boards or councils, because only those people who are well disciplined will be appointed to them. That is our fear: that you will have puppets on the board. Not that all appointees are necessarily going to respond that way. There are a few independent-minded people. We even have the odd person vote against his party on certain issues, but it's rare. It's rare to see somebody stand up and vote against his party. That's how powerful these forces are.

Mr. Chairman, as I said before, we have no objection as a party to repealing the definitions of the following councils, because it was our position in the first place that they shouldn't have been there. So naturally we are not going to object to that. But I would like to put forward an amendment for your consideration. I think that it's important for us to be positive. This amendment, without reading it for you, has to do with the consultative process. I think a lot of these impasses that we encounter could be avoided if we consulted with the people affected.

The minister has said that he is willing to consult.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Now the minister is willing to consult.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Yes, he said that, and he reiterates he had.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Well, I saw his mouth open, but I didn't hear what he said.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I have.

MR. ROSE: You have consulted. Have you changed anything because of those consultations?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: We're doing this because of it.

MR. ROSE: You mean the bill is a result of consultation? You're not going to put forward the bill for people to deal with?

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: As a matter of fact, I think what we need then is a better definition of consultation. That's the motion I offer. And I'll tell you why, because consultation can be defined.

[ Page 1395 ]

MR. MOWAT: Read the amendment.

MR. ROSE: No, I'm sorry, I'm not ready to read the amendment. You want to make a speech? Make a speech on your own time and not on my time. Don't try to clutter up my act or make me speak longer when I can deal with this thing expeditiously. All that happens, Mr. Chairman, when someone heckles is that it puts a person off what he intended to say. It distracts him, makes him nervous and he loses his train of thought. If you want to participate in the debate, I think it's free and open for you to do so, and I invite you to do so right after I'm finished here.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. ROSE: I would like to offer a definition of consultation for the minister. It says here:

"Before initiating any new strategy or new program, the principal should confer fully and frankly with all teachers of the staff who will be affected by the new strategy or the new program. Obviously, if the new strategy or new program will affect only a segment of the staff, then that segment is the group whose considered opinion the principal should seek. However, if the impact of the new program is to affect, to influence, to impact upon the strategies or the programs in many other parts of the school, then the principal should confer with as many teachers as will be affected.

"Corporate action by the staff does not abrogate the principal's responsibility to undertake independent administrative action within his or her terms of reference. Most issues can be sensibly discussed and decided by the staff. Staff councils, staff committees, staff meetings, small group meetings, department head meetings and block meetings can contribute immensely to the total knowledge and direction of the school.

Here "conferring" and "consulting means" are defined:

"...first, seeking advice of those to whom consultation is addressed and listening with care, attention and understanding to the advice proffered; second, weighing heavily the advice considered and then, if possible, jointly seeking a solution to which all involved can agree."

Mr. Chairman, I know that you are absolutely fascinated by that and famished for the knowledge of its source. I quote from a very important document put out by the Ministry of Education. It's called "Administrative Handbook for Elementary and Secondary Schools." This is a pretty official source to me. If a definition of "consultation" is to be found there for the schools of British Columbia, then I think it's good advice for the minister as well. [Applause.]

I hope you won't subtract that applause from my total time, Mr. Chairman.

It would also be excellent advice for the minister in dealing with not only the schools and the trustees but also the colleges and their faculties. So that is exactly what I'm suggesting, and you haven't been doing that. You've been talking to them, and listening and smiling, but you haven't done a damn thing to change anything that I can see.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I withdraw the adjective to "thing" because I've horrified the House Leader. You can fill in the blanks and put in your own adjective, if you wish.

MS. BROWN: It's not an adjective.

MR. ROSE: I know what an infinitive is. That's when we're going to get some change in this legislation infinitely.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer this amendment by adding the following definition to clause 1, the interpretation clause. We seek to delete several definitions here, and we'll probably have to renumber the clauses. However, it could be clause (c). We would add a clause (c) which not only doesn't delete a definition, but adds a definition of consultation from "Administrative Handbook for Elementary and Secondary Schools." The advice is to the minister. Consultation means seeking the advice of those to whom the consultation is addressed, listening with care, attention and understanding to the advice proffered, weighing heavily the advice considered, and then if possible jointly seeking a solution to which all involved can agree.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you moving that amendment?

MR. ROSE: Yes, I move the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, a definition section correctly defines a thing or a body or something like that. We have a definition here defining an attitude, which is well beyond the scope of the bill. I rule the amendment out of order.

MR. VEITCH: I don't know whether it would be better for me to discuss what I wish to discuss under Section 1 or section 24. As the member speaking before me pointed out, Section 1 does repeal several councils — repeals the definition. I would take it that it would mean that the councils would be repealed as well. With that in mind, I want to compliment the minister on bringing in this section. It is one of the most important things that has ever happened in post-secondary education in the last few years.

As the chief financial officer of one of the larger post-secondary institutions in this province, I've been waiting for this section for a long time. The Academic Council, the Management Advisory Council and particularly the Occupational Training Council set up a network of unequal opportunities in this province that was unprecedented in any educational jurisdiction in North America, I'm sure.

I've shown this to the minister before. In fact, I appeared a few years ago before a committee of cabinet. A student at Pacific Vocational Institute drew a cartoon...

Interjections.

MR. VEITCH: I'll file that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, no exhibits, please.

[ Page 1396 ]

MR. VEITCH:...outlining just how much red tape was produced by these councils; how it wound through and captured the whole system and did nothing except cost money.

Mr. Chairman, I intend to speak more fully on this after the lunch hour.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:58 a.m.