[ Page 2575 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 4). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On Section 1 –– 2575

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Lea

Mr. Rose

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

Division

On section 2 –– 2580

Mr. Lea

On section 8 –– 2582

Ms. Brown

Mr. Mitchell

On section 9 –– 2582

Mr. Cocke

Division

Third reading –– 2583

Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 6). Committee stage. (Hon.

Mr. Heinrich)

On the amendments to Section 1 –– 2584

Mr. Rose

Hon. Mr. Brummet

Mr. Mitchell

Mrs. Dailly

On the amendment to section 2 –– 2590

Mr. Rose

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Mitchell

On the amendment –– 2591

Mr. Rose

Provincial Treasury Financing Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 28). Committee stage. (Hon.

Mr. Curtis)

Report –– 2592

Appendix –– 2592

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 1983

The House met at 8:04 p.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NICOLSON: I would hate to see any more precedent set around here. Would it not be with leave, Mr. Speaker, that we proceed to public bills and orders? I believe that estimates have precedent over all other business.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point, I was viewing tonight's session as an extension of this aftenoon's, but I would ask leave.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Notwithstanding the fact that leave has been granted, hon. members, it is a fact that we are in an extended sitting from this afternoon, just so we can clarify the matter.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister one or two questions. The first question I have for the minister is: why did the government decide to pick on elderly and low-income people to repeal what the government had brought in only two years previously in 1981 as a real assist to those two groups, the renter's tax grant and the income tax credit? I wonder why it was that they decided to move in that direction to get that kind of income from the more unfortunate in our society.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, within the limits of debate on the section, because the matter was quite thoroughly canvassed in second reading, at the start of an evening sitting I don't wish to quibble over semantics. The member for New Westminster asked why we decided to "pick on" particular groups in the province. The section limits the response. This is certainly not the only measure taken with respect to curtailing expenditures in a period of dramatically declining revenues.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, what a marvellous answer. I presume that the minister is not keen on my phraseology, vernacular or whatever. That's neither here nor there. Within the scope of committee, he could answer the question that I asked. It was a very simple question, one that can't be canvassed in second reading because of the generalization. I said that there were a group of people — I will put it in a different way — singled out; a group of people who in my opinion are the least able to fight back and yet are the people most affected by this amendment and probably almost any amendment that is before the Legislature at the moment, with the exception of one or two. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it was a wise decision. The minister can say something certainly more expansive than what he did to answer my question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I have indicated on many occasions since we convened this parliament, we were making every effort through much of last year, speaking in terms of the calendar year, and then as we moved later in 1983 to consideration of a budget for 1983-84 fiscal, to maintain essential programs for the very groups about which the member for New Westminster has spoken. That was quite fundamental to the considerations undertaken in the Ministry of Finance and also in the government, identifying these two programs which are dealt with in this section, personal income tax credit and renter tax credit, as a very desirable program for a province in better times. When I introduced the personal income tax credit not that long ago in this chamber I had hoped it would be in place for a good number of years, but I refer again to the very dramatic decline in revenues and the expenditure problems which we were facing while attempting to maintain health programs, human resources programs and other essential services in the province of British Columbia through the course of this fiscal year and for the immediate foreseeable future.

MR. COCKE: Thank you to the minister, because that was far more expansive an answer. I would like to go on now and say that I was amazed, when the original program was introduced, that it was not more widely proclaimed. I believe that a lot of people that were eligible did not take advantage of this program because of the fact that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're getting a bit beyond the scope of committee work.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, you're getting excited and probably a little impatient; it's early in the evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, not impatient at all. But I must remind the member that we are in committee stage and we must be strictly relevant; observations on the principle are better dealt with in second reading.

MR. COCKE: Who's talking about the principle? I'm talking about the advent of this particular section. My constituency office almost had to go around informing people that they were eligible for either the renter's tax credit or the personal income tax credit. The government saw fit to repeal it because of the fact that it wasn't all that widely used and all that widely understood. I make that as a statement; I'm not going to ask the minister to answer it, because I don't know how he could. It's just an observation that I have with respect to this whole question.

Having said that, I thank the minister for his answer to the question, I must say that we cannot support this section. I think we indicated that very clearly in past sittings of this House. That's my contribution with respect to this particular area.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the minister how much money Section 1 will save.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the combined saving is estimated — and I have to stress the word "estimated"

[ Page 2576 ]

because in terms of those who took up the low income tax credit as tax filers those numbers are not yet complete; that compilation takes a number of months, as the members would know.... A reasonable estimate is something in the vicinity, under both, of $72 million to $77 million. I stress that that is an estimated number only, and if it proves in the course of a year from now to be low, then I serve notice on the committee that I was giving the best available information as of tonight.

[8:15]

MR. LEA: It's my information, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong, that one point of income tax brings in approximately $35 million to $40 million. Looking at future revenues in the province, we'd have to be on an estimate basis there also. But I'd like to ask the minister why he would not put two points of income tax on, raising between $70 million and $80 million, as opposed to taking this income tax break away from the working poor, people who are poor, and the elderly. Does the minister have some indication, either from polling or from some other device in the department, that the people who are working in this province would have preferred not to pay this extra, say, two points, which would be about $80 million, which would have made it possible for the renter's grant and the personal income tax credit to still be going out to people who really do need the money? I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this province are responsible enough and have a good enough feeling about their neighbours that they wouldn't mind. I think most people would rather pay a little bit more income tax — those of us who are working — than take it away from people who can't. I just wonder whether the minister can give me any information that would lead the government to take the route that they've taken as opposed to asking those of us who are working maybe to pay a little more.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It was canvassed earlier this evening with the hon. member for New Westminster that these decisions were taken at a time when we were faced with very major and unpleasant decisions. I don't know how far I can go on this section with respect to other taxes. Rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman — perhaps it's better dealt with in my estimates — but the surcharge on the higher income tax payers was examined by me and left in place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think we're getting into material that might be better dealt with in the minister's estimates, and I think all members of the committee can appreciate that. We're also entering into philosophical arguments that could have been dealt with in second reading.

The member for Prince Rupert on section 1; remain strictly relevant, please.

MR. LEA: I'm not asking for a philosophical answer; I'm asking what information the government had that would indicate that this is the right way to go. Surely the minister doesn't pull these things out of a hat. He must sit down and sweat over it. I wonder just where he's going to get the revenue, Mr. Chairman. It's not an easy task to be the Minister of Finance and to raise revenue. Nobody likes to pay taxes; that's the nature of the beast. But there must have been some indication for the minister to feel that what he's doing in section 1 would be better for the economy than going some other way.

What I'm asking for, Mr. Chairman, is factual information. This is not a matter of principle, this is a matter of looking for facts. What does the minister have in terms of cold, hard facts that would indicate that Section 1 is the way to go as opposed to some other way? He must have had some facts at his fingertips: economic facts, projections, that sort of thing. I'm asking the minister what information led him to believe that this was the best way to deal with revenue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Inasmuch as Section 1 is a repeal section, I will allow that type of answer to be given by the minister, but I think the basis of repeal is as far as we can go. That's what Section 1 deals with.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, I understand, Mr. Chairman. If this were the only revenue measure or saving measure taken, then perhaps I could answer more fully. But the member must know that this particular action was taken in a review of all government expenditures and revenues as we saw them in the fall of 1982.

MR. ROSE: I'm interested in why the minister chose this particular method, why he has repealed section 1. In his speech of August 15 he said:

"As the budget indicated and as the Premier and other ministers have indicated, and as many people in British Columbia know, there has been little significant improvement in the fortunes of the province in the interval. So we are confirming the decision to repeal both credits, certainly for this year and possibly for some little while to come. In taking this measure, Mr. Speaker — and I appreciate that there are other elements — it is important to point out that through these measures the government will save approximately $82 million of taxpayers' money annually."

I've heard up to $92 million, but the minister claimed $82 million in his speech.

Since the minister has chosen this route of taking a credit off those people who have the poorest income — renters, the elderly — could the minister explain to the House his reason for opting for repeal of this particular tax credit as opposed to some other kind of measure, such as the repeal of the homeowner's grant or the diminution thereof?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that truly is second reading debate. It's also repetitive of other questions that have been asked. The minister may answer, but....

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, except to confirm. I don't know if the hon. member who has just taken his seat was in the House; that was asked in the first two or three questions of debate on this section. This was not a decision taken in isolation.

MR. NICOLSON: I'd like to ask the minister in which light he sees the renter's tax credit, which is also being repealed in this section. Does he acknowledge a sort of historical relationship between this and the homeowner's grant?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think I would have difficulty answering that question, inasmuch as it attempts to

[ Page 2577 ]

compare one particular program which is not in this bill with one which is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. We must be specifically relevant. The minister has advised the committee that in fact the member asked a question which is not included in the section.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, do I understand you correctly, that when we get to the minister's estimates we can ask about legislation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, in the minister's estimates, I think

MR. LEA: So we'll never have another opportunity. Is that right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second reading is the opportunity to ask about the principle of a bill. Ministers' estimates are the opportunity to ask about the administrative actions of the minister. I think we can sort out the differences between the two.

MR. LEA: You've answered my question very nicely, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In committee on a bill, we must be specifically relevant to the clause.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, in second reading we all give our opinions. We don't particularly ask questions. We debate the principle, and in this House there is very little debate other than directly with the minister, unfortunately.

In any event, it strikes me that questions, providing the questions are relevant to the section.... As all-encompassing and wide as they may be in the opinion of the Chairman, it strikes me that if this is the only opportunity to ask these questions — particularly in view of your judgment with respect to estimates — maybe we'd better be given the latitude to ask whatever questions are necessary with respect to this particular bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure, as long as they are specifically relevant. I will remind members of the committee that Section 1 deals with provisions for personal income tax credits and renter's tax credits, and that's all. And we're repealing them. That's about as far as we can go.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's quite correct. Section 4 of the Income Tax Act, which is being repealed, does cover renter's tax credits. I ask the minister if he acknowledges that there is an historical relationship between this and....

Was this not introduced originally to create some sort of equality between classes of citizens; that is, renters and homeowners?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it would be up to others who were involved at that particular time to answer on any attempt at a relationship between this and some other form of direct assistance to certain individuals in the province of British Columbia. I note that the personal income tax credit is correctly in the Income Tax Act, and the member has mentioned that. The homeowner grant is not in the Income Tax Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The specific function of this section is repeal, not comparison.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this thing evolved. It was really introduced by W.A.C. Bennett. The speech...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that's clearly the principle of the bill.

MR. NICOLSON: ...is clearly in Hansard. At the time they didn't have a full Hansard but they did have a Hansard of second reading.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not material either. Hansard has no relation to section 1 of this bill.

MR. NICOLSON: Hansard has no relation?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it's not mentioned.

MR. NICOLSON: Then we can't quote Hansard any more in this House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't see why you can't if it talks about repeal of a section of the Income Tax Act.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I used to think I knew something about the rules of this House, but after last night.... Certainly the rules are changing so quickly that I can't keep up with those rule changes. So if I appear to be somewhat ignorant after 11 years in this House, I think it's perhaps understandable, since new rules are popping up more rapidly than crocuses pop up in the lawns of this Legislature in the month of February.

MR. REE: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Possibly there's a little misunderstanding, and before the member runs off any hotter at the collar than he is, the question he did ask you was: can we quote Hansard in the House? I'm sure you would assure him that Hansard can still be quoted in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It certainly can. But to bring it into the argument is not relevant to this section we're discussing.

With respect, I don't want to be difficult but in committee we have to be specifically relevant.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, if I start talking about the Crow rate, by all means bring me to order. But I'm talking about renter's tax credits. I would hope that this whole thing is not a fait accompli, that these sections are amendable and a minister of the Crown could bring in amendments. Perhaps this could be amended to repeal section 3.2, and not section 4, but certainly not in the hands of a member such as myself. It would have to be the minister or vice versa.

I would like to point out to the minister, if he's not aware of it, that the renter's credit got into the Income Tax Act as an evolutionary process. It used to be a regular cash grant sent out from the Ministry of Finance. Arrangements were made with the federal government to have this done on the income tax and the government of the day then brought in section 3.2

[ Page 2578 ]

as well. Renter's tax credits were brought in to redress an inequality whereby there was some form of tax relief for property owners but not for tenants. I would ask the minister if he has given some.... I know the question has been asked about how much money is involved. I listened to the Hansard and heard him say that it could be $75 million, $77 million, $78 million; he didn't want to be pinned down on it. What would be the breakdown of this? How much money is being saved on the renter's tax credit, and what would be saved if the renter's tax credit is limited to senior citizens?

[8:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I gave the best available figures that I could in terms of dollars to be saved as a result of the repeal of these two credits. I know that the numbers have varied and will continue to vary until we have a full report on the 1982 taxation year. The breakout is approximately the same: roughly 50 percent attributable to renter's tax credit and 50 percent attributable to personal income tax credit.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, at the time when the Minister of Finance introduced this piece of legislation he gave us some basic information and some figures. First of all, he said that the tax.... We have to remember that we are discussing two separate taxes here: the personal tax credit and the renter's tax credit. He said they would benefit most those people such as students and senior citizens who normally did not pay income tax.

First of all, can the minister tell me how many students were in receipt of the personal tax credit last year and approximately how many senior citizens were in receipt of the personal tax credit last year? Secondly, how many students were eligible for, and received, the renter's tax credit last year, and how many senior citizens were eligible? The third question would be those same two figures for low-income families.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, I don't have that information available tonight. I would undertake to answer the member, to the best of my ability, at some other time when I can access ministry files. But we have been dealing with these two credits with the approximate number of British Columbians and the approximate number of dollars.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I need that information because this section is going to repeal those two tax credits: the income tax credit and the renter's tax credit. In 1981, when both of those credits were introduced, the minister told us that approximately 40 percent of all British Columbia's families and 70 percent of the elderly would benefit from these credits. I think the minister will agree that our economic situation has worsened since that time, and I need that information in order to know whether the percentage of B.C. families and elderly citizens depending on that credit has increased since 1981 when it was first introduced. That is the only way we will be able to measure the full impact of this section which is repealing these two tax credits. We have to know the number of people who are going to be losing that income.

You have to remember, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister introduced these two credits he said very specifically: "This represents the most generous tax credit in Canada today. It is tax relief which will be provided to low- and moderate-income individuals and families to help them offset increases in other areas, increases in other costs which they are facing." If times are tougher in 1982-83 than they were in 1981-82 when this tax credit was introduced, it means the individuals who were receiving these credits need them more than ever. It also could mean that more individuals are receiving them than in 1981-82. I think it's important to have that information. I don't know whether the minister can send a note out to his deputy or someone, but I think we really need to know.

I cannot believe that a decision would have been made to wipe out these two credits without doing some kind of an analysis to find out what impact it would have on that segment of society most in need. The minister must have that information, Mr. Chairman. If he is willing to send a note out to his deputy, I am prepared to give him a few minutes to do so.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it's not a question of sending a note out to an official in the Ministry of Finance. As I indicated earlier in the debate on this section in committee, we do not yet have the detailed information which the member has asked for. We estimate that there was approximately a 70 percent take-up rate among those estimated to be eligible. We don't have a breakout yet, nor do we have any information as to those comprising the 70 percent, by category or by circumstances, other than that they were eligible. To the best of my knowledge that information will not be available to anyone for some considerable time: not until the 1982 tax statistics for this province are finally compiled. We could stay here tonight, tomorrow and the next day, but that information simply is not yet available.

The member has asked with respect to the decision. The decision was taken with respect to ways in which the gap between revenue and expenditure could be narrowed. Although it must be viewed in isolation in terms of the debate, the decision was not taken in isolation, Mr. Chairman.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister, when he was making a decision based on attempting to narrow the gap between revenue and expenditure, was looking at redistribution of income at the same time. Surely the minister was also looking at trying to narrow the gap between the haves and the have-nots. There must have been some indication to convince the minister that this gap would continue to narrow despite the repeal of this particular section. I would be interested in having him share that information with the House. When he introduced the credits he told us, for example, that one of the reasons it was indexed under the Income Tax Act was because the level of benefits was supposed to rise as inflation continued to increase in future years. At the time the tax was introduced the minister didn't speak about expenditure and income, but about redistribution of income; that was the whole gist of his introduction.

So in terms of repealing that section, the minister must have looked at what would happen to his goal of the redistribution of income. I wonder if he would share his findings with the House as to whether repealing section 1 — which is the income tax credit and the renter's tax credit — would not in any way impair his goal of redistributing income to the most vulnerable or lowest-income group in our society, which was the goal he laid out in 1981 when he introduced this credit.

[ Page 2579 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the rules in committee, the latitude which was available to me in announcing the credit — in this case the low-income tax credit — is unfortunately not available to me with respect to section 1 in committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think this has been well canvassed, hon. members. Are there more comments?

MS. BROWN: I regret that the minister doesn't have the latitude to give us the information. But I'm a little concerned that maybe he didn't take the time to do an impact analysis of what it would do to an old-age pension couple to take the $266.70 and the $150 away from them, or what it would do to a single mother with two children to take away the $147 in tax credit and the $150 in renter's credit. If the minister could tell me, Mr. Chairman, that he has done that analysis and does have the information but is unfortunately unable to share it with us at this time, I'm willing to accept the rules of the House. I just need to be reassured that the minister really did took at what withdrawing those sums of money from people on very low incomes would do to them in terms of their living, the rent they can afford to pay, the food and other expenses that they have. I'm willing to accept that he can't tell me; I just need to know that he's done that analysis.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I can tell the member that with respect to the decisions taken in late 1982 to repeal those credits which are before us in section 1, I examined and inquired at great length, and discussed them repeatedly with officials in the Ministry of Finance, along with other measures which were then taken or which would be taken at some point in the immediate future, in view of our extremely serious financial circumstances. That is the most straightforward statement I can make in this Legislature to that member with respect to this repeal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point must be taken.... To the hon. member, and I appreciate your concern that those answers....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I know, but the answers as given by the minister could be more fully developed in the minister's estimates, which deal with administrative actions.

[8:45]

MR. MITCHELL: Along the same lines, why I am opposed to this repeal.... I'd like to quote from Hansard, when this particular act was brought in; this is something I mentioned to the minister in second reading. The figures he gave at that time, I thought, were a lot higher than the typical welfare income or senior citizen pension. They were closer to what is classed as the poverty level. The figures are, I believe, $10,000 for a single pensioner, $18,000 for a married pensioner, and for a married tax filer with two children under 18, approximately $22,000. When these figures were set, obviously there was some computer printout that said that this would encompass a certain percentage of the population who would then get approximately $70 million. Was there any consideration given to this bill, before it was completely wiped out, of maybe dropping the levels of $10,000 for a single pensioner, $18,000 for a married pensioner...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're getting into second reading debate now.

MR. MITCHELL: I am opposed to a means test, but if those maximum levels were dropped....

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is outside of the section. We're on a repeal act.

MR. MITCHELL: No, it is part of the act that we brought in, and it is part of the statements....

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on a repeal act in committee. Do you have a specifically relevant question?

MR. MITCHELL: Yes, the question I am asking is: was there any consideration given to lowering the levels that were put into the original act so the 40 percent of the low-income people would benefit? I know there is a grey area, but 40 percent of 70,000 would be a saving to the province but would still help the lower income.... This is why I'm opposed to the complete abolition of this particular act, unless I can get a reasonable answer from the minister as to why that consideration was not given rather than the complete abolition of the act — the levels where they would not be paid would be lower and would still benefit those who are most in need, instead of those who might not be as much in need.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated to the previous speaker in committee, this matter was examined from every possible angle within the Ministry of Finance, with my officials, prior to the decision being taken as to whether it was to be lowered or what could be done. Again, I feel constrained by this repeal section, and I'm sure the opportunity will arrive for the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and me to comment in greater detail in terms of the execution of our portfolios.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Section 1 pass?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was there a division called?

MS. BROWN: No, I'm on my feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It seems to me I heard a division called....

MS. BROWN: No, I'm on my feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I heard a division called. Okay, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: In the spirit of cooperation and harmony....

[ Page 2580 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, and relevance.

MS. BROWN:...I am going to be very brief so the minister can have his division as quickly as possible. I just want to say finally that I am very opposed to this repeal section, very disappointed and very sad that the government has seen fit to repeal section 1 of this act, which denies — as the minister himself said, in introducing the act — a tax credit and tax relief to those who need it most. I will just end by quoting a statement by the United Church of Canada, which said: "The poor are poor, with scant exception, not because they choose to be but because they have no other choice. They are casualties of the way in which we have chosen to manage our economy."

I think that this decision on the part of the government to balance its books by taking from the poor and the elderly is a clear and ample example of this statement. I am very much opposed, as my colleagues are, to this section repealing those two tax credits.

Section 1 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 7

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

On section 2.

MR. LEA: I'd like to check out a number of administrative procedures under section 2.

Mr. Chairman, our research department contacted the Ministry of Finance to find out about some of the administrative procedures he has to go through to take advantage of section 2. I'd like to just check these with the minister to see whether they are in accord with what we have been told.

There are six points of administrative procedure that were checked into to see whether you can take advantage of it, and I'd like to go through them. One is that in order to be eligible you have to have a constitution. I imagine that is correct.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. LEA: "Does it have a designated treasurer?" That makes sense. Is that correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. LEA: "Has it developed a form of receipt which is in accord with the Income Tax Act?" That makes sense; yes, I would think. The minister nods yes.

"Does it have a bank account?" That makes sense. Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: If it's got money.

MR. LEA: A little money in it, too, I suppose.

"Does it contain two or more registered voters?" I guess that is to make sure there are no triflers, and that seems to make sense too.

But the final one is to me an administrative procedure that I think may be somewhat frightening when dealing with this. We were given this information by the ministry. In order to be eligible it has to be ascertained what their political message is. I would particularly like to ask the minister about that one — whether that is an administrative requirement of taking advantage of this Income Tax Act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, nothing that I have seen refers to a political message. I may be able to help the member. There are several requirements. The member has dealt with some of them: at least two or more eligible voters seeking to form a political party; the party must have a constitution; it must have a bank account in its own name; it must submit the name, the civic address and a specimen signature of a person nominated to sign the tax credit receipts that are dealt with under this section; the party has to develop an official receipt which meets the requirement of the Income Tax Act, and the party must indicate an intention to field candidates in the next provincial election. The last one — the one about which the member asked — is that the political party must have a political statement that it wants to express. That, I think, is the point to which the member was alluding.

MR. LEA: Any statement at all?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will not personally review the statements, but if the administrative officers in Revenue Canada and provincially are examining this, they will determine that there is a form of political statement.

MR. LEA: I think maybe so we are all refreshed and know exactly what we are dealing with here.... Section 2 says: " Section 8.1 is amended by adding the following: (3.1) A recognized political party shall, before October 31 in each year, apply to the commissioner of income tax for authority to issue signed receipts for amounts contributed to it in the following calendar year" — that is, to the political party. What this is is a section of the act that allows, when people are making a contribution to a political party, that some of that money would come back to them at the end of the year — in other words, as a tax break for the contributor. The minister's answer on that one is still a bit nebulous to me — these bureaucrats, whoever they are in the administration, are going to decide whether or not you are eligible, depending on whether a political party has a statement to make.

[9:00]

Interjection.

MR. LEA: I don't know, it could be the Social Credit Party. It pertains to all political parties, whether Social Credit, Liberal, Conservative or NDP It seems to me that's a pretty dangerous thing to leave in the hands of bureaucrats, if

[ Page 2581 ]

they're going to decide — I suppose subjectively, because there are no regulations pertaining to this act, and if there are no regulations then it is a subjective judgment — as to what this statement is, and whether it is one that will allow you to be eligible for this tax refund or not. I wonder whether the minister could elaborate a little bit more on what "statement" means.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We seem to have a little problem here, because the section states that an application shall be made on a date to allow for receipts. I don't believe I see anything about political statements, and if the minister has already indicated that it might be done by a bureaucrat, then in fact it would be best discussed during his ministerial estimates, where the administrative actions of the ministry are discussed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to argue with the Chair, but in order to get the receipts certain criteria are going to be reviewed, and that is perhaps how the member for Prince Rupert reached this particular point. The criteria are those which I identified just a few moments ago. I would be quite satisfied, because a variety of matters, when they become a question of dispute between the taxpayer and a public official, go by two or three routes. They may go a formal route of appeal, or they may be dealt with by the minister responsible at that particular moment. I would think that the matter of a political party being rejected because its political statement did not satisfy the reviewing official in the department of the commissioner of income tax would very quickly be elevated to the representative of the party and the representative of the government party of the day.

MR. LEA: I don't see any problems for main political parties like ours or the Social Credit. What I am thinking of more is a political party that has a statement to make which neither one of us may agree with.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The Rhinoceros Party.

In matters such as this I do trust the minister to make a decision affecting minority parties, but I still think it leaves the door open for suspicion, and I don't think that is desirable.

One more question to the minister. Section 2 allows for people who make contributions to political parties to have a tax refund, which means that moneys that would have been directed into the treasury no longer are, and if this amendment wasn't here it would mean a loss of revenue to the treasury, because it is here. I wonder why the minister would take away the personal income tax credit and the renter's tax credit, and yet leave that in for those of us who make contributions to a political party? It seems to me that we're getting our priorities a little mixed up.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the forgone revenue through this section is relatively small, even when compared with what was dealt with in the previous section.

MR. LEA: It's true, I am talking about a matter of principle, and I shouldn't be, but it seems to me....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Also a previous section.

MR. LEA: And a previous section, so I'm out on all counts. But whether I'm out technically on all counts or not, I don't like the fact that you have to have somebody check the political party's statement to see whether it's acceptable. It leaves something to be desired. I would like to go on record that our party feels that we don't want to get refunds at the expense of the poor and the elderly.

MR. NICOLSON: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I believe I know the rule which is being interpreted somewhat this evening. I would just like to draw Mr. Chairman's attention to practice. We've often had a practice, for instance, with miscellaneous statute bills, that when such a bill is brought in we say it would be better discussed in committee. The practice of the House is that there is some fairly wide-ranging discussion that goes on in committee, not just looking at whether there should be a comma, a quote, or a parenthesis. We have also often been told in second reading that we should not be discussing specific sections of the bill that would be better canvassed in committee. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the kind of exchange that has been going on is the right kind of exchange. It's the only opportunity where a minister and a member can have some give and take and hear various things. It might get heated, or it might be very calm, as it has been just now. That is the point of order that I would raise, based on practice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point of order is well taken. As a matter of fact, the record will show without reflection that there has been second reading debate agreed to, and it has been agreed to by certain members of this House who have certain positions that in fact great discussion would go on in committee stage as opposed to second reading. This bill, though, has had extensive debate in second reading. I don't want to appear to be difficult; the only concern that I have is, particularly with this type of legislation dealing with the Minister of Finance, about developing arguments that might be better discussed in the minister's estimates, because we deal with administrative functions and actions. That was my only caution. It was not a ruling; it was just a caution. I don't think I've stopped any members from debating. But I do accept the opinion from the member for Nelson-Creston.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the argument put forward by the member for Nelson-Creston, but when he refers to various Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Acts he's referring to bills that do not have any overriding principle. Of course in a bill like that the only way you can discuss it is by individual clauses. But even at that, I think in the past — it has been my experience in the House, at least — in clause-by-clause debate in Committee of the Whole House we have still been restricted to the individual clauses, in a fairly narrow restriction as well. The only reason that we don't have a general discussion in second reading is that there is no overriding principle on that type of bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the Chair has discussed that.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I suppose that we're all a product of our own backgrounds, but it seems to me that in some legislatures.... It's difficult to

[ Page 2582 ]

get used to new practices. I'm not saying one is better than the other; I'm not making a comparison. I'm just saying that it is difficult sometimes to adjust oneself This Committee of the Whole stage is dealt with in other legislatures out of the House; on finance bills, frequently, it's dealt with inside the House. But a committee on a bill — such as the Crow rate, for instance — sometimes can travel and sometimes can last for weeks; witnesses are called before it and there is extensive discussion.

It's difficult for someone who is accustomed to a wideranging discussion in committee stage to get used to the rather restrictive rules which the Chair has taken in this instance. For instance, what can one say about clause I of this bill — I suppose you might say "nothing," because we've already passed it — unless one inquires into the reason for its repeal? It's extremely difficult.

We have spent one hour on a committee stage, and I don't think that that necessarily tends to be excessive for clause-by-clause of a bill. I would like to be enlightened on why it seems to be necessary to so restrict discussion on a bill, because you can make it so restrictive that there really is no range for discussion. There are times when you have to discipline the members and the House; I don't think that we've reached that point on this bill, Mr. Chairman. I don't wish to speak on it any further, but I do know that when we get into some other clauses and onto some other issues such restriction makes it very difficult for opposition or government members to do their jobs and to ask the proper questions and to flesh out the kind of discussion that's not available during other stages.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken. Our standing orders are rather straightforward, really. They simply say that when discussing a bill in Committee of the Whole House in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia you must be strictly relevant to the clause before you. Some of the debate this evening has been strictly relevant and extremely good; some has been just a bit wide-ranging. It's that simple.

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, not so much on this bill. What bothered me was your ruling that that should come up in estimates. Normally we deal with estimates first. If under estimates we try to bring up something that's in a bill.... I have been ruled out of order and told not to discuss that because that will be in further legislation. I'd hate to see throwing it back to estimates when we're dealing with it. I would like a little bit of leeway, though with this bill I think we managed to get through it with the minister without being bothered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On committee on a bill we have no choice of what's going to come.

Sections 2 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

MS. BROWN: I just really need from the minister some clarification of this section. What it says is that notwithstanding the fact that the renter's tax credit and the provincial income tax credit were repealed, any deductions, reductions or grants credited and paid prior to November 1982 shall be deemed to have been validly credited or paid. Does that mean that a senior, for example, filing an income tax return in the spring of 1983 could claim either or both of the tax credits up to November 11?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MS. BROWN: What does it mean?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was with the member until she said November 1983. Did I misunderstand you? I thought you said 1982.

MS. BROWN: You file your income tax in the spring of one year to cover the past year, so they would be filing their income tax in January, February or March to cover the year 1982. Would they receive a credit to cover them up to November 1982? Would they get a part of their credit?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The answer to the question is quite distinctly no. The credit was suspended as of the date of announcement, November 10, and if one had not filed the tax return by that point in time, then the matter was closed.

MS. BROWN: Would the minister give me an example? I have a lot of seniors in my riding, Mr. Chairman, and that's the reason I need to know. If there is any benefit at all that accrues to them, I'd like to be able to share that with them. Give an example of when this section would be applicable.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There are two examples. Section 8 provides two things, really. First of all, the two credits which had been administratively processed by Revenue Canada before the announcement of the suspension are not to be recovered. In other words, there is no reaching back to those who for the previous year or for whatever reason had already...

MS. BROWN: Received it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: ...sent their return, not received it — sent it off and it was in process by Revenue Canada. I might point out, and I think I'm within the restrictions of section 8, that Revenue Canada estimates that about $180,000 — this is the second point — had been paid to deceased taxpayers or taxpayers who had left the country and filed a final tax return. That also is not recoverable, but that was as of November 10, 1982.

[9:15]

MR. MITCHELL: Maybe the minister half-assed — half-answered.... [Laughter.] I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw how these other people interpreted what I said. What I meant was that I understand it to where you said validly paid — where it's credited, where they have a valid credit. If you don't have a credit up until November 10.... I can understand that if the money has been paid out the credit doesn't go with it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No. I tried to make myself as clear as possible: where a return had been sent in and where it was in process. That's it.

Section 8 approved.

On section 9.

[ Page 2583 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we are totally opposed to retroactivity. We feel that this government has become lazy and irresponsible. There is so much retroactive legislation coming before this House that we have no alternative but to say that we vote against this most vociferously.

Section 9 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 7

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

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.

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

Bill 4, Income Tax Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 6

MR. SPEAKER: It came to the Chair's attention that during the last division two members left the House to pick up notes for a bill, and while the time elapsed was slightly over two and a half minutes, it was considerably less than five. In fairness to those members who left, would it be agreed that those names be added to the division list?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: The two names....

Interjections,

AN HON. MEMBER: Rose isn't here yet.

MR. SPEAKER: He must at least enter the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, we agree with the procedure that is suggested, but each of the members should identify themselves and the way they voted for the record.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds votes....

MS. BROWN: In opposition to the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The member for Coquitlam-Moody's vote will be recorded...

MR. ROSE: I'm voting in opposition to the bill, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: ...in the negative. Thank you, hon. members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: That was a great surprise, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, may I have leave, please, to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

[9:30]

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a great pleasure for us to have in the galleries tonight a number of members of the Senate and House of Commons Joint Committee on Senate Reform. I'd like to introduce to the assembly first of all the two cochairmen, Senator Gildas Molgat and the Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove. We have with them Senator Martha Bielish, Senator William Doody, Senator Jean Le Moyne, Senator Norbert Theriault and committee staff Mr. John Hayes. A great welcome to British Columbia to all of them.

MR. LEA: We're against the Senate. How did they get in?

HON. MR. GARDOM: British Columbia's answer to Stanley Knowles.

[ Page 2584 ]

Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 6, if I may.

EDUCATION (INTERIM) FINANCE
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment which I would like to file and move. I have delivered copies of this amendment to members of the opposition.

MR. NICOLSON: I had to go get my own.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I brought ten copies. I knew there wouldn't be any more than seven....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think that's relevant to the debate. Please move the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment. I would like to make a few comments on it.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The amendment is to delete four words: "or a portion of" in section 12(l)(a). It also adds the word "establishing" after the word "including."

In subsection (1)(b) there are two expressions. First, "the board of school trustees of" is added after "direct," and again the expression "or a portion of" is deleted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would accept points of order from the House on this, but it might be better if we could deal with the first amendment to subsection (1) in two parts. Would the committee be agreeable to that? So we'll begin with subsection (1)(a).

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Over the last two and a half months, since the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, Bill 6, was introduced, there have been extensive discussions with a number of the people involved in education, primarily with school boards throughout the province and, of course, their representative association, the B.C. School Trustees' Association. We have been in consultation, quite heavily as a matter of fact, over the past three to four weeks, and with some degree of intensity over the last two weeks. There has been a fair amount of discussion.

What I would really like to say to the school trustees is this: they always knew that my door was open; that it would revolve. Many times I could not agree, but I have to mention that as a result of a fair amount of consultation we conceded to one request that they had made. I think the members opposite will recall the brief that was submitted, which requested the deletion of the four words "or a portion of" in subsection (1)(a) and, of course, in the next one, subsection (1)(b).

The major reason for that is probably this. The school trustees stated that they had no objection to the provincial government establishing the budget and the spending levels, particularly under times of restraint. I think that's a fair interpretation of their comments today. They wish, when those funds are allocated to school boards, to be able to have the flexibility to allocate those funds in the way they as a local autonomous body know best. I think they made a very sound argument. For some time, as a matter of fact, I've been persuaded by the validity of their position. What it really demonstrated was that by talking with people.... They had taken the high road all the way through this. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, their position was very firm. They very much wanted this particular amendment to susection (1)(a).

Also, you will note another comment in here: we've added the word "establishing" after the word "including," so that the amendment reads: "including establishing the portion for special education programs...." That was also something which the advisory committee and the president of the B.C. School Trustees' Association had agreed to today.

MR. ROSE: Well, you cut it before. You're putting it back now.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: No, that's not true. I am not quite sure.... Mr. Chairman, can I have your indulgence in some assistance? Mr. Chairman, are you with us today?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I don't want to get into subsection (1)(b) right now. I would leave that and have the opportunity in a moment or two after....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are going to treat them as two separate amendments.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, we welcome the amendment. It is the first sign we have seen that the government is willing to move on anything. We thought that their legislation was chiselled in stone up to now, and the very fact that the minister has been reachable on this particular clause is an important symbol, because the school trustees were very concerned about what their role was to be in future if the minister could run everything from his office in Victoria. He still can, and there isn't a great deal that has been changed. However, there are certain important things that have been changed. It allows the school boards, as I see it, to move various amounts around to meet the local needs, within the total capped budget. For instance, if a school board in a place like Prince Rupert wanted to spend more money for busing it could do that, provided it was willing to stay within the cap prescribed by the minister.

As a matter of fact, on that very point, today I received a copy of a letter, and it mentions a speech by Your Honour on this very topic of busing. They quote various parts of your speech, on page 640 in Hansard, where you criticize your own district of Prince George, for which you are a member in the House, for its elimination of winter busing and suggest imprudent behaviour by the board. They go on to say that they felt that the budget discussions were severely limited by the new or proposed Bill 6. However, this amendment might well save some of that difficulty because of the increased flexibility now available by the minister's amendments which was not available before. It says:

"The trustees made several difficult decisions to save local programs which had high educational value and community support. Among these decisions was

[ Page 2585 ]

the reduction of 19 district office administrative positions. The decision to cut winter busing was not taken lightly, and it was a board decision, not an administrative decision as you indicate in Hansard. All along we expected approval for extra funding for winter busing but have not yet received this response from the ministry. You are encouraged to remedy the errors in the statements made in the House on August 4."

Be that as it may, when you apply a particular formula to a particular school district and do not allow the flexibility of moving the various funds allotted to the district within the cap, it makes it very difficult for any district to operate. The needs such as busing in Prince George during the winter, as the minister would know, are quite different from those faced by a district such as Delta, unless there is a particularly harsh winter. In any event, what we find difficult here is the fact that the boards are still under obligation to operate within certain kinds of directives which emanate from a central power, which gives the minister all the power, and they are forced to operate within a cap no matter how much that district may wish to operate locally.

The argument has been made many times, and I don't intend to repeat it tediously — to quote standing order 43 — but I think it is worth mentioning. The budgets are really being set by the central office rather than by the school. That's number one in terms of centralization. Further, the minister can issue directives as he sees fit. We would prefer some kind of recommendations rather than that, because we would like to preserve more autonomy for the school district. Mr. Chairman, I need your direction on this because of my lack of knowledge of procedures here. Are you getting ready to give me some advice on the subject? Some of my colleagues want to speak on this particular bill, but I also want to move certain kinds of amendments and additions which are amendments to section 1. I don't want to sit down and not have that opportunity to move these clauses. I understand that I have a half-hour on this section.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. ROSE: But if I sit down my half-hour is up — is that the case?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, no. You can speak again, hon. member; you can speak as many times as you wish. The half-hour is really just an outside limit.

MR. ROSE: I just wanted to make certain of that.

I think the minister was right when he said the boards of school trustees and their association were very concerned about the original clause, which prohibits them from taking portions of their budget and moving them around into areas of greater local need. But they also, I think, have a large concern about the whole formula itself. I hope the minister has not closed his mind to altering certain aspects of the formula, because it was pointed out in the same brief in which minister received the advice on the business of the "portion thereof" that the formula was going to add immense costs to some districts. They cite increased legal costs, court decisions, the number of administrators, systems that are too large, salaries of teachers — keeping teachers on at high salaries instead of encouraging them to take early retirement leaves — and disincentives for collective bargaining to preserve jobs by lowering salaries — or at least letting them make that decision....

A very excellent paper by Dr. Armstrong points out the very same thing, that the new formula is based on the average teacher's salary in the district and that therefore it pays the board to keep teachers on at the higher salary — even those who wish to retire — it prevents opportunities for younger teachers to acquire positions; it is all so based on the number of square metres of floor space in the district. Dr. Taylor, as the minister knows, goes into great detail supporting these arguments, and I don't intend to repeat that. I notice the Chairman is relieved when I say that.

[9:45]

I will say this: the minister has moved on a very important aspect in line with the trustees' recommendation, and for that we are pleased. There are other problems with the formula that work to the disadvantage of some districts and also go about accomplishing the very opposite, in terms of restraint, of the direction in which the minister wishes to move. In line with the idea of giving the boards more autonomy, to make certain that any directive is explicit, I have some amendments to move to section 1, but I will reserve that right until after some of my colleagues have had a chance to make some remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I can't anticipate the amendment, not having seen it, but we are, as we have established now, on the amendments to subsection (1)(a) as distributed by the minister.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: If I could take just a moment or two to make some comments with respect to the last member's question.... First of all, to the member, when we introduced the fiscal framework approximately two and one half months ago, it was well understood that it was not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. But it was the first time anything like this had ever been done, and it has been done for an excellent reason. I can assure the member that we have received a number of briefs. I don't know how many meetings we have had with districts — all 75 throughout the province, some not directly. We have had teams moving out. We have had central locations where they have come in to meet. As a matter of fact, the last group made a number of suggestions which were distilled down to 18, and I hope they will be available for distribution either tomorrow, Friday, in the afternoon or in the early part of the week. Each one of those is in response to some of the concerns raised by the fiscal framework, because there is no conceivable way one can have a formula which will be applied universally in an area as large as British Columbia. That was recognized at the beginning because of the dispersion and remoteness indexes. There is still some concern in here, but we have come a long way.

I would just make reference here to the first brief submitted to all members of the Legislative Assembly by the BCSTA. If you will look in that brief, there was only one specific request: deletion of those four words, "or a portion of." In support of deletion of those four words they listed three sections of items, and said that deletion of those words would solve these problems. Well, the truth of the matter is that deletion of those words will not solve all of those problems at all, although their statement in here says that it will. That was the first crack at it, and I accept that. We've had a lot of meetings since that time and have come a long way.

[ Page 2586 ]

Just remember one interesting thing with respect to early retirement: the system which we had in place is one in which we would authorize a deficit to be incurred. I believe the cost to the provincial government for each 30 teachers was something in the order of $1 million. That is why we had to have a close look at this thing in these difficult times of restraint.

I could get into a number of items, Mr. Chairman, and I really don't know if this is the ideal place to do that. But there is another amendment to this bill which we went the extra mile to accommodate. They had some concern, and it is one of the items which I'm pleased about. There are a number of other items that we're working on right now with respect to surplus non-shareable capital, shareable capital and the interest on those accounts, and how we can use those. My objective is to see if I can get more control at the school board level for the utilization of funds. I have some statutory roadblocks with them at this time, and they have to be reviewed. I think that's all for now.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman, I did want to comment briefly, because, in my opinion, so much has been said that has been interpretation rather than fact. A great deal has been made about the fact that the minister would control everything from Victoria — every portion, every budget every position in the district, and so on. I noted in the original section of the legislation, and they're still there, the words "the minister may" — not "shall" but "may." I guess some people saw that as allowing the minister to call all the shots in every section.

I would like to commend the minister for removing those four words, "or a portion of," because, again, they were interpreted differently than was ever the intent. I know that in discussions some of my school boards, directly and through me, had approached the minister and said: "Are we going to be able to bury funds?" The impression I had all along, and what seemed in fact to be operating, was that the formula was used to add up a number of parts to form a total; within that, variance would be allowed. There was concern that special education shouldn't be wiped out. In other words, if any board chose to it could be retained. It was sort of possible to use that in case of possible abuses. Certainly the intent and the practice of the minister and the ministry has so far been to recognize those concerns.

Similarly, without expanding on it in any great detail, the formula was also open for negotiation. The minister has stated this and has shown that in fact, where it was worked out from a provincial average to try to determine some basis on which to allot money to districts to provide equal opportunity of education for all children throughout this province, a modification — if you like — on the formula of sharing, of equalization, in the province was actually being done. The minister — if you will recall, and I certainly do — said: "We've provided a formula on which to base funding for a basic, sound educational program. It may not make sense in some areas, and we're open to discussion." I'd certainly like to commend the minister for this change, which removes that unnecessary fear that I felt was established by the hysterical criticisms that were applied, and apparently still are. I'd like to commend the minister and say how pleased I am that board members in my area who had concerns now feel that, with a rational, sensible and logical approach to the ministry and this government, results can be attained.

MR. MITCHELL: I kind of resent the implication of the last speaker when he says that any of our debate was hysterical. We entered this debate on the amendment as it was. I support my colleague, who says that taking out those four words, "or a portion of" — the budget.... If you go through my particular speech in the Blues, you will see that this was one of the items that we zeroed in on. The government would like to call it hysterical, but we felt it was wrong and we held it up. I believe it was for a good cause. I think this is the heart of our parliament: to hold it up so the school boards could get to the minister with reasons. He is not going to listen to us. All we are is a holding action. I think we did a job, and I think that's what we're here for: to identify the problem. I'm not going to say that the principle of this particular bill is changed so that we're back into second reading.

I would like to say one thing, and I know it is a little out of order. Some of the confrontation that may have developed over this particular bill in my own riding.... I know the chairman of the Sooke School Board, Mr. Ken Pearse, an excellent person, has fought it for two years and is giving up. He must get some satisfaction that the pressure did come and the minister did move, though he has stepped down because of that confrontation. I think I would like to put on record that the minister did move, and we appreciate it.

There is one other thing I would like to talk about, but I can't talk on the amendment. He hasn't moved it yet, so I'll get back to you later,

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on the amendment now.

MR. MITCHELL: The second amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I see.

MRS. DAILLY: Just one quick question to the minister regarding special education and the directive that the ministry will establish special-education programs, or a portion thereof. Could you tell us what criteria your ministry will use for telling each district how much must be put aside for special-education funding?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will confess now that I am not able to give the hon. member a detailed answer to her question. I haven't been here long enough. But this I do know: all special-education programs are handled by a gentleman by the name of Wayne Desharnais in the ministry, who is....

Well, I can tell you that it doesn't matter where I go, the reputation of this gentleman in the area of special education is very high. I understand that every program and the cost of the program is determined in the ministry, and that is how the funding is established. There is a special situation...although in the fiscal framework and service levels, you will find there is a great deal of money. I must tell you that in all the concerns that have been expressed, nothing, as a matter of fact, has come to me representing any major concern with respect to special education.

As I recall, the member for Burnaby North asked me a question at some time during those three days and two nights of consecutive debate — during which I listened to 44 speeches plus two hours of reasoned amendment, I think.... You had a question about that, and it seems to me I got a response. I believe that the concern the member had was that there was a reduction in Burnaby. The fact is I

[ Page 2587 ]

went back to get full particulars on this, and I found out that there wasn't a reduction. I'm a little hazy on this, but the number of children involved was reduced somewhat; in effect, there was a net increase of funding. I'm not sure if it was 2, 3 or 4 percent — somewhere in there. I'll see if I can dig that letter out. Am I correct, Madam Member, that it was you who asked?

MRS. DAILLY: Yes.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I'll make a note of that and get back to you. I believe that this is looked after.

[10:00]

MR. ROSE: On that point, it might have been during my speech in which I mentioned that they closed down one of the schools in Port Coquitlam, a special-education school — Sunny Park, I believe — and were suggesting that it was over the objections of the people who had spent a lot of money equipping that school. They were intending, instead, to bus the pupils up to the top of the hill in Coquitlam to another school which was devoted to the same purpose. But the point is that school boards have faced extra costs because of mainstreaming in education. I think the first school was Sunny Park School.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I checked into that and got a response from that.

MR. ROSE: I can't hear the minister, Mr. Chairman, but I think he said he checked into it. I don't know the answer. I didn't receive any information about that. I would be pleased to do that. The board, because of budget restraints, was considering closing that school, and that was of great concern to the people involved because they felt that their kids would be disoriented; they had put a lot of money into the school for its equipment and they didn't want to lose it.

On the other point, the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) made the point of "may" rather than "shall" in the legislation. That is a very common kind of legislate-ese which will allow the minister to do what he wishes. It doesn't direct the minister to do anything, but it certainly allows the minister to take that power. It is that kind of power that we are concerned about.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: He "may" do it, yes. We are afraid he will On the other point that the Minister of Environment made having to do with the budgeting and equality of education, we know that we don't have that in terms of money spent per pupil. It varies widely throughout the districts, and even from a top of $6,000 per student to a low of $3,800....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I didn't say equal amounts spent.

MR. ROSE: No, no, you're talking about equality of education....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the minister wishes to enter debate, he can.

MR. ROSE: The minister was talking about equality of opportunity and basic education for the pupils of British Columbia. I am saying that there is a vast difference in the amount spent, and frequently that relates to quality of education. I don't think the minister can deny that. It may lead to inequality in certain offerings of education. That is all I intend to say on that matter.

Amendment approved.

On Section 1 as amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister — second amendment, please.

MR. ROSE: I have some amendments to section 1, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is customary to accept the ministerial amendments, but we will accept the amendment from the hon. member. We've passed one.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just want to know.... I'm not finished with section 1 yet. That was subsection (1)(a) and the other was subsection (1)(b). What I know about procedure, you can put....

MR. ROSE: All right, forget it. Let's go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister on amendment (1)(a).

HON. MR. HEINRICH: You will note that where it says "a school district" it should in fact read "the board of school trustees." My explanation is that this is what I was advised by legislative counsel. I hope that will be adequate. It should have been that from the beginning.

The second thing is again the deletion of the expression "or a portion of." I think that is it.

With respect to those particular items, that was the request made by the BCSTA. I don't need to go into all of that other than to advise you, Mr. Chairman, that there was lots of head-banging and we were able, I am proud to say, to find some common ground. As I recall, there was a fair amount of discussion in the House for those three days and two nights, with respect to that expression.

I might also make reference again, on this — and this will be last point on this item.... When you go into the Education (Interim) Finance Act, being the item which we are amending, I would like to refer the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) to the existing section 12, where the same expression is used: "The minister may, at any time before May 1 in any year, issue directives...." That's already in place. So what we see in the amendment is not really an addition; it is nothing more than a carry-over....

MR. ROSE: I was not concerned about that. I didn't raise it first; the minister did.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: All right. Do I have to move that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is considered moved by being on the order paper.

[ Page 2588 ]

Amendment approved.

On Section 1 as amended.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have some further amendments to section 1.

MR. ROSE: I have so many here I don't know what to do with them all.

We are not all that happy about "directives." We would prefer to see it be "recommendations." However, "directives" are what is used in the act, and so we have a couple of amendments dealing with that.

We would like to add clause (c) under subsection (1). We have dealt with (b), haven't we?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, subsections (1)(a) and (b) are passed.

MR. ROSE: This simply calls for the directives that are issued under clause (a) to be published in the annual report of the minister. The reason for that is the same with the colleges in Bill 19 the other night, the idea being that you don't know.... The minister "may" do these things, but we don't know what he is doing, and so there is no way of knowing just how a minister can or will use these powers. I think the best way to ensure that he doesn't overuse his powers, his clout, is to have these directives published. It is a freedom of information thrust that we are trying to accomplish. The minister has the power to use them, at the moment, in secret. They may be perfectly good and yet they may be perfectly arbitrary, and they may not treat all districts the same way. This ensures fairness and openness and freedom. Under the School Act the Minister of Education is accountable to the Legislature for the operation of the public school system. I think this amendment allows the minister to make his directives, although we don't agree with them. It allows him to do that, but it makes certain that the public is protected from a minister or a deputy minister who is overbearing or overpowering by making certain that these things are made public after the fact. The minister will be accountable, as the School Act envisions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I will make a couple of comments on it. Is it permissible for me to make a comment before the Chair has ruled whether or not...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: First of all, I accept the sincerity with which the amendment is put forth by the member. The same concerns I have were expressed when that amendment was put forth on Bill 20. I would have to advise the Chair first that although it appears reasonable, it is going to put a significant impost upon the Crown, because if you consider the directives that would go to 75 school districts, we would end up having an annual report that would be rather a significant size. One of the things we are trying to do is reduce the cost of publishing annual reports, to be very candid. But as a safety measure, Mr. Chairman, as a check on those directives.... Those directives go to school boards. It is going from one public body — being the provincial government, and I must answer in my estimates — to another public body with elected representatives. It seems to me there is adequate protection for the public coming both in this chamber and in the school board meetings. In any event, I suspect it would be disallowed because of the cost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As a matter of fact, the Chair will rule that the amendment is in order. But the minister may speak against it and reject it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I certainly will speak against it, because I don't see what we are going to accomplish with it. We are going from one public body to another public body. Each school district, as a matter of fact, meeting weekly, will be discussing any such directives like this at their board meetings. They are public, and there isn't anything to hide. I don't know what the particular advantage would be to publish it in the Ministry of Education annual report. That particular document, probably like most ministerial reports, I don't think is tops on the best-seller list.

MR. ROSE: What I tried to outline is the fact that certainly boards should be treated the same and that there is no real way for boards — unless they take it through their trustees' association — to compare the directives that they have been issued with those of other boards. I think it is important that they be treated fairly and equitably. I think that the more public we can make these directives of various kinds the better. I realize that not many of us are going to use these for bedtime reading. Many of them would put us to sleep rather rapidly. Maybe we should recommend that. Nevertheless, the idea is to have these directives on file or at least made public in such a way that people can see them. The public has a right to see them not just in the individual districts but also across the spectrum in all districts.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I think one of the roles of the B.C. School Trustees' Association.... As a matter of fact, anything that comes from the Ministry of Education seems to find itself in that particular office. They probably know more than we do. So comparisons between districts are going to be done. You can rest assured that if one particular district receives a directive about which they not very pleased, they refer it to their association and seek counsel. Then that association deals with the ministry, if it's a policy matter or of concern to an individual board.

Amendment negatived.

On Section 1 as amended.

[10:15]

MR. ROSE: I have another amendment, but if we couldn't even get that one passed, I'm reasonably certain that this one is not going to be embraced with tremendous affection. I'm not going to try and knock my own amendment. Nevertheless, the big concern is local autonomy. The minister has taken it upon himself to cap the budget, to take over local taxation — that was a year or two ago, on various other things — and now he's going to determine the funding formula. Potentially, if not actually, there is going to be a dictation on the part of the minister to the board. He can limit the budget; he can determine the budget for local school boards. In spite of the amendment that we've already passed

[ Page 2589 ]

this evening — and I congratulate the minister on his amendment — the boards clearly don't have the autonomy that they once had. I don't think anybody can argue with that.

I understand an amendment is coming up to give a sunset clause to this thing. It's only going to be for two years; apparently it's going to end in '86, at the same time as his reduction formula is supposed to conclude. Of course, we have had "interim” before. As a matter of fact, one of the amendments that I considered tonight was to change "interim” in the title of this bill. This is what's happening. I don't know that I want to get into a great rage tonight. As other people have pointed out, we have had a considerable debate on this topic. The issue remains: the boards do not have the authority and power they once had. I think they have displayed a great deal of responsibility in dealing with it.

We want to give the board some additional power. That may not go down very well with the minister. But the minister can cap a budget based on a formula. Why can't a board, it it wished to, provided it was unanimous...? We want them to be able to ignore the minister's directive by a unanimous vote of the board. Bill 6 gives the minister overriding powers on every local school board in the province. What is the point of being a board member if you don't have any power to determine your own budget? You were elected by the local taxpayers. I wonder how the municipal councils would go for that, or even this Legislature. Somebody mentioned that the government of Canada had a similar override on this.

I think the minister realizes that school boards have to have some function other than being merely advisory. If a directive runs contrary to the wishes of the board — and they were duly elected by the citizens of a particular municipality or group of municipalities — and if by unanimous vote they do decide to override the minister's directive on this budgetary matter and other matters — I think they should have that right — and to take their chances at the polls the same way the minister will; take their chances at the next election in the same way that the minister or ny other member is prepared to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I must find that the amendment as proposed by the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody goes well beyond the scope of the section. There is an impost on the Crown as well. So the amendment fails.

MR. ROSE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry I didn't have a chance even to read my amendment, I'll not make that mistake again. I think I'll hand in my amendment after I've read it. So I've learned something this evening. To be ruled out of order before I even got to the point is a little bit, I feel, premature. The next time I'll do what the minister did: I'll march in with my amendments in my hot little hands. When I'm finished reading my amendments, I will make certain that other people get copies thereof.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Oh, excuse me just a minute. I passed....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's amendments were distributed before we went into committee.

MR. ROSE: Clearly, Mr. Speaker, we need, frequently, in terms of complicated.... The minister's amendments, I must admit, were quite simple. Even I was able to grasp their significant import. But in the main it would be, I think, only a courtesy to the House to have a little bit more warning on a series of complex amendments than we got here tonight. Perhaps putting them on the order paper, or something like that, would be helpful.

Well, Mr. Chairman, if my amendment is out of order, at least the intent was to give the school boards overriding power by unanimous vote over a directive. We don't like directives in the first place. But if it's out of order, and you declare it out of order, then I am in your hands.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the section as amended pass?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So ordered.

MR. ROSE: Wait a minute. Not so fast.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 2....

MR. ROSE: Wait a minute! I'm not finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the member must rise to his feet. We have passed Section 1 as amended. We passed the two amendments; we passed the section as amended. I now suggest that we are on section 2.

On section 2.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment....

AN HON. MEMBER: Standing in your name on the order paper.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Well, you see, it's not on the order paper; that's why I can't say that.

I move the amendment that section 61 be amended by striking out section 61 in the existing Education (Interim) Finance Act and substituting "December 31, 1986" in place of "December 31, 1984." The reason for that is.... This was not in the brief of the school trustees, but I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, and members the House that during our period of consultation over the last several weeks, and particularly the last two weeks, the issue with respect to the sunset clause under the present Education (Interim) Finance Act was raised. As a result — and we concluded this today with the trustees and their president — we have in "December 31, 1986" instead of repealing section 61 in its entirety. When the member made reference earlier under a previous section, the member anticipated that this coincides with our three-year restraint program. This is supported by the B.C. School Trustees' advisory committee, their table officers and the president. I can assure you that this would not have been in here today unless there had been full discussion with them and a recognition of their concern.

The real reason for the amendment is this. The member is right when he mentioned that the autonomy of school boards has been eroded. I concede that, because we've seen what's happened with respect to the taxation base. Also, under the present bill, to issue directives.... Now it's not the issuing of directives but the capping of the budget.

[ Page 2590 ]

I was pleased to report to you, Mr. Chairman, about the recognition, publicly, by the B.C. School Trustees' Association that restraint is absolutely necessary. That is why we have agreed to the three years. The present bill would go through fiscal 1984, as school boards operate on calendar years. It has bought two more years. School boards can see at the end of that tunnel the opportunity to exercise some of the autonomy which in fact they have lost through this most difficult period. That's basically what it is. We can go on forever, but I would just as soon leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.

On the amendment.

MR. ROSE: The minister said the school board agrees that these restrictions should terminate at the same time his 2 percent-per-year restraint program concludes. Sure they will agree to that. Of course. They would agree to anything. It's like saying: "Why do you keep beating yourself on the head?" "Because it feels so good when I quit." Naturally people are going to agree to some measure of, as the minister said, light at the end of tunnel down the road on this — if I haven't mixed too many metaphors on that one. They're going to be happy to see the thing come to an end so they can have their autonomy back.

As I told the minister when I was, in his words, accurately anticipating this sunset provision, we would of course have to change the name of the bill otherwise. I was prepared to move a motion deleting from the title the word "interim" which was smuggled in here last year and became permanent this year. However, I guess it doesn't really matter what you call it. If conditions three years down the road require — or the minister feels they require — the continuance of this kind of funding arrangement or this kind of power, or if he gets to like it, then he or a future minister could quite possibly renew this. But the very fact that we have a sunset clause written into it is, I think, some reassurance. So there's certainly not going to be any opposition to that move from this quarter, regardless of any communications we may or may not have had from the school trustees, and on this subject we haven't had any.

MR. COCKE: My colleague wasn't here the last time we had a bill of this nature: that is, the interim education finance bill of 1982. In that bill was a sunset clause, and that sunset clause said it would be null and void in 1984. We now have a new sunset clause, which can just as easily be eliminated in 1986. The promises made by the then Minister of Education were that there would be a White Paper, that that White Paper would be widely distributed, and that there would be an opportunity for people out there to participate in the development of an entirely new education finance formula. That's what I'd like to hear the minister say again tonight. We heard it before. We believed it then. It didn't happen, but I'd like to hear a reiteration at least of that promise, along with this amendment. I agree with the amendment. I would like to see the whole thing negatized right now — or negatived.

AN HON. MEMBER: Negatized?

MR. COCKE: Negatized, according to one of our old Chairmen.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Negated too. And rescinded as well. And all the other terms that one can use in this House so greatly notorious for its decorum.

I would very much like to hear the minister say something with respect to not an interim measure but an education finance formula that is going to be developed over that period of two years.

[10:30]

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, the member is quite correct in what he says. One of the reasons the sunset clause was put in as of December 31, 1984, was to buy sufficient time for a proposed revision to the School Act to be circulated in the form of a White Paper. Since that time we have obviously had some intervening circumstances, one of which — and the major one, as a matter of fact, as far as I can see — has been the pretty difficult restraint program which has been required, and which has in fact been endorsed by the trustees. I wish to assure the member that in the short time I've been here — roughly four months — that is one of the matters now on my schedule to attend to, and some things have been done in a preliminary way already. There are a number of things I'm working on with respect to what I think are the responsibilities of the Ministry of Education when it comes to finance, facilities, testing curriculum and certification. Matters involving deregulation are something I'm attending to. There is a host of items that I'm looking at. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I'm very much interested in seeing what I can do about getting a school act out — at least the White Paper which has been promised. That's something I'm looking forward to doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There has been lots of debate. Shall the amendment pass? Oh, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, what do you mean with this "oh?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn't see you until you stood up.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm awfully sorry that I'm not quite tall enough to come into view.

One of the things I think the minister mentioned as short term in that particular office is.... This bothers me. I'm happy to see some kind of a sunset clause put back in; I'm only hoping the minister can give us some assurance that it's not put in there now just to have a relief valve for anything that boils up out in the school community.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: This is the problem. I don't want it kind of shuffled back in because....

We've had three ministers. The promise of the White Paper came from the present Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith). The first sunset clause came from Mr. Vander Zalm. Now you have brought in another sunset clause. So we've gone through three ministers in three years with three different promises. All we want is to have it on the record — we'll read it back to you if there are any changes — that you did give us an assurance that it would remain. I remember that two ministers back I was given an assurance of $1.8 million for Esquimalt high school. It was confirmed by a

[ Page 2591 ]

minister in between, and now you've taken it away from us. I would like some assurance that when we get a statement from a Minister of Education we can rest assured that that assurance is going to remain and not keep changing.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: I give you assurance that using that particular date is not a ruse, as far as I'm concerned. It's there for a reason. I gave the commitment with respect to bringing in a White Paper, something you want to do. I can't answer the matter on Esquimalt, but there is a lot more to that than just what has been raised. I'm very much aware of some of the problems.

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Section 3 approved.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I want to move an amendment, which is to add a definition section for "directive."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Surely. Speak to it briefly and submit your amendment.

MR. ROSE: I think I'll debate it first, if you don't mind. I got burnt on the last one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have to find out if it's in order, hon. member. Please proceed.

MR. ROSE: Central to this whole act is the minister's power to issue directives. These directives cap budgets. But there is no definition in here of what a directive means. This amendment proposes to give a definition of directive, because we don't want the directive to go beyond.... We don't even like it in budgets, but we certainly don't want the minister meddling in all kinds of things other than budgets. It seems to imply in section 12(l)(a) that the directive is limited to its use in determining and capping budgets, and as unacceptable as that is to us, it has been passed, so we can't do anything about it.

The word "directive" or "direction" appears in a number of other bills in this package of 28 or 30, or whatever number we have currently, so I want to make certain that we don't sometimes define this at the minister's or somebody else's pleasure along the lines of the Oxford Dictionary, 1982 edition, which says "a general instruction for procedure or action." I want to make sure it's limited to budgetary matters and doesn't allow the minister to issue directives, or allow the Ministry of Education to meddle in other things which are more properly under the aegis of the bpard or the administration of the school district. That's why I propose the following amendment.

I move that the Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983, be amended by adding a new subsection 1(2): "directive" means a written instruction from the minister identifying the amount of a school board budget and/or the portion of the budget for special-education programs. "A portion thereof" was part of the minister's amendment earlier, so I can delete that from my own as well to make it consistent. It's just to give a definition of what a directive is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that you are going to leave out of your proposed amendment "or the portion."

MR. ROSE: Merely to make it consistent with the minister's amendment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand. It does make it consistent with the minister's amendments.

The amendment is in order.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the directives which go out are now written, in any event. As a matter of fact, the budgets that are going out, which are prepared.... You say a written instruction from the minister. Much of this has been delegated, and the calculations of budgets which go out, plus the give and take which occurs between ministry people and the budgets.... All the evidence that I've seen is that it's already out. Why would I need it?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just let me observe that, again, the amendment is in order. It is redundant, but that doesn't mean.... That means it can be rejected, but it does make it in order.

MR. ROSE: The minister asks a question, and since he didn't have the amendment before him maybe I can elaborate. We don't want any directive to go beyond the scope of budgetary matters. We want the definition of "directive" as it applies in this act to be as has been stated. It limits itself to budgetary matters. It is implicit in section 12(l)(a) because it deals with budgetary matters, and solely with budgetary matters. But we don't want the minister to have the power to issue directives to school boards beyond budgetary matters. We don't even want him to have it for budgetary matters, but he's got it. So we want it limited to that scope entirely.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Chairman, really, the member has answered the question already, because the section reads "issues directives...establishing the amount" of the budget. The amendment is redundant. I don't like to be difficult, but I don't see any particular reason to accept it.

Amendment negatived.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Education (Interim) Finance Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 28, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 2592 ]

PROVINCIAL TREASURY FINANCING
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

The House in committee on Bill 28; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

On section 6.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [see appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Sections 7 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 28, Provincial Treasury Financing Amendment Act, 1983, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:45 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

28 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 28) intituled Provincial Treasury Financing Amendment Act, 1983 to amend as follows:

SECTION 6, by renumbering paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b) and (c) and by adding the following paragraph:

"(a) in subsection (1) (a) by striking out 'in lawful money of Canada',".