[ Page 3923 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

University of Victoria Special Appropriation Act, 1984 (Bill 5). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

On Section I –– 3923

Mr. Nicolson, Mr. Cocke, Mr. Blencoe

Third reading –– 3924

Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act (Bill 6). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3924

Mr. Stupich –– 3925

Mrs. Wallace –– 3926

Mr. Skelly –– 3926

Mr. Davis –– 3929

Mr. Nicolson –– 3930

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 3932

Division –– 3932

TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 1984

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 5, Mr. Speaker.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA
SPECIAL APPROPRIATION ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 5; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, we'll be supporting this section, but I think it should be said that there is a lot of criticism about the priority of this particular piece of educational spending. At times I have been invited by the press to attack this particular investment in education because it is seen as some sort of trade-off against David Thompson University Centre. I cannot take part in that attack, as I believe that this is an appropriate type of educational expenditure. But the government is doing this in only one select area, and this is really an inconsistency in government policy, not in that of the opposition in terms of supporting this. By that I mean that if one were to look at the success of engineers who graduated from the University of British Columbia last year.... I have been informed by people in administration at the University of British Columbia that only about a quarter of those graduates have jobs. That same argument is being used by this government. We're talking about allowing the minister to expend $16 million in order to expand engineering; that is not a bad priority, but it's a little bit inconsistent with general government philosophy, because not only are we going to be needing more engineers, but we're going to be needing more trained professionals in other areas. To allow the Minister of Finance to put $16 million into a special fund for this purpose, while at the same time the government is claiming that other faculties have to be cut back, eliminated, rationalized, etc., is inconsistent.

I would like to say, then, on this section that I would hope the government philosophy would expand from this particular anomaly of government policy and that government would tend to look at education as a whole as an investment in the future; that the $16 million being placed here and other moneys have to be invested; that it will not be money down the drain; that there will be a financial return. I realize that not all of the engineering graduates at the University of British Columbia are getting jobs this year. It's also true, of course, that not all the teachers are going to get jobs. It's also true that maybe not all of the people in architecture are going to get jobs or that lawyers are going to get articling. It is an anomaly, however, when the government says that because of the current economic climate we have to cut back in some of these other faculties and yet we have to expand in this one. I say it's a time for expansion and a time for investment in education.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I just want to put one or two things on the record with respect to this section, the only section in the bill, regarding the relationship of the University of Victoria to business. As you know, UVic has signed agreements with Microtel Pacific and Fairchild Camera, an instrument corporation. The benefits for students, I gather, are that they have access to software to try out their ideas, and the benefits for the companies are that they have an extended opportunity to consider students in the program as potential employees. Of the 56 months of the program, 24 are on the job. Both Microtel and Fairchild are part of the multinational conglomerates of Microtel Pacific. That's the research arm of AEL Microtel Ltd., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of B.C. Tel, which in turn is under the control of General Telephone and Electronics of Stamford, Connecticut; about 51 percent of B.C. Tel shares are held by GTE, wholly owned subsidiaries of Anglo-Canadian Telephone Co. of Montreal and GTE International Inc. Now Fairchild Camera is part of the Schlumberger group registered in the Netherlands Antilles; Schlumberger's head office is in New York, and they have subsidiaries in over 20 countries, including South Africa, Panama, Brazil, Singapore and Hong Kong. I want to bring that to your attention.

[10:15]

What I'm saying here is that the graduates from the UVic program will be highly employable, but the jobs may not necessarily be in British Columbia. So I have some concerns about this. The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) talked about access, and then egress as well — that is what happens to students after they are through. I believe that this particular program might very well be an employee's dream, in terms of getting a job, but not necessarily here.

One of the further problems is that it'll probably be attractive to wealthy males who can afford to attend. All British Columbians are paying for the facility however. They hope to attract more women to the course than the national average, but since the average female enrolment in engineering is just 6 percent, that's not saying much. In other words, even if they go to 7 percent, it's no great deal.

They project that British Columbia students will form most of the enrolment, based on the perception that many of our students apply to universities out of the province for programs of the type that will be offered at UVic.

The new student assistance program, which is all loan and no more grant, is also going to restrict access to the program, and restrict it to the more wealthy — that is, the upper middle class and so on.

Those are our concerns. As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday and will go on saying, I certainly support this educational opportunity. But I do wish that there was wider-ranging support in all of education. I said that in second reading, so I won't regurgitate that particular debate.

MR. BLENCOE: I also would like to indicate my support. Clearly our caucus will be unanimous on this particular decision. It is indeed a good move. Some comments by the member for New Westminster were, I think, extremely welltaken. We will have to be particularly careful that we ensure that it's virtually 100 percent British Columbian, and that the

[ Page 3924 ]

jobs are indeed British Columbia-based and Victoria-based, if possible, given the situation in this community.

It would be remiss of me if I didn't comment on the remarks of the member for Nelson-Creston. I think he is to be commended for taking the position he has; in light of what happened recently to his community, in terms of the David Thompson University Centre, and for being extremely reasonable and understanding. I am sure that many of us — and he — may wish to take an opposite position given the removal of funding from, that very important centre in Nelson. I think it is most unfortunate that I can see why there would be some real feeling of abandonment by this government, to pursue $60 million in the Victoria area and eliminate such an important university centre in Nelson. I think the member for Nelson-Creston is to be commended for taking that position. Certainly I thank him on behalf of my constituents in this riding.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to support this bill.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 5, University of Victoria Special Appropriation Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 6.

RESOURCE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND ACT

HON. MR. CURTIS: I rise to move second reading of Bill 6, the Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act, one of the few bills announced on budget day last month. I have a few notes, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the debate which will occur on this particular topic.

The purpose of the new act is twofold, in fact. The first is to give the government the authority through the Legislature to utilize the resource revenue stabilization fund to retire government and Crown corporation debt and to provide the government with the authority to require Crown corporations to pay dividends into the fund. Members will recall that in 1982 this government introduced the Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act to establish a special fund which would, briefly stated, help. stabilize the impact of the province's volatile natural resource revenues. I think there would be agreement on both sides of the House, if I may presume so, that indeed we have that volatility. It is the nature of this province. It has been for many decades. I think it can be mitigated in the years to come.

Currently, all natural resource revenues received by the government flow into the fund and are then transferred to the general fund — consolidated revenue, if you wish — as required to pay operating expenses. It was intended that in peak revenue years the fund would accumulate balances to be drawn down in years when revenue growth was weak, in order that we could offset the downturns which characterize our resource-based economy, about which I have just spoken.

As members of this assembly will realize, the fiscal years since the establishment of the resource revenue stabilization fund — that is, in 1982 — have not been strong years for the province's economy. Nowhere is this more evident than in the province's natural resource revenues. Although all revenues paid into the resource revenue stabilization fund have been transferred to the general fund in each fiscal year, and the government has launched an effective restraint program — which, I appreciate, is not part of this bill — the province has still had to borrow to pay for operating expenses because of the weakened provincial economy. But as we have indicated, there is light showing on the horizon. The time has come to expand the role of the resource revenue stabilization fund. Although I outlined the proposed changes in the budget speech on February 20, I would like to review just a few of the main points in this bill and note for the members why they are required.

It is not the intention of this government that future generations of British Columbians be burdened with payments for debt incurred to meet our operating expenses of these recent years. So the enactment of this bill will mean that commencing in the 1984-85 fiscal year, which is just two weeks away, the resource revenue stabilization fund will be used not only to smooth the effects of fluctuations in resource revenues but also to retire direct provincial debt, as well as the debts of the Crown corporations which are not considered to be self-supporting — may I just emphasize that — in terms of their debt. Debts will be retired either through payments into sinking funds set up to retire debt at a future date or through payments to retire debt issues which reach their maturity dates.

This bill also provides for several other changes to the resource revenue stabilization fund. The House will be pleased to know that we were unable to designate an acronym for this particular fund, but its short description is RRSF.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's because Larry Bell isn't here.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, he's still here.

Dividends from Crown corporations designated by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will now be paid into the fund in amounts determined by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. In future, the government will be able to require Crown corporations to return a portion of their profits to the government or, more accurately stated, to the shareholders — i.e., the people of the province. It is appropriate that the people of British Columbia receive a return on the considerably large investments made in Crown corporations. The obligation to pay dividends will also act as an incentive to Crown corporation management by requiring that management to consider the rate of return on their investments, as in any private sector operation.

There is also a provision in the act to allow the general fund to make advances to the resource revenue stabilization fund. The purpose of these advances will be to allow the resource revenue stabilization fund to make debt retirement or sinking fund payments before resource revenue has been received in a fiscal year. I should stress that all advances from the general fund must be repaid within the same fiscal year. I think that that is an appropriate but relatively minor measure of reform contained in the bill.

[ Page 3925 ]

In 1984-85 this act will empower the government to make a payment into the British Columbia Railway's sinking funds set up to retire its historic debt, relieving the railway of a debt burden accumulated during the 1960s and 1970s. I dwelt on this at length in the budget speech, and, indeed, the historic debt of the British Columbia Railway was the subject — without reflecting on a vote — of debate following the budget speech. That is one of the key elements of this bill: to carry out that initiative announced in the budget speech.

The balance of the resource revenue stabilization fund revenues in fiscal 1984-85 will be paid into the general fund to be used for operating purposes of the government. The increased flexibility this bill provides the government will allow use of the resource revenue stabilization fund as a more effective instrument of fiscal stabilization as well as of financial responsibility in managing the province's finances. As I said earlier, it will enable us to relieve future generations of the obligation to pay off debt which has been incurred in the past.

I consider this to be a very major next step in the resource revenue stabilization process. I commend Bill 6 to the members and now move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: I think the question won't come quite as easily as it did on the previous bill, because as it was easy to support Bill 5 so it is even easier to oppose Bill 6.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister groans. I think the minister himself, in his opening remarks — in the very first sentence, I think — expected the opposition to oppose it, because he started out by saying that the purpose of this bill is to give the government authority. It's giving more and more authority to the government and taking that authority away from the Legislature. This is an old song. Ever since the election of May 1983, almost every bill the government has brought in has had one clause or one section which takes power away from the elected representatives and transfers it to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[10:30]

I can understand why the government feels it's necessary to do something about fiscal matters in the province. Certainly in the last eight years the situation has become progressively worse year by year. This government took over at a time when things were not too bad. There was money in the bank. There were debts of some $4 billion guaranteed by the government, and in eight years they've managed to increase that to some $15 billion. For the first time in the history of the province — since 1952 — the government has had to borrow to meet ordinary operating expenses. The minister said during the course of his remarks that it's his intention that money borrowed for operating expenses not be loaded onto future generations, but be paid off promptly. It would be great if he really intended to do that. May I remind him that one of the early methods of borrowing used by his administration — not while he was Minister of Finance but nevertheless a method used — was to sell three new B.C. ferries. We're buying them back over a period of 18 years. That particular loan is going to be loaded onto future generations for 18 years after 1976; it will be 1994-95 before that particular loan is paid off.

For the first time in the history of the province every public building, every government-owned building, with the exception of the one in which we are meeting today, is mortgaged. When will those mortgages be paid off? There's nothing here that indicates to me that the minister intends that future generations will not be obliged to make payments on mortgages on public buildings for many years to come.

The bill certainly does give the cabinet more power. They have had increasing power over the last eight years, and it would seem that as they get more power, the situation deteriorates. But it does give them power to pay off debts. It doesn't give them any revenue to pay it off though. There's nothing in this legislation that is going to increase the amount of revenue available, it simply passes it from one pocket to another. The minister. with this legislation, is saying that from here on resource revenue will be increased, because the sources of revenue are wider, and the revenue may be used for other purposes at the discretion of cabinet — purposes for which it wasn't specifically available previously, all at the discretion of cabinet. That really is the purpose of this bill: that anything the government wants to do with resource revenue, it may do simply by making a decision in a cabinet room.

We are not talking about a small amount of money. Even today with resource revenue down, the budget for 1984-85 predicts $679 million in resource revenue, almost 9 percent of our $7.7 billion revenue forecast. That's a significant amount of money. Even more, when the economy does turn around and the resource revenue gets up to where it should normally expect to be, we might be looking at 20 percent or more, rather than 10 percent. Who knows what ideas the government might have then for taking more power away from the Legislature and into the hands of cabinet.

It gives the minister or the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council the authority to pay the debts of Crown corporations — and I believe I took his words down correctly when I say this — "which are not normally self-supporting." Since the minister offered that comment, I would ask him maybe to comment on that again; I know it is with reference to section 2(b) or 2(c). I see nothing anywhere in the legislation.... I am not trying to be specific about sections; I am just asking the minister to explain in what way this legislation before us now would limit the payment of debts to only those Crown corporations which are considered not self-supporting. And who considers? Presumably the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Might the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council one day or one year say that B.C. Hydro is not self-supporting and the next year say that it is self-supporting? Thus the definition, it seems to me, would be subject to the whim of cabinet to suit the needs of the day. I wonder if there is any clarification available on that.

To draw dividends related, I think he said, to the investment.... In the old days we used to have the minister do second reading, then there'd be notes available which we could review, and we would be in a far better position to quote him. Now we have to go by the notes that we scribble down hastily. I think that was what he said. The cabinet could ask — a sort of request or invitation that couldn't be denied — B.C. Hydro to pay a dividend in a year when it wanted some extra money. If that dividend put B.C. Hydro into a loss position that year, so be it. In relation to the capital invested in B.C. Hydro, the cabinet might say: "This year we want a 5 percent return on our capital; we need that money; we are going into an election period and we've got a lot of advertising to do, so we want B.C. Hydro to pay a dividend." As I see it, there is nothing in the legislation that would stop the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council from demanding of any

[ Page 3926 ]

Crown corporation that they chose to consider self-supporting in a particular year that it make a contribution to the resource revenue fund. One of the purposes of the resource revenue fund is to stabilize revenue. So money could be demanded from any Crown corporation whatever. It could go into consolidated revenue and be used for any purpose whatever, as I read this legislation. It can go both ways at the whim of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

I can see no purpose in this legislation other than to take authority away from the Legislature and give it to cabinet so that when they want to tighten the screws, as they did with the budget of July 7, 1983, they can produce all kinds of evidence to show why it's necessary. There are Crown corporations out there needing grants, just as BCR needed $470 million to pay off debts, some of which are going to come due 21 years from now. Just as other Crown corporations will be able to show the same need, because every one of them has debts aplenty — there's no problem there in showing need — the government can increase taxes, withdraw services, all on the basis of need to meet the budget. Then, at an appropriate time — it might just happen to be in preparation for an election; not necessarily so, but it just might happen that way — they could turn everything upside down and ask the Crown corporations to return revenue to the Crown so that they could have all kinds of money to spend on advertising campaigns and whatever other giveaway programs they want to introduce in preparation for an election campaign.

The minister welcomes this and says what great legislation it is. Well, it certainly is, Mr. Speaker, for a cabinet that's trying to make things as much as it can in favour of the government in office, to make sure it will have complete control over government finance without coming back to the Legislature and asking any questions, and without even reporting back until some two years later when we finally get Public Accounts. As I said, the legislation that was brought in yesterday could be easily supported. The legislation brought in today can be even more easily rejected by the opposition. It should be rejected by government members if they have any sense of decency, but I don't really expect that. However, the opposition certainly will oppose this legislation.

MRS. WALLACE: We didn't have our order quite lined up here.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't got anything lined up.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, when you don't find out until five minutes before the House sits what you're going to be talking about, it's a little difficult to get your speakers lined up ahead of time.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, why don't you keep your troops in the House? What do you think you're paid for?

MRS. WALLACE: My old friend is there making noises as usual.

Certainly I am concerned about this bill. I am concerned about some of the things it does. One of the questions I have for the minister.... Unfortunately, he's not in the House right now. He says this bill is supposed to add more revenue source. As I read the old bill, it seems to me that it adds less revenue source. The only change is that rather than take all the income from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, it's now going to take the net income. As far as I'm concerned, that's reducing the source of revenue rather than increasing it. I'd certainly like the minister to explain how he feels this is going to provide a greater source of revenue.

My other concern is that by doing what we're doing to this act, we're completely changing the whole purpose of it. It should not be called a Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act any more, because it's not for that purpose any more; instead, it's for the purpose of paying off debt. I don't want to go to too much length about this. It's been discussed at great length in other venue's during this session. But for the minister to say that this new bill is going to somehow mean that we're not borrowing for operating purposes — that we're going to relieve future generations of these heavy debt burdens — is completely erroneous. What this bill really is, as far as the first year is concerned, is a sneaky borrowing bill; that's what it really is. It is proposing to take this money — $470 million worth this year — and pay off a debt. That means that instead of a $200 million deficit in our operating budget this year the Minister of Finance is forecasting a $670 million deficit. So it's just a sneaky way of borrowing money — by saying our operating costs are going to be that much in arrears this year, when in fact we're taking $470 million and using them under this fund. It's just not a resource revenue stabilization fund any more, and it should not be called that. It's erroneous, incorrect. It's a gimmick. It's a very political gimmick, as the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) Indicates. It's a political gimmick to somehow try to convince the public that we have to tighten our belts and take less money for our jobs and for everything else that we are doing; that we have to take less in social services because we have this horrendous deficit — $670 million worth of deficit-when $470 million of that debt this year is strictly under this bill to pay off a debt. And debt is debt.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, they are surprised. They agree that it's a political gimmick. It's a sneaky way of borrowing money and telling the taxpayers that they have to pay for it because it's costing more to operate their health care system and their educational system. They have all this terrific deficit in their operating budget, when more than two-thirds of it is simply to be spent under this bill. It's a sneaky way of borrowing money. It has nothing to do with revenue stabilization, which was the purpose of this act. I am completely opposed to it.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, what concerns me about this bill is that it doesn't recognize the most important debt that we have to future generations, and that is to preserve the renewable resources that we have in sustainable condition. What the government appears to be doing in this one is simply creating a vehicle to invest in the sinking funds of B.C. Rail, so that they can either pay off their debts or else go deeper into debt. I don't know exactly what the government has in mind for B.C. Rail. But what bothers me about this bill is the fact that the government does not seem to have recognized the major debt that we owe to future generations, and that is to keep our forests in sustainable condition.

[10:45]

I was looking through the annual report of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) for 1982-83, and looking in particular at the figures for the Prince George region. The

[ Page 3927 ]

authorized allowable cut for that region is something like 15,287,000 cubic metres.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I look to the Chair for guidance. This bill deals with resource revenue stabilization. I realize that one could speak at length about resources, but I wonder if we're not straying from the purpose of the bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I'm sure the member was just about to reach the point in debate that would be relevant to the bill before us.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to the whole point of resource revenue stabilization. The word "stabilization" appears to me to mean something that keeps the revenues flowing in from the resources of the province — the minister mentioned this himself in his opening address on this bill. He mentioned the volatility of resource revenue. Well, what we have to do in order to eliminate a lot of that volatility is not simply keep a fund of which we invest a large part in the sinking funds of B.C. Rail, but also use this fund to invest in the resources of British Columbia — the renewable resources in particular — in order to recognize the debt that we owe to future generations in British Columbia, which the minister also mentioned.

I think the first obligation on the members of this Legislature is to maintain those renewable resources, which provide this revenue, in sustainable condition so that we can continue to bring in revenues to this fund. I was just attempting to demonstrate how in one forest resource region of the province we're not doing that, and I was using the example of the Prince George forest region, where the authorized allowable cut is something like 15,287,000 cubic metres. What the government is allowing forest companies in the region to cut is 17 percent more than what is growing in the region now. According to the ministry's annual report of 1982-83, 15,345,000 cubic metres is committed to be cut in that region, which is 17 percent more than the region is capable of growing. In addition, fire destroys 3,766,000 cubic metres in that region. Insects and disease are destroying another 2.5 million cubic metres of the resource. In other words, the government is allowing the resource which provides the money upon which this fund is based to diminish. What we should be doing first and foremost is investing money in that resource to make sure that it is sustainable so that money continues to come back into this fund and to serve the purposes of the province.

A few weeks ago the federal government attempted to sign an agreement with the government of British Columbia which would provide something like $104 million annually for intensive silviculture, to turn that picture around, to begin to make our forest resource sustainable again. The government of British Columbia did not get involved in that agreement, even though all it required was something like a $54 million investment on the part of this government. The federal government would match that contribution. That expenditure would have helped to preserve the 31,000 jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia that are currently at risk because of the government's mismanagement of the resource.

MR. R. FRASER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member opposite, and I am not getting the feeling that he's really talking about the bill, which I think he should be reminded to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is incumbent upon each of us, particularly on second reading, to be relevant to the bill before us. I am sure that the member for Alberni, in concluding his remarks on this particular bill, will refer to it. This is the second time, hon. member, that you've....

MR. SKELLY: How much time do I have left, Mr. Speaker? You're talking about my concluding my remarks.

It says here, Mr. Speaker, that revenue comes into this act out of the Forest Act, the Logging Tax Act, the Range Act and certain other acts, which relate to the management of forests in British Columbia and to revenues from the forests in British Columbia. This is precisely what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker. It's my concern about the sources of revenue for this fund that compels me to bring this material to the attention of the Legislature now, because we're destroying the resources upon which this fund is primarily based. Revenues from the forests are diminishing. It's something that we should be concerned about if we're going to be passing a bill like this in order to stabilize revenues in the province and to have this fund in order to stabilize the volatility of revenues in the province — as the minister calls it. We should be doing something more to manage the resources of this province than we are currently doing.

People all over British Columbia are talking about the neglect that this government is visiting upon the forest resource....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I must advise you — this is the third time — that while the points the member has to make may be valid and relevant in another forum, unfortunately they do not qualify under the Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act, a bill by the Minister of Finance. If he's not prepared to follow the basic rules of debate, then I will be insisting upon the member's taking his place, and we shall go on to the next speaker, who, hopefully, will be relevant. Having made that point, I ask the member to continue, bearing in mind the relevant section of rules that guide us in second reading.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, everything I am saying is relevant to this act, to resource revenues in this province, and to the expenditures authorized under this act.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. When the Chair advises a member, the member is grossly out of order to countermand the Chair's instructions in such a deliberate and clear way. The Chair has advised the member that his remarks are not in order, and the Chair will not tolerate a member's arguing with the Chair in such a direct fashion. The Chair has been very free in allowing the member to continue his speech. I advise you for the final time, hon. member, that if you are not prepared to speak in the relevant section, on the second reading of this bill, then I will instruct you to take your place.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking under this bill. What I am saying is relevant to this bill, and I would ask you to tell me in what way my remarks are not relevant to this bill. I am dealing with the resources and the resource revenues upon which this bill is based. I am dealing with the

[ Page 3928 ]

expenditures authorized under this bill. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to tell me precisely where my remarks are not relevant.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair has advised the member that his remarks must be contained to the act itself. I am not going to read the act to the member; the member should read the act himself.

MR. SKELLY: I've read the act.

MR. SPEAKER: I will advise the member for the last time that he must stick to the basic information contained within the act. While the member may have concerns about reforestation, this act is not the place to enter upon that debate.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am discussing reforestation only as it relates to sustaining the revenues that are going into this resource revenue stabilization fund. If we do not sustain that forest resource, we will not get the revenues necessary to sustain this fund.

Mr. Speaker, it's not the purpose of debate in the Legislature for members to debate with the Speaker. It's the purpose of this Legislature for members to debate with each other about how worthwhile this legislation is and whether it's going to serve the purpose which the government states it's going to serve. It's the duty of members in this Legislature to discuss whether the revenues and expenditures established under this act are going to be met in the way that the act discusses. I don't think, Mr. Speaker, that in the way the forests of this province are being managed, the way the expenditures under this act are being handled, that we are going to have the resources upon which this fund depends in the first place. And that's why, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. This bill, as was observed earlier, is in the hands of the Minister of Finance. It deals with the receipt of resource revenues and the disbursement of resource revenues from this fund. I appreciate, if I may without offending the rules, that the member wishes to speak about matters relative to resources. I would point out that to the best of my recollection in Committee of Supply we have not yet dealt with the estimates of the Minister of Forests. But whether these resource revenues are high, medium or low is beside the point. It is the utilization of those revenues, not how large or slim they are.

MR. SKELLY: I'm talking about the utilization of those revenues.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for New Westminster on the same point of order.

MR. COCKE: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance made the case. He said that the question we are discussing here is both the revenue and its disbursement. What the member for Alberni is doing is discussing the disbursement and the necessity for a good portion of that revenue to be ploughed into silviculture and those other related forest needs. So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance made the case. That's precisely what that member is speaking about.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, just before I recognize the member for Alberni, somewhere along the line we must use a little bit of reason in our debate. If we are to engage in a wide-ranging debate on the Ministry of Forests, for example, in a bill that contains reference to forest revenues, then surely we lose all the rules that are before us to guide us in debate. I have advised the member for Alberni at this time that the debate line on which he is currently engaged is not in order at this particular time. Hon. member, the points you wish to make may be brought up at several other opportunities, all of which would be in order. But at this time a full discourse or examination into the forest sector is not in order under this, and I so rule.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the priority of expenditures under this act. The minister, in opening debate, and the Finance critic for the official opposition, in dealing with this legislation discussed our debt to future generations and the money that will be paid into B.C. Rail's sinking funds. None of those things are mentioned specifically in this bill, but they were discussed. The Speaker did not intervene to say that they were relevant, irrelevant or otherwise. What I'm talking about is the priority of expenditures under this legislation, and following the debate of the Minister of Finance and the opposition's Finance critic, what I'm saying is that there should be certain priorities in expenditure under this legislation.

One of those priorities is to make sure that the revenues, as discussed in the interpretation section of this statute, which come in part from the Forest Act, the Logging Tax Act and other acts, are sustainable. Otherwise why are we wasting our time talking about this fund? If we're doing away with the very resources upon which the fund depends, it doesn't make much sense.

[11:00]

So I'm saying that there should be a certain priority in expenditures under section 4, so that payments out of the fund go first and foremost to sustain the resources and resource revenues upon which this fund depends. That's the point of my argument, and as far as I can see, that point is entirely in order under this bill. I don't see the reason it's being questioned by members on the opposite side unless they're embarrassed in some way about the priorities they have in expending the moneys and resource revenues of the province. Those resource revenues are declining because of mismanagement of the resources. The money is not going to be available in the future to sustain these resources. The government hasn't demonstrated the priority in its budgeting, either out of this or any other fund, to maintain those resource revenues under section 2. What I'm saying — and I'm entirely relevant to this bill — is that there should be a priority in the expenditure section on this bill to maintain those resources and the resource revenues upon which this fund depends.

The information coming from the Ministry of Forests for the last few months shows that stumpage revenues are declining. They're continuing to decline even though markets are now increasing. In fact, we generally consider the forest industry in British Columbia to be profitable when housing starts in the States go back to 1.5 million a year; then the profitability begins to kick in. They're now up to 1.7 million or 2 million a year, yet stumpage revenues are declining. Federal and provincial government studies and material from the Ministry of Forests itself shows us that the revenue is going to continue to decline because the resources are in a

[ Page 3929 ]

state of decline. The government is doing nothing. It is expending insufficient funds to maintain those resources and those resource revenues upon which this fund depends. That's my major concern, Mr. Speaker. Why, under this act, are we putting money into the sinking funds of B.C. Rail, when we should be expending money to maintain the renewable resources of British Columbia upon which this act depends?

I can understand that the government members would be disturbed, because this lack of priority has been pointed out to them on many occasions. For example, Prof. Walters of UBC, speaking at the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters' annual meeting, talked about our province's forests being "gang-raped." Those kinds of emotional terms are being used to describe the management of our forests, the neglect this government is visiting on the forests, and what will happen to the future revenues from our forests if the government does not change its spending priorities to make sure that the revenues upon which this bill is based are preserved.

Mr. Walters mentioned in his speech to the Association of B.C. Professional Foresters that if we enter into that agreement with the federal government — if we begin immediately — then we'll be required to spend something like $660 million, and that the money that will come back into British Columbia and partly into this fund will be something like $2.4 billion. It's the best investment the government could make. The highest priority this government should have is to maintain those resources and the resource revenues upon which this type of fund depends. An investment of $660 million to bring back to the people of this province revenues of $2.4 billion is the kind of investment we as MLAs should be supporting. Yet the government does not seem to have that kind of priority. In this bill and in their debate on this bill, the government does not seem to be demonstrating that kind of priority.

In addition, if those resources disappear — as they are disappearing because they're being overcut and insufficiently protected — we are not going to have any money or any resource revenues whatsoever to put into this fund. That's what concerns me.

The first thing we should be discussing under this bill is the priority of expenditure. Should we be putting that money into B.C. Rail? Should we be using that money to pay off the debt of Crown corporations? Or should we be using that money first and foremost to recognize our debt to future generations, to be proper stewards of the resources of this province and to keep those resources and their revenues in sustainable condition? That's my major concern under this bill.

I'm pleased that the opposition Finance critic has announced that the official opposition intends to vote against this bill. We're voting against it because it does not recognize proper priorities — not only because it gives the Ministry of Finance or cabinet the right to direct the revenues of this province behind closed doors, but also because the cabinet does not have the proper priorities in directing those revenues and investing them. We have an obligation to future generations that this cabinet does not seem to recognize. I'm pleased to be on my feet speaking against this bill, relevant to the principle of this bill, because the government does not recognize the priority of the forests of this province in order to sustain the revenues of the province.

MR. DAVIS: The hon. member for Alberni has tried to generalize this debate, to wander into bordering areas and indeed into other areas of discussion. I'd like to narrow it.

In a nutshell, my concern is the title of the bill. I agree that there should be a resource revenue stabilization fund. In days gone by, parliamentary governments around the world have generally required that all funds be paid into one pot, so to speak; that no tax is labelled; that it goes into the general revenue of the nation or the state or the province; and that it not be sent to a particular fund or delivered into a particular compartment and then used for a particular purpose. That has been general policy. There have been exceptions, but that generally has been the rule.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

A few years ago we passed legislation — I voted for it; I agreed with it — which set up a resource revenue stabilization fund. The reasoning behind that, as I understood it at the time, was to smooth out, as far as the availability of moneys to the Minister of Finance was concerned, the flow of resource revenue into the budgetary process. We've had resource revenues in this province well in excess of a billion dollars a year. We've had resource revenues within the last comparatively short period of down towards half a billion dollars a year. In other words, resource revenues in this province can increase 100 percent and they can collapse by at least 50 percent. That's no new phenomenon; it's been going on since British Columbia became a separate jurisdiction. Resource revenues fluctuate markedly, and therefore it makes sense to have them flow into a particular fund and averaged over time, and then the Minister of Finance is in a better position to develop budgets from one year to the next. In paying resource revenue funds out to the municipalities, I would say that a stabilized fund would be preferable to one that varies markedly from year to year. So I'm all for the concept of resource revenue stabilization, indeed the creation of a special fund into which these moneys flow. I can agree with the broadening of the fund to include certain revenues from particular resource activities which were not formerly included — in other words, stabilize revenue from a larger number of taxes from more resource industries.

Where I have some difficulty with the bill is that while it's entitled resource revenue stabilization fund — I'm underlining the word "revenue" — the bill goes on into spending or expenditure. The bill goes beyond the subject of revenue stabilization and goes into how the money can be spent. If one looks at the detail of the bill, you see that the money can be spent for a variety of purposes. Retirement of debt, for example, is not specific as to which debt can be retired and which debt cannot. I wonder whether the intent is to make payments out only in respect to resource activities — Crown corporations, for example, involved in resource development — or does the wording of the act allow payments to be made out to any Crown corporation, any debt, whether resource related or not? That's a matter that does concern me. I wonder, for example, if the title wouldn't more properly be Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund and Disbursement Act. It involves spending out of a fund as well as simply revenue stabilization. In other words, what corporations will be involved? I gather that B.C. Rail is one. B.C. Rail obviously is conceived therefore as an instrument for resource development. What other Crown corporations fit into this category in addition to B.C. Rail?

[ Page 3930 ]

I agree with the repayment or paying off of the historic debt of B.C. Rail. I think that should have happened before now, but it is now in process of happening. The government, of course, could just as easily have borrowed $470 million and paid off the debt of B.C. Rail without stipulating that it come out of the resource revenue fund. The resource revenue fund existed a few years ago. After the legislation was passed, resource revenues increased for a while. Then they dipped — they fell off dramatically. That resource fund must be empty now; it must have been empty for a while. So where does the $470 million come from? It comes from the government borrowing anyway. So the money is not immediately out of the resource development fund. It may compensate the government in future. I assume the intention of the government is to be able in the future to channel money out of the resource fund into some other government fund in order to compensate the government for the $470 million. That's bookkeeping — that's money out of one pocket into another — and, as I said earlier, it doesn't concern me too much.

In addition, the government has invested, let's say, $500 million or $600 million in the Tumbler Ridge line. Perhaps the Minister of Finance will correct me on this, but my understanding is that that line has been physically turned over to B.C. Rail to operate. I'd be interested in knowing whether it is already the property of B.C. Rail. In any case, B.C. Rail will have received or is certainly able to operate an asset and, hopefully, to turn something of a profit on it. There was reference in the minister's remarks to dividends being payable by Crown corporations — I assume, resource development corporations — to the Crown. Perhaps the minister would tell us again — I think he told us in the House already — whether B.C. Rail, as a result of inheriting or obtaining operating title to the Tumbler Ridge line, is now committed to make a dividend payment in the next year or two or three of some order of magnitude that would be at least consistent with his remarks in the House.

But my main concern has to be: to what extent is this really a payment-out device, as distinct from simply a stabilization account? And if it involves payments out, to what Crown corporations? Is there a list? Presumably the government can add to or subtract from the list by order-in-council. Finally, relative to the Tumbler Ridge line, as a result of the government investing in the line in the form of equity, does the government have an understanding that dividends of a minimum amount will flow to the government as a result of that one-time outlay by the government?

[11:15]

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it is with no reluctance that I would oppose this act. The very nature of the act....

Its title is really, I think, misleading as to the true purpose of the act. The use of the word "stabilization" would tend to indicate that a regulation valve is being put into the flow of resource revenues. If I could carry the hydrological analogy a little bit further, it would tend to indicate that right now there is an overflow, an overabundance, that the stream is overspilling its banks, and that we want to divert some of this flow of revenue into a holding tank so that we could in the future, when we get into difficult economic times, put this extra resource revenue back into the necessary flow that we need to maintain our economic system. But of course that is preposterous. It is like seeking to build a diversion tank after somehow there has been something else diverting the flow of revenues at a higher point on the stream; and we find that the flow of revenue here.... It is not a problem of containing too much and what to do with an overabundance at this time. The real trouble that the government is in today is that there is a shortage, there is a deficit.

I think my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour said it very well. Maybe he reached different conclusions than I would reach about whether or not to support this bill, but he has said that these revenues are not really coming into government, that resource revenues are much lower than they have been in the past, that what would normally be a billion dollars a year in straight resource revenues from the various acts — from taxations indicated as revenue sources in the act — is now more like half a billion dollars. The prospects for an increase, or a return to the good old days of high resource revenues, are not that great. If we look at what is happening in the United States, in terms of.... One of the biggest returns to the province of British Columbia was from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, and that was the revenues from the export of natural gas. If we look at what is happening in the United States today, with the deregulation of interstate gas, and also with the incentive to drill deeper, and with the technological breakthrough which has occurred.... Only a few years ago it was conventional wisdom that below 20,000 feet there was no natural gas. Today we realize that below 20,000 feet there are at least ten times as many reserves as we have discovered in the shallow areas. In other words, the export of natural gas to the United States is not going to be a part of this regulation process that is going to be restored to our economy. In the United States they are discovering new sources of natural gas at a very high rate at depths of up to four miles, which until five years ago were thought to be absolutely impossible, except by a few very progressive independents in the field. So we can't look to that.

This act is not really about stabilization or regulation of the flow of resource revenue. Indeed, the previous act was brought in, and it was assented to on June 7, 1982, when we were in much the same economic problem as we're in today. The act which this act repeals was brought in again at that time. This word "stabilization" would tend to indicate that we were putting something away for a rainy day. If we were to bring in a resource revenue stabilization fund act at a time in which our gross provincial product, or gross domestic product, was expanding, maybe at the rate of 4 or 5 percent a year, then one could say that there might be some good arguments about whether we shouldn't just spend everything that we're collecting, or whether we should save some for a rainy day. However, the problem is that right now we don't have the resource revenues.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour said it exactly. All this act says is that we're going to take up to the half a billion dollars that we're collecting in resource revenues right now, and put them into the sinking funds of the BCR this year — $470 million. So that's where it's going to go this year. In order to replace that money the Crown is going to have to borrow against the regular operating expenses of the provincial government. We're going to have to borrow to pay for the day-to-day programs of government. This is the kind of thing that has not gone on since about 1952 or 1953 in this province — not under three very separate administrations.

Mr. Speaker, the disbursements under this act distinguish this act from the previous act that it repeals. Both claim to have the purpose of stabilizing the annual growth of revenue paid into the general fund. But I would submit that the growth

[ Page 3931 ]

of revenue paid into the fund depends upon the amount of revenue that is generated. Certainly, as my colleague the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) has pointed out, with the present practices in the Forests ministry we're not going to see any growth there to be regulated. It's going to be a further diminishing source of revenue. In natural gas, which is probably the most important, the prospects are very bleak. Indeed, even if we return to a normal growth in gross provincial product, because of government policies of supporting noneconomic coal ventures — that is, coal ventures that cannot be done by the private sector so they have to be bolstered by subsidy from the public sector — we have forgone taking resource revenue from the coal industry. So there is no growth of revenue here to regulate or, stabilize. The government's policies really have been to even diminish resource revenues or, in other cases, to rely upon expansion of certain growth resources. Anyone could have predicted that eventually the United States was going to have to deregulate natural gas, but this government never listened — just as years ago people like Dr. Morton Shulman predicted the government was going to have to get out of the business of regulating the price of gold. People who listened to Dr. Shulman, an NDP member of the provincial parliament, benefited handsomely. British Columbia might have benefited handsomely had they listened to the people who pointed out the obvious: that gas was going to be deregulated in the United States, with very deleterious effects to the revenues of the province of British Columbia.

It is not a matter that we have to compete....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, earlier in this debate — looking for the guidance of the Chair — I felt that it was appropriate. This deals with the receipt and disbursement of revenues from resources. It seems there might be other opportunities to discuss what actions government should or might take with respect to a variety of revenues; once they are received, whether at a low, medium or high level, this says where they go, how they are utilized and how they are disbursed. I know the explanatory note is not part of the legislation, but it speaks essentially of the disposition of the funds. I'm not talking about resource policy. We are speaking in this bill about the revenues which flow from those resources.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, the point of order is well taken. The principle is financial direction; the bill is, for that reason, in the hands of the Minister of Finance. Debate regarding the resource would not be relevant since the Minister of Finance does not have responsibility for the resource. The Minister of Finance is responsible for direction of revenue, and debate on that principle is in order.

MR. NICOLSON: Then before I continue my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would raise a point of order that this bill is out of order, as it appears not to be within the scope of the Minister of Finance to stabilize the annual growth of revenues. Would you so rule?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bill as presented is in order, and debate will continue. It's clearly in the hands of the Minister of Finance. It deals with financial direction and cannot deal with the resource.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't do such an honour as to even challenge such a ruling, or such damage to the House as to have such a ruling enshrined in the rulings of the House. I'm trying to protect the Chair, as a matter of fact.

I would suggest then that when we get into committee, maybe the minister would like to bring in an amendment to the title removing the word stabilization, and changing and clarifying it. I would suggest that clause 2(a) be amended and brought into line with some of the things that have been said about the bill. I can see in this bill why the government would want to do this. This is a government bill, a new government power, which can now be used to pay off debt in any Crown corporation that the government wants to sell and privatize. If it is a $1 million or $2 million debt load in some little Crown corporation that they want to sell to some of their friends, as they have been doing.... If they want to reduce the debt load of a particular corporation before dumping it, they can simply disburse these moneys.

As the member for North Vancouver–Seymour has said, the government is simply trying to bring in a means whereby they can pay off Crown corporation debts from what would appear to be an abundant source — that is, resource revenues. What the connection is, to people experienced in the Legislature, is certainly something that escapes him. As the member for North Vancouver–Seymour says, it is simply bookkeeping. The government is going to take the resource revenue, which is now down to about a half a billion dollars per year, and disburse that into reducing debt in some particular Crown corporation; and the government will have to borrow against the regular operations of the province. The continuation of this act, then, is simply a way of creating government borrowings without resort to the Legislature.

[11:30]

For instance we have had an annual debate on B.C. Hydro in this House, and it goes back to the days of W.A.C. Bennett. Once or twice the government has tried to hide that bill as just one section of an omnibus bill, but mostly that important decision, as it involves usually something like $600 million or $800 million or half a billion dollars, has been debated in the House. There has been an almost annual opportunity for members of this House to talk about the disbursement of the wealth of this province, which has been through direct borrowing, into B.C. Hydro.

This act will circumvent that. This act will mean that if the government resource revenues are high enough and if in a particular year there might be some very thorny political subject such as, let's say, Site C when it was at the height of its political concern.... If the government did not want the Site C debate to take place, it could then choose that particular year to feed B.C. Hydro its money through this vehicle. It might still have to go and do direct borrowing for the B.C. Systems Corporation or some other corporation. Mr. Speaker, this bill does circumvent the Legislature. It gives the government the opportunity not to embark upon any kind of a regular policy. The Crown corporation that could receive this kind of largess could change. This year it happens to be the BCR. Next year it could be B.C. Hydro — if they don't need an increase in borrowings of $1 billion, and I don't think they will. In another year it could be something else. This is most irregular.

The title does not describe what is really happening here. It is not a Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act: it is more of a resource revenue manipulation fund act. I think that it does not really do the dignity of this House of government

[ Page 3932 ]

or the esteem in which politics is even being held in the world today a great deal of good to bring in another transparent piece of legislation whose purpose is not financial, not economic, but purely political.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The overwhelming support of the government House Leader this morning is more than I am prepared for.

The history of this bill — or the roots, if you will — as I indicated in opening second reading debate, were first of all the resource revenue stabilization account, which was identified about three to four years ago; I'm subject to correction. That was an account established by the Ministry of Finance pending passage in this Legislature of the bill which is now being repealed and re-enacted. I refer to the resource revenue stabilization fund, which was assented to on June 7, 1982. And now this bill.

A few remarks in response to some of the comments which were made. I would very much like to speak about stumpage revenue, but having stood on a point of order when the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) was speaking, I will simply retain that information possibly for the use of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) when his estimates are called in Committee of Supply. On the Tumbler Ridge branch line, about which the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) asked, that rail line is currently owned and operated by the British Columbia Railway. I believe that was what the member indicated. Regarding payments from this fund when it is established and takes effect in the coming fiscal year, there is no restriction on payments to retire public direct or guaranteed debt. But I say to the House that the stated intention is to retire debt which is not self-supporting.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Stated earlier and restated today, Mr. Member.

After the British Columbia Railway debt which was alluded to specifically on budget day and again in introducing second reading, there is the opportunity given to the executive council to repay direct debt and possibly debt incurred for social capital purposes such as hospitals and schools.

There were also a couple of comments with respect to the title of the bill. One member indicated that the word "disbursements" should be added. I would simply note that the consolidated revenue fund, a fund which is historic in this province, is a fund from which all disbursements are made. I respectfully suggest, therefore, that there is no need for the inclusion of the word "disbursements" in the title.

The stabilization question. By in future excluding resource revenue from general fund revenues, the government's operating expenditures will not be as dependent on the volatile revenue source. I noted with interest that members on both sides acknowledged the nature of resource revenues, in this province, whether under this government, the former government, the government before that, or going back over many decades. It is a volatile source of funds for the government of the day, with expansion and decline of markets. So we will not have the same degree of dependency on that source of funds which can swing so dramatically in terms of expansion and contraction of the economy. In future, any fluctuation in resource revenue will affect only the amount of debt the government can retire. It will not affect the operating expenditures which the government can make, and which the government of the day would present to this House to be voted on in the usual manner.

I have a couple of other points regarding stabilization of resource revenues paid into the general fund. That stabilization factor has not been abandoned; it's been given a lower priority. In future, when non-self-supporting debt has been repaid, the fund will continue as a stabilization fund.

I started these closing remarks by pointing out that this is not a dramatic change in this government's policy when one considers that there was announced some time ago the establishment, first of all — because we lacked the legislative authority — of a resource revenue stabilization account. That was simply an identification within the general parameters of the consolidated revenue fund. Then we came to the House and received authority to actually establish the resource revenue stabilization fund, the 1982 bill. This one goes just that much further. It is a natural progression, in my view.

I want to thank my colleagues in government. While they were not aware of the precise measure that was going to be introduced in Bill 6, insofar as it was a budget-day bill, I certainly want to thank my colleagues on this side of the House for their support of the extension of this principle. I think that it is an important measure for us to have taken, and to restate today. I look forward to answering more detailed questions to the best of my ability when this particular bill is called for debate in committee.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 6.

[11:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 14

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

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I draw your attention to the Orders of the Day under "Meetings of Committees." I note that four committees are proposed to meet when the House is in session. I'm not aware of any dispensation which has been granted by the House for committee conveners to convene a committee when the House is in session.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The point is well taken. We were aware of it, Mr. Speaker. We were proposing to request leave

[ Page 3933 ]

on the days in question. But in order to save time, I would request leave today for each of these committees to sit, as indicated in the order paper, while the House is in session.

MR. SPEAKER. Hon. members, I will entertain that at the conclusion of the motion by the Minister of Finance, who now moves....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm sure it was not intended as a diversionary tactic, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 6, Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I request leave, as indicated a moment ago.

MRS. WALLACE: Is the agriculture committee included to meet on Thursday?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the debate we're engaged in at this time could possibly best be handled outside the House by the respective Whips or House Leaders. Debate on this would certainly be best discussed....

MRS. WALLACE: Yes. On the point of order, I have found the place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am somewhat concerned to see the agriculture committee listed there, inasmuch as none of the three members from the opposition are able to be present at that time. I so inform the convener.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave is requested, hon. members. Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.