[ Page 7061 ]

CONTENTS

Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 71). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 7061

Oral Questions

Employment. Mr. Skelly –– 7061

Tabling Documents –– 7063

Municipal Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 62). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 7063

Division –– 7065

Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 (Bill 45). Hon. Mr. Curtis. Committee stage –– 7065

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Howard

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Blencoe

Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985 (Bill 54). Hon. Mr. Curtis.

Committee stage –– 7070

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

Motor Fuel Tax Act (Bill 63). Hon. Mr. Curtis. Committee stage –– 7075

Third reading

Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act (Bill 2). Hon. A. Fraser. Committee stage –– 7075

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Skelly

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Cocke

Third reading

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 (Bill 60). Hon. A. Fraser. Committee stage –– 7079

Mr. Cocke

Forestry For The Future Act (Bill M201). Second reading

Mr. Howard –– 7081

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 7081

An Act To Regulate Smoking In Public Places (Bill M202). Second reading

Mrs. Wallace –– 7082

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7083

An Act To Declare British Columbia A Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (Bill M203).

Second reading

Mr. Macdonald –– 7083

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7084

Appendix –– 7085

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Braving the weather today — that is, the local weather in Victoria — and visiting us are a number of students from the grade 11 social studies class at Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School in Vancouver. I would like all the members in the House to welcome them and show them our best behaviour. That's the best you could do.

Mr. Speaker, just to follow up, I know that it was a day trip to Victoria, and I know we all wish them a successful re-entry into the lower mainland this evening, because there's some difficulty with that.

MR. REID: Also some dedicated people from sunny Surrey have journeyed across into this stormy weather in Victoria. It's with pleasure that I introduce from Parks and Recreation of Surrey one of the hardest-working people I've had the opportunity to work for for the last few years, Mr. Bob Vaughan. Also with him is Mr. Wolf Renner. Would the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Also braving the weather today we have, I see, in the gallery today two gentlemen: the chairman of the UBCM, Mr. Dan Cumming; and with Dan, Richard Taylor, who has taken over from Jeff McKelvey as the executive director of the UBCM. Would the House please welcome these gentlemen.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Also in your gallery this afternoon are two gentleman from Surrey. Incidentally, the sun is shining in Surrey; we don't have this snow over there. I'd like the House to welcome Ted Clarke and Mike Cook, who are members of our Parks and Recreation Commission.

Introduction of Bills

CAPITAL COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

To make a few remarks with respect to the bill, it contains minor amendments. I think members of the House will be reassured of that point. It authorizes an increase by one of the membership of the commission, to more accurately reflect population in the greater Victoria area. It also responds to several matters which have been raised by commission members over time, seeking a change in legislation.

Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

EMPLOYMENT

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Premier. Contrary to the Premier's recent glowing statements, Statistics Canada reports there are now 70,000 fewer people working in British Columbia than there were in July 1981, 110,000 more people unemployed in this province, and tens of thousands more people on welfare than there were back in 1981. Has the Premier developed a plan to present to this session of the Legislature to deal with the employment and poverty crisis in this province?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the plan is already in effect.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're against everything we've ever done.

MR. SKELLY: I'm against everything you've done to create that amount of unemployment and that amount of poverty in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in the last several weeks a number of plants have announced that they're shutting down in the province of B.C.: Dominion Glass, 300 jobs lost; Westar, laying off an additional 191 people; Eurocan, 105; an elevator in Prince Rupert, 275; MacMillan Bloedel, 90 jobs lost; Seaspan in Victoria, 80 jobs lost; Duncan, 500 jobs lost; and 500 apprentice training cuts.

Does the Premier have any plan to deal with the number of plants that are shutting down and the number of jobs that are being lost? Clearly his current plan is not working in this province. We have a session of the Legislature. Has the Premier a plan to submit to this session of the Legislature so that we can get those people back to work?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's too bad the Leader of the Opposition is once again being selective, because he could have, in the same preamble to his questions, announced a number of new plants that are opening, new jobs that are developing through many communities in this province that are a result of the municipal-provincial partnership and are a result of the tax cuts and are a result of the critical industries...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...commission, which continues to work on industries. It was a commission that the Leader of the Opposition laughed at, and yet the steelworkers' union in this province is proud of that legislation. Their workers are back at work today because they've been part of the partnership. That is why they no longer have confidence in the New Democratic Party and whatever leadership is being exhibited. That is why the partnership program and tax cuts. Work is going on with the municipalities in partnership, the federal-provincial agreements under ERDA are assisting small businesses to expand and new businesses to locate. We've had a number of businesses

[ Page 7062 ]

announced. I've been present at the sod-turning in Kamloops for the Armco-Stelco steel ball plant. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't care about Kamloops. He doesn't care about the interior, and we all know he doesn't care about the north.

I want to tell him that the workers at Brenda Mines are glad to be back at work because of legislation and as part of our economic renewal package. It has provided not only new jobs in many areas but restored jobs in mines and in the forest industry. The workers at Vic Ply are glad not only to be working but to be owners of their own facility. That's a plan that is working. This plan will continue to work.

Yes, this province still has fewer employed than we did at the peak before the international recession. The international recession hit the resource industries not only of our province but of the world. It hit them hard. It hit where demand and price are beyond the control not only of provinces but countries. But we have reacted to it with the only program in North America, the critical industries commission, which gives special attention to those industries in forestry and mining. We can do something about the problem. We can get workers and management and government together, using our hydroelectricity as an economic tool and lowering industrial rates to restore jobs and make those firms competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you it is working. It's being looked at in a number of areas. This province went through a tough time, as did all of the industrialized countries. We were hit hard, but we didn't deny the recession. We took strong action. We had strong programs because we took strong action. We are the only jurisdiction in this country that was able to bring in major industrial incentives and tax cuts at the same time as we contained our deficit. The deficit in Manitoba continues to climb and grow to be one of the highest per capita in this country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair must observe that the asking of open-ended questions can hardly do anything but elicit an open-ended response. If we are to maintain the purpose of question period, then it is the responsibility to ask brief questions, and we will then have brief responses.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing open-ended about the question.

I have another specific question to the Premier. There were 12,000 jobs lost between the second quarter of 1981 and the second quarter of 1985 in forestry and mining in British Columbia. There were 42,000 jobs lost in manufacturing in the same period in British Columbia. There were 26,000 jobs lost in construction during the same period in British Columbia. There were 17,000 jobs lost in transportation, utilities and communication in the same period in British Columbia. What plan does the Premier have to present to this session of the Legislature to deal with these job losses that are continuing to take place in the province? Or will the Premier admit that he has no effective plans at all?

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member again invites a response, because the plan is working. He uses as his time-frame the peak of employment in 1981, prior to the recession. I have to tell the Leader of the Opposition that the economic indicators in this province have been going up for the last number of months. We're in the second year of positive economic growth. New jobs are being created. The labour force has been increasing these last two years from the depths it reached in the height of the recession. I agree; there was a recession. It's nice that the opposition now recognizes that an international recession did hit us, and it needed a government with guts and courage in order to face it, which we did.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. The unemployment rate in Manitoba is 6.5 percent; Saskatchewan, 6.9 percent; Ontario, 7.1 percent; Alberta, 8.5 percent; British Columbia, 13.5 percent — second only to Newfoundland. The statistics are showing that people are moving away from British Columbia and back to those areas where employment is being generated. Will the Premier tell this session of the Legislature, and present to this Legislature, a plan to resolve the unemployment crisis and the poverty crisis in British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the province has a plan that is working. I don't know where the Leader of the Opposition has always been, but I know that every time this government has placed before this Legislature, or before the people of B.C., an initiative that creates employment and broadens the economic activity — whether it's the northern transportation system, job development, the critical industries commission or other — they not only oppose it, but they oppose such plans as yet undertaken, such as a Vancouver Island gas pipeline. The Leader of the Opposition opposed the construction of Site C Dam, and do you know what he said? Why, he said he opposed it because it was just a few temporary jobs for construction workers. What he has said is that he is against construction workers and that their jobs are not important to him. If he wants to take issue with the reports of his statement and attack the media, then let the Leader of the Opposition attack the media. But I want to tell you that we are out to help the construction workers; we want them to build dams; we want them to build new plants and new secondary industry. I want to tell you that as much as you have opposed Expo....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I hear a very high-pitched scream from the member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), who perhaps wasn't here when we had the opposition at that time criticizing Expo, saying we shouldn't be proceeding with it, and saying it was taking money from other services that were needed for people, even though they knew it was being financed off-budget by Expo and Lotto 6-49, and did not compete. It is only lately that they are jumping onto the bandwagon, clinging by their fingernails, and saying: "Oh, we were never against Expo." It was just a few months ago, up in the great Cariboo with the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Hon. A. Fraser), the most popular political figure in the interior of British Columbia, that we had an Expo meeting picketed by people who were against Expo, and do you know who was carrying the picket sign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Why, the candidate for the NDP in the last election. That's who it was. His leader says one

[ Page 7063 ]

thing, the member for Vancouver East has a different energy policy from his leader, and it's not surprising that every individual NDP member in this province — those that are left — make up their own version of what the NDP thinks at any given moment on any given day.

MR. SKELLY: His dad could do it a lot better than he could, but his father could also create jobs a lot better than he could; and that's part of the problem in this province: the son doesn't meet the measure of the father.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in this Legislature the NDP voted in favour — because our position was misrepresented by the Premier — of the critical industries commissioner. But at the same time we ask this Premier: why is it that of families going into poverty between 1981 and 1984 in Canada, 1 percent were in Manitoba, 25 percent nationally and 65 percent in the province of British Columbia? And you can't resolve that problem by circuses. You can't resolve that problem by critical industries commissioners who patch leaky boats and restore a few jobs. We need a plan in this province. I ask the Premier to table in the Legislature during this session his plan to put those 70,000 people back to work; his plan to deal with the problem of 110,000 people on unemployment insurance, and his plan to deal with the growing poverty crisis in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, could the Leader of the Opposition just clarify for me which circus he says we don't need? You're calling Expo a circus? Mr. Speaker, there again — every time he's in trouble something slips out that he doesn't want to say. Every time he's in trouble he says something and then spends two months trying to clarify it. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will continue on a month-to-month basis, from now until 1986 and 1987 and 1988, talking about the change in the statistics of employment and growth in this province. I want him to continue to ask, month after month, day after day, as our economy improves and as people go back to work, and the visible proof of our plans takes place and is evident to the people of British Columbia.... Today the Leader of the Opposition has committed himself to this course, to continually bring up and compare, month to month, day after day, how much we have progressed on a regular basis. I tell him I will welcome his doing this month after month. At some time in the future the Leader of the Opposition will probably want to cross the floor and join this party himself. But I want to tell him that we don't want him.

I was pleased to hear that the NDP retroactively recognizes the great contribution of my father, the late W.A.C. Bennett, to this province. He did build a province — with some opposition from the NDP. But I've got to tell you that part of his success was that he had strong, dynamic opposition leaders, and when I get one, we'll do even better.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the bell terminates what usually passes for question period.

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know full well that I am not at liberty to call the Premier a liar — and I am not....

MR. SPEAKER: Even by the very mention of the word you cross the bounds of good taste and parliamentary decorum. I would ask the member to retract and start again.

MR. HOWARD: The statements that the Premier made distorted the facts, maligned the NDP....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, although we may from time to time dispute remarks made by one another, we cannot gain the floor on a point of order to further the argument. Notwithstanding the member's concern, this is hardly the forum or the method by which to rebut the remarks. I would commend that to the member.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: He's not willing to stand here and listen to it. If you would prefer, I'd be glad to discuss it with the Premier outside, and then I can tell him what I think of him.

Hon. Mr. Richmond tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Tourism for 1984-85.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before recognizing the House Leader I would advise members that because of the inclement weather the library may not be able to provide the usual full service later today, and we should expect some reasonable lessening of the service tomorrow as well.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 62, Mr. Speaker.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate, I would like to respond to a few points made by some of the members of the opposition with respect to Bill 62. I'd like to start by responding to the last speaker, the Leader of the Opposition. But before doing so, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that all of those who spoke on the opposition side skirted entirely the bill itself, which is a sign that indeed they see no problem, nor do they have any argument, with this legislation. They all skirted around things that had nothing to do directly with the bill itself.

In any case, responding first of all to the Leader of the Opposition, he talked about the process. Obviously he was not at all in touch with the process or how this bill was developed, nor did he make any inquiries ahead of time. But just for his benefit, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to point out that the process of this bill was a very open one. Whenever it was first decided that we would proceed with some further amendments to the land-use section of the Municipal Act...that we would appoint a committee from outside of the ministry that was made up of representation of the municipalities, regional districts and the private organizations that are affected by this legislation. I believe I have a copy of the groups that were in there, but working from memory, we had representation from the Planning Institute, the development industry and the house-builders. In any case, the bill was put together from those deliberations and first introduced in this House in July, giving for a number of months all municipalities and regional districts, and any others who were interested a chance to study the bill and come forward with any proposals that they may have for amendments.

[ Page 7064 ]

[2:30]

The bill then went to the UBCM, where I stood before all of the regional directors of the province to answer all their questions, and also before the representation of the municipalities. A number of meetings were held at that same convention, where we listened to some comments and proposals in respect of amendments to the bill. So the bill was very well formulated; the process was very open, and the amendments that were put forward were thoroughly discussed with UBCM later. I believe all of those proposals were adopted without changing the intent of the bill.

He also made some mention of my practice of listening to the public in respect of any bylaws that may come for my approval. I would like the member of the opposition and his colleagues to know that I will continue to ask questions and invite observations on any bylaw that comes to me for approval. But under no circumstances will I delegate that authority to anyone else; never have and never will. All bylaws that require my approval will get my approval if acceptable, and my approval only. But I am not at all about to change my method of asking questions of those outside with respect to any bylaw that comes to my attention.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was somewhat critical about the time that it took to develop some legislation that would allow for temporary zoning. I was surprised at that, but then on the other hand he did get up to speak on Bill 62, and since there was nothing in there that he could criticize constructively or otherwise, he had to choose something else. It was somewhat personally disappointing to me, however, realizing that I did give him the opportunity of a meeting, and we did discuss in all good faith the need for this temporary legislation, and I assured him it would be going forward at the quickest moment. However, I excuse him for being so picky on such a little item, because there was really nothing else that he could stand and talk about with respect to the bill.

He also had some criticism about input to the amendments. Little does he know that the amendments originated with the people who will be working with this legislation. So how can he truly stand up and criticize the input into amendments when indeed the input came from the municipalities and regional districts themselves?

Then, of course, we get into dealing with the comments of my critic, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who started out by saying: "We thank you for the legislation. However," he's saying, "we are losing regional planning. We need to create more planning because when you create more planning you create more jobs." Well, let that member clearly know that under no circumstances will I permit the development of unnecessary planning that is going to place a very heavy financial burden on the taxpayer of this province. The member thinks we should be funding an institute that he thinks we should just keep on planning. I want that member to know, Mr. Speaker, that the regional plan is gone, and it is gone to stay. There will be no centralized planning in this province as you people see it. No more dictatorial decisions from a central office, no more veto decisions by central boards over the land-use decisions of local municipalities. That is gone, and I hope gone forever in this province. That member should....

Interjection.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You had your chance to speak, so don't natter from your seat. You had your opportunity to speak, and you didn't take it.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I'd like that member to know that indeed the regional plan as we see it is working in a voluntary way. Under the system now, any plan that is done is made available to immediate neighbouring municipalities or areas so that they too can review those plans and highlight anything that may be detrimental to their planning, or where they can foresee a problem arise as that plan is laid out. Under no circumstances will we get back to your dictatorial...back to your central control over municipalities of this province. Municipalities are entitled to make their own land-use decisions without being ruled by a central office in some other part of the province. That is gone, and gone forever.

We will continue, Mr. Speaker, to do planning, but planning that is necessary in order to keep our communities growing in an orderly fashion, to create the sort of life environment that we want for our people. It won't be directed to support a group of people who want to plan for the sake of planning, who would be motivated by those on the other side of the House who believe that the only way you can control people is through their land. So your idea of control through the regional plan, my friend, is gone forever.

He also mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the terrible thing that we did with the Islands Trust. That member should know that today the Islands Trust is functioning very well, thank you. Things that are healthy for all of the islands are developing along the way. As I've said many times in this chamber, the Islands Trust is doing a good job, and will continue to do a good job. Our policy is to protect those islands, and we will continue to do so; and we're doing it in a manner that is without the socialist influence of those people who believe they should use this as a vehicle to forward their own desires. The Islands Trust is functioning today in a very orderly, responsible manner. Things are working very well, thank you.

Then he goes on to talk again on the parameters of the legislation — which he has no argument with — and about the need for an infrastructure program. Oh, yes, here he is, jumping on the bandwagon of Mayor Mike Harcourt, who headed up a committee that, along with the federation of municipalities, decided there was a need in this country for a multi-billion-dollar investment in infrastructure. I want that member to know I disagreed with that program and that recommendation, first of all because they ignored the small communities of this province. In that study they ignored all of the small communities of the interior and northern part of this province. When they come back with a recommendation that recognizes all of the people of this province and not just the big centres, then we can look at it.

That member forgets that this government has already got in place a policy that provides revenue-sharing to all municipalities in this province for the provision of services for infrastructure. That has been going on for some years, and will continue. We have provinces that haven't done that. For instance, Saskatchewan is in terrible need of funding for infrastructure, only because the NDP government which ruled that province for so many years allowed it to deteriorate — unlike British Columbia, where funding has been made available on a regular basis for those services. They need it.

[ Page 7065 ]

But this is not the time for us to be asking a federal government to bail us out of problems that we have created ourselves, such as in Saskatchewan, particularly a government that has already got a tremendous job on its hands trying to reduce a deficit which they inherited.

Mr. Speaker, this government will continue with its policy of providing funding through revenue-sharing to put in the infrastructures required in this province. As the economy of the province improves, the amount of funding available will increase, and more and more services will be provided. Under no circumstances will we endorse a program that Harcourt is pushing in this province, one that ignores the small communities of British Columbia. That is a policy that his party supports, and he should be ashamed of it.

Mr. Speaker, he also talked about development permits. Yes, we dealt with development permits. Development permits are here to stay. The development permit process is a good process. But under no circumstances would we allow the continuation of a system whereby a developer could find himself unsure whether there was a development permit or not. Nor would we tolerate the continuance of a system whereby the developer could be running back and forth and never knowing exactly what next would be expected of him under that development permit system. The cost that this was creating in the industry was passed through to the consumer — the people who have to buy or rent those homes. That's a cost that they cannot bear. In spite of your ignorance of that fact, that change is necessary. It's a healthy one, and it's one that has been accepted by both the industry and the municipalities involved. The development permit will stay, but there will be some accountability, and there will be some opportunity for the developer to know exactly what he's getting into before he starts investing in a community.

He talked about the settlement plan. Oh, the terrible things that we're going to be doing there! According to this member, we're going to be taking the democratic right away from that one elected person in an electoral area as to whether there should be a plan or not. Shame on you! How disgusting that you should stand up and say that we should not listen to the people of this province! I can assure you that this government will listen to the people. Wherever the people say by a very large majority that they don't wish to have that plan, then we're going to recognize the wishes of the people and not some person who you think should have that dictatorial power.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is designed to streamline, to bring in accountability, to cut the unnecessary costs through the elimination of unnecessary regulation and red tape, so that we can see the industry deliver homes to the people of this province at a cost that they can afford, whether buying or renting. It's designed as people legislation — not legislation for the legislators but legislation for the legislated. Therefore it gives me a great deal of pleasure to move second reading.

[2:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

NAYS — 17

Bill 62, Municipal Amendment Act, 1985, 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. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 45.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

The House in committee on Bill 45; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had some discussion about the treating of confidential documents. Perhaps we can get a little more light on it today and less heat. In response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition, who queried the fact that considerable material was in the back of a truck for the period of a week, the minister said that considerable material was not confidential. What I'm wondering about is that portion that was confidential. Can the minister assure us, for example, with respect to section 1 dealing with the Corporation Capital Tax Act, that corporation capital tax returns were not in that truck, sitting there for a week, or does he have any information as to just exactly what material was sitting in that truck for a week?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the information which was offered by the Leader of the Opposition in question period yesterday was not correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was false and erroneous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I stay with the statement: I am informed that the information which he offered was not correct.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps we would like to have a little more information than that. I suppose we're talking about the information the Leader of the Opposition offered with respect to the fact that some of this material was in an open truck, unattended, for a week. Is that the information that the minister is speaking about when he says it's not correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I restate the answer that I gave just a few moments ago. What we are dealing with in section 1, however, is that a public official who has custody or control over taxpayer information or records is specifically disallowed from disclosing any of the information or records, except in four restricted circumstances. These circumstances are: for the administration of a taxation statute; in court proceedings pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement,

[ Page 7066 ]

about which we spoke yesterday; to share information for tax administration purposes; and for statistical comparison purposes by a government. We're speaking therefore in this section in quite a narrow sense, and that is the confidential withholding of information within a ministry — in this case, the Ministry of Finance — should someone seek to obtain that information by means of a visit or a letter or a telephone call.

MR. STUPICH: I don't think it's quite that simple. We are talking about someone who does have custody of information; to that point, I think we agree. But it would seem to me that this person has responsibility to withhold information, not simply when that person is being asked for information but also to make sure that such information does not come into the hands of people who should not have it inadvertently. Having custody, certainly in my mind, doesn't simply mean that the person will say no to anyone who asks. It also includes some responsibility for making sure that there is adequate custody of that material. Now I ask again: can the minister tell us where he got the information that reassures him that there was no confidential information sitting in the back of that truck?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated yesterday, and I indicate again today, that insofar as I have been able to determine, the allegation which was offered by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to material sitting in "the back of an open truck for a week" — very close to that — was not correct. I undertake for the member for Nanaimo and for the House to verify that fact within the next day or two of the House.

MR. STUPICH: We're making progress now, and that's really all I wanted. The minister has admitted it was with reference to that truck, and I'd like to ask another question on it. I think perhaps it might not be in order; I'll try it out and see whether or not it is. If the material in the back of that truck for a week was largely old telephone books and blank computer paper, my question is how much it is costing the Crown to store that kind of material per unit of garbage, and how long that kind of garbage is kept in warehouses on which the Crown is paying rent. I think maybe it's not appropriate under this section; I'll try it at another time.

MRS. WALLACE: I've been reading the Blues, and I note that the Minister of Finance told us yesterday in his statement that the material that was stored in the warehouse.... "Some of it related to corporate capital tax returns and working papers on various individual corporate tax material...." Now this particular amendment has not yet passed, and I note that it's repealing section 28 of the existing act. If I may just read in part subsection 28(1): "A person having the custody or control of any return, form or other document or papers filed under this act shall not communicate, or allow to be communicated, to any person not legally entitled to information obtained under the act, or allow any person not legally entitled to inspect or have access to a return made under this act."

Now it seems to me that when this government and that minister allow such an irresponsible handling of those confidential returns as to have them, as the minister said, on the floor of a warehouse which could be accessed by the company who had the contract, which obviously was accessed by the people who hauled the papers out, which was accessed by the owner of the warehouse.... I believe that contravenes that section, and I think this minister has to make some kind of stronger review of what has happened. I don't see how changing the act by this particular amendment is going to do anything to prevent — in fact it weakens it — that kind of thing from happening.

Now under the act, that should not have happened. Those papers should not have been blowing in the wind on the floor of a warehouse, and I'm not at all sure that by amending it.... In this new form it certainly isn't going to prevent it from happening. In fact, it perhaps weakens that, so there is less responsibility to ensure that those papers aren't blowing in the wind for anyone who wishes to see them.

[3:00]

MR. HOWARD: The question of keeping records confidential where that is a requirement by statute was abridged by this government as announced by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) yesterday. The Attorney-General yesterday said that the government — when it came to the question of dealing with someone who had control over information and records and was obliged by statute not to disclose that information, to keep it confidential — overrode that law, broke that law, and pawed its way through confidential documents. The Attorney-General said that yesterday with respect to confidentiality. It violated a statute, in my view, which was much more stringent than the proposed clause before us, because here some information can be given out if it's for statistical purposes, etc., etc.

In the other act that was violated, the law that was broken as announced yesterday, the requirement for confidentiality was much tighter, much more precise. It was the confidentiality requirement placed by this Legislature upon an employee and an officer of this Legislature — not an officer of government, but of the Legislative Assembly. When the Attorney-General told this Legislature yesterday that his deputy had diligently searched the records of the ombudsman's office, by what authority does he do that? The Attorney-General of the province stands up and says: "Yes, my deputy went into the ombudsman's office" or "the ombudsman sent the records over to our office so we could look at them." However they got together, I don't know. But when the Attorney-General said yesterday that his deputy had diligently searched the records of the ombudsman, he overrode completely the question of confidentiality and invaded the statutory requirements surrounding the ombudsman and surrounding confidentiality and privileged information there and opened up the whole question of citizens in British Columbia having what they may or do perceive to be legitimate complaints against the operation of government. Whether they're found to be legitimate or correct is subject to examination after they start the complaint. But citizens have the right to register and lodge complaints on a completely privileged and confidential basis with the ombudsman, who is an officer of this Legislature. And when the Attorney-General, the chief law enforcement officer of this House, stands up and says, "I, as the minister, said that my deputy diligently searched those records," he is sanctioning a violation of the law about confidentiality and privileged information that people have.

What's coming next? Is this a government that wants to search through the records of the ombudsman, say, with respect to a public servant who lodges a complaint with the ombudsman, overrides the confidentiality and the privileged

[ Page 7067 ]

position to find out who it is that is lodging complaints against the government and then fires them? Hound them out of office? Act like fascists in other countries do with respect to legitimate, honest rights of citizens of the province? Is that what we're up to? I submit to you that with the attitude of that nature exhibited and disclosed yesterday by the Attorney-General in this House, with an attitude of that nature on the part of government, all this business that a person who has custody or control of documents, et cetera, shall keep them confidential, means absolutely nothing if the government wants to move in and override that, and set itself above the law, and make itself lord and master over human rights and establish itself as judge, jury and prosecutor. Nothing more heinous, nothing more insidious can take place when a government places itself above the law.

The law in the Ombudsman Act says that a certain thing should take place, namely confidentiality, and the Attorney-General then stands up in this House and says: "We've put that to one side. We didn't pay any attention to that. We diligently searched the records of the ombudsman's office...." In another instance he calls it the ombudsman's department, indicating that in his mind it's a department of government. He indicates that it is the view of this government that the ombudsman's office is a department of government, which it isn't. It's an office of this Legislature established to protect the rights of citizens. It means that we have a government that has no regard for the law, if it suits its own sinister purpose to override that law. There must be something sinister involved when the chief law enforcement officer of the province will stand up and say: "Yes, we went into the ombudsman's office and searched the records. We disregarded the question of confidentiality." Now they either brushed the current acting ombudsman to one side and said, "Get out of the way. We're going to look at your documents," or they did it with his acquiescence, which is worse still, because then the acting ombudsman is violating his oath of office by permitting that to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe it happened at night.

MR. HOWARD: It's not a question of when it happened; it did happen. I take the word of the Attorney-General that it happened; he said so standing in his place in this House yesterday. And his words are there for all to see. It's law and what is upright and honourable in terms of respect for the law. It either means something in this land and this province to all of us here, or it doesn't mean something. The government is indicating that so far as it is concerned, it has no respect for the law. It will violate the law to suit its own scant political purposes. It did it yesterday. The Attorney-General said that he did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Skeena will take his place. The Minister of Finance has risen on a point of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with one section of a bill which deals with the confidentiality of material while it is in the hands of the Ministry of Finance. I only suggest to the committee that it might be more appropriate for the debate which the member for Skeena has embarked upon to raise that under estimates or perhaps at some time under the Document Disposal Act. There is a statute which deals with the disposal of documents.

This section, to continue the point of order, deals with material while it is in the control of officials and individuals and employees in the Ministry of Finance and ensures that while in the hands of the Ministry of Finance those records cannot be accessed except under those exceptions spelled out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To respond to that point of order, during this line of questioning some latitude has been allowed the minister and the member for Nanaimo, the member for Cowichan-Malahat and also the member for Skeena. But clearly, hon. members, section 1 does deal with the Corporation Capital Tax Act. It is a bill of the Minister of Finance, and it has to do with disclosing the information. I wonder if we could maintain debate on the specific subject of section 1. I'm sure the member for Skeena can do this.

MR. HOWARD: What I was seeking to do, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order, was to point out that yes, section 1 of the bill says that "a person who has custody of or control over information or records under this Act shall not disclose the information or records to any other person except...."And then it sets out four enumerated exceptions.

I am trying to point out, by referring to the attitude of this government with respect to records in another office that has, by law, a much more stringent requirement with respect to confidentiality, that the government violated that by the admission of the Attorney-General. If that is the case in one instance, as the Attorney-General said it was, then what's the purpose of this? This is a meaningless piece of garbage legislation.

If the government has the attitude that it has no respect for confidentiality, for the rights of citizens in this province to have their information kept as privileged information between the government and those citizens, whether it is tax records or anything else.... If it will in one instance ignore the force of the law with respect to confidentiality to suit its own purpose, then it will likely do it in another instance if the occasion arises. That was the comparison I was trying to draw.

I think if you follow that kind of argument along, Mr. Chairman, you will see that the point of order, I would submit, by the Minister of Finance is not well founded at all. But I still make that case, that it's a meaningless bit of huffery and puffery the Minister of Finance in a very unctuous way put forward to say, "We respect confidentiality of citizens' records in this land," when he knows very well, because he's in the same cabinet as the Attorney-General is, that that confidence question was violated, ripped apart either with or without the acquiescence of the current ombudsman. Action of that nature is obviously, I think, designed — because this is the second and third attempt to do it — to destroy the office of the ombudsman because the government doesn't want it around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We are now very much straying from section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, but I just put forward that contention to you, that a government that will break the law once will break it again, and there's the government over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, this is becoming quite unparliamentary. We have a section which is

[ Page 7068 ]

quite specific dealing first of all with the Corporation Capital Tax Act and that's all; secondly, dealing with the Ministry of Finance. The operative verb there is "disclose," and that is really the specifics of the section before us.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in what the minister said when he rose on the point of order, that this section deals only with documents — that the Minister of Finance only has responsibility for the confidentiality of documents when they are under the control of the Ministry of Finance.

My question for the minister is: does he still have responsibility for documents once having disposed of them under contract and by sale?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that seeks a legal opinion which I will not and cannot provide. I am not legally trained. I would point out that there is another statute which deals with document disposal, and there is indeed a process of signoff in all ministries. It has existed for a good number of years. Finally the material is signed off by the public accounts committee.

Now I realize that I myself am straying from the section. But the question is not germane to this section of this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says that he can't give me an answer because it would be a legal opinion. Why then, if he's not sure whether he has jurisdiction, was he able to rush in and remove documents that he had already sold? If he doesn't have control over them, then why did he do it? Under what authority did he do that? If he did have then, it's strange that if he knew that then, he doesn't know it now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, again I'll state that this section is quite specific, and it does say that disclosure is not permitted, with four exceptions. That's specifically the gist of this section, and I think we should confine our debate to that. As the minister has indicated, there is another statute that governs what the member has been questioning. If we could retain our remarks to section 1 and its specifics, the committee would be well served.

[3:15]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Under section 1, there is a portion of that section which, of course, deals with confidentiality of the information. It says very clearly: "A person who has custody of or control over information or records under this act shall not disclose the information or records to any other persons except" as is outlined in the following conditions. I think it points very clearly to the conditions described, ensuring the confidentiality of that material.

When the ministry takes on the responsibility and, in fact, the moral obligation to ensure such confidentiality of information, the ministry must assume responsibility to maintain that control over that material until the material has in fact been destroyed. The minister has said that there's a procedure for signoff, but surely any minister who is responsible for ensuring confidentiality of information would not be prone to sign off material if he didn't know that that material was to be destroyed immediately, and that its confidentiality would be ensured. If the minister is saying that he does sign off material without knowing its whereabouts or knowing about the ultimate demise of that material, then he's breaching this regulation of confidentiality.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member may then wish to bring forward a motion at an appropriate time which could be dealt with. We are dealing here with a key word, and that is "disclose." The member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) was not, perhaps, in the committee when I answered earlier, but I recall clearly that yesterday when we were dealing with this in second reading debate I indicated, in response to the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — who is not in his seat at the moment — that from time to time inquiries are made of individuals in the Ministry of Finance regarding tax information which is not theirs.

That really is what this section is about, in spite of the excitement of yesterday. With the exceptions of those which are spelled out clearly in the section, no one shall disclose information relative to a number of tax statutes. We are seeking in this section only to make that far more precise, and also to ensure that when an inquiry comes from whatever source — from a member of this House, a professional, an individual, an aggrieved person or someone who would like information from within the Ministry of Finance on tax matters — with, again, the exceptions that are spelled out, that is not permitted to happen. We are not, in the section, dealing with disposal of documents. We are dealing with disclosure, sir.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister makes some good points about disclosure, but I have some questions for him in terms of the whole question of accidental disclosure and information that relates to corporation capital tax information. I'm going to ask the minister how he prevents accidental disclosure in terms of this material sitting in government buildings, when it's completed or not used or not required anymore. Could the minister tell us what mechanisms he has in place to prevent accidental disclosure in government buildings? What is done with this information? Where is it stored, particularly if it's highly confidential? What mechanisms has he in place to prevent accidental disclosure of sensitive material?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question is somewhat hypothetical. The section reads, "A public official who has custody of or control over taxpayer information or records under this Act shall not disclose the information or records," except in four restricted circumstances. These circumstances are then spelled out.

MR. BLENCOE: Can the minister outline for us, or is the minister not aware of, how accidental disclosure can happen in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the second member for Victoria, I respectfully suggest that that matter is not before the committee in section 1 of Bill 45. There were no questions asked of me in question period. I welcome questions at the next opportunity on that subject.

Section 1 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if you will look at our Orders of the Day, there is an amendment standing in the name of the minister on section 2. It's a common amendment

[ Page 7069 ]

that is in section 2, section 13, section 16, section 18 and section 26. If it is your wish, we could pass the amendments now at one time and then deal with the sections as amended as they come. If it's not, then we'll just do them one at a time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What's your wish?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time.

On section 2.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

On section 16.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Section 17 approved.

On section 18.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Sections 19 to 25 inclusive approved.

On section 26.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, we have made a serious error.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. We're going to have to go....

Yes, hon. members, we can back up, I guess. We'll deal with section 26.

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

On section 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In my haste, hon. members, I have neglected other amendments.

Shall the amendment to section 4 pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

On section 7.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment on the order paper [see appendix] pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

On section 11.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment on the order paper [see appendix] pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

On section 20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to section 20 pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

On section 23.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to section 23 pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Section 27 approved.

On section 28.

[ Page 7070 ]

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

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Section 29 approved.

Title approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. members, for your indulgence.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 45, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 54, Mr. Speaker.

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

The House in Committee on Bill 54; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. HOWARD: We're having a little difficulty finding 54(1) here. I just wonder if the Chair would hold for a second or two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: By all means, hon. members. You've been kind to your Chairman today.

MR. ROSE: I've got it here. It gives the Crown permission to borrow money if there is an emergency in the colleges and institutes. I would agree that they should proceed with it right away, because there's lots of emergencies in the colleges and institutes. These colleges are underfunded to the extent that the classes are overcrowded, courses have been cut, they've been abolished, fees have been raised to the extent where the quality is suffering.

We don't hear from the colleges very often — at least we don't hear from the college boards — because Bill 19 and Bill 20 of 1983 fixed it up to the extent that all the board members were appointed: good, loyal, silent, malleable Socreds. So while we've heard all the horror stories from the school system because of the cutbacks, we've heard very little from the colleges. So this is a perfect example where I think the underfunded colleges need these emergency funds. I would urge the minister to proceed with the borrowing for these funds.

We have in British Columbia the lowest participation rate in the whole of Canada, except for Newfoundland, in terms of kids going on to post-secondary education, and that is disgraceful. What is that going to mean? Mountains of unemployed people lacking skill, and then when the recovery does prevail, when we get rid of this government that seeks mainly to do everything it can to create food banks and higher unemployment, then we'll at least find at that point we have a deskilled generation, a forgotten generation, a gone generation, to the extent where the jobs that required skills that we refuse to give these kids will be filled by young Canadians and Americans and foreigners from other jurisdictions.

So I suggest that the minister should be given full speed ahead, all kinds of encouragement to proceed with borrowing certain money for the emergencies that our schools and colleges and universities are in right now, instead of sitting passively by and diverting millions of dollars out of federal revenue every year, out of the post-secondary system, out of the high school system, if you're counting grade 12, and put it back in there, because there is definitely an emergency existing. I don't think British Columbians should tolerate that any longer.

So let them go ahead. I think he should do this. There is an emergency. It's existing and growing, and I think that it's unacceptable, and it's outrageous. So I wish him godspeed on this amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, section 1 simply ensures that there is no retroactivity with respect to outstanding debt obligations. The changes in the legislation, should it pass, do not affect any outstanding, existing debt. It is simply to avoid retroactivity.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MS. BROWN: Does he give his speech again? Because that was a section 2 speech he gave.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be tedious and repetitious according to standing orders.

MS. BROWN: So section 2 has to do with funding for colleges and institutes?

Now as you know, Mr. Chairman, part of the impact of the restraint program on colleges and institutes has been that they have been forced to eliminate a number of programs which were very important to women in terms of dealing with getting out of the poverty cycle that they were in, or upgrading, developing skills so that they could enter into the job market at a higher level and be better able to take care of themselves.

As a matter of fact, a number of women who were on income assistance or on welfare, which is the old-fashioned word that we often use, use the college system....

[3:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this bill does not deal with programs in colleges and institutes. It deals with capital expenditures and not programs.

MS. BROWN: But these are emergencies. I'm talking about emergencies.

[ Page 7071 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order made by the minister is absolutely correct. This is a capital expenditures bill, and section 2 deals with emergency capital expenditures and not with programs, which would be another ministry.

MS. BROWN: What we find, though, is that with the emergency in the college.... I don't know about the institutes as much, but certainly in the colleges you can't separate them, because the emergency in terms of funding impacts on everything in the college area. If there is a piece of legislation which is going to release funding for the colleges, then by all means we are going to support that piece of legislation. Does the minister feel better about it knowing that I am speaking in support of the amendment? You still don't feel better about it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Section 2 has two purposes. The first one is designed to speed the approval process with respect to a physical emergency in a plant, a building, a college or an institute. It provides authority for the minister — in that case, the minister responsible for colleges and institutes — to approve emergency expenditures without getting the approval of the Minister of Finance. That's the first part. That could be a damaged roof, a boiler — any number of aspects of a physical structure — and it is designed to speed up the approval back to the institute. It deals with capital, not with operating matters.

That really is the extent of section 2. I'm pleased that the member supports it, but it isn't dealing with operating funds.

MR. ROSE: The minister talked about broken water pipes and leaky roofs and that sort of thing. Under this section, could the Minister of Education theoretically agree that an emergency existed for the lack of, say, adequate facilities, shelter? It's one thing to plug a hole in a roof; it's quite another to say there is no roof but we need one, there is no building, and proceed on that basis to authorize a capital expenditure for the purposes of increased facilities of one kind or another without reference to the Minister of Finance.

I guess my real question is, are there any limits to this, because any money spent on capital.... If a college has an obligation to spend certain kinds of funds, it has basically two ways in which to spend them: on capital and on program. Money spent on capital may or may not be used for program, but certainly if there is money spent under this legislation on capital, there might theoretically be a little bit more left over for program. We're starving the program side of it at the moment. Even though the budget was frozen last year, there was still a $12 million slush fund in the college budget. So the minister could reward and punish at will, for good or bad service of one kind or another. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could answer that query.

MR. HOWARD: That's a legal opinion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It also would ask a question of another ministry.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can assist the member in this respect. I think "emergency" is used in this section in the usual sense. On a number of occasions we have had to authorize, through Treasury Board and the Ministry of Finance, the release of emergency funds for a damaged roof, a fire, some structural difficulty. Emergency in that sense — and I think that really is what is intended by emergency here.

Sections 2 to 12 inclusive approved.

On section 13.

MR. STUPICH: I get confused by these things, but as I read section 13, it's a fairly significant amendment to section 18 of the act. It spells out the conditions under which payments may be made without the authority of an appropriation. Money loaned as well as expended without legislative appropriation is, I believe, the way this section works. Is that the intent of the minister? Is that the way he reads this section — it's to enable him to loan as well as to spend without appropriation by the Legislature?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Sections 13 through 20 are clarification rather than a major change in policy, and section 13 refers to appropriation for money loaned under section 36 — as we anticipate it will be amended.

MR. STUPICH: Maybe it was that last pause. I might have missed something there. Previously it has been expended money; now it's money loaned. I think the minister said this will make more sense when we get to section 36.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, it relates to 36.

MR. STUPICH: So when the minister says it's really nothing more than clarification, is he saying that he had the authority before to lend money without appropriation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it also takes us back, I think, to the answers I gave in closing second reading debate yesterday, with respect to a variety of approvals for capital projects in progress. If the member for Nanaimo would care to look at section 36 of the bill, I think he will see that which would occur in this particular context.

Section 13 approved.

On section 14.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm probably going to get a similar answer, but in this instance section 36 currently requires that the minister may invest in certain instruments, confined to what are called safe investment items enumerated under the act. This expansion allows the minister to make loans to anyone, provided the loans are secured in some fashion, by the safe investment portfolio. So it's not just simply investing in what are listed in safe investments; it's now going beyond that, I think, to the point that if one of these safe investment entities borrows the money and assures the minister that it's okay, then he has.... It's a wider authority, it would seem to me, to expend or loan the Crown's money.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Nanaimo. There is a broadening here of the sources from which money may be loaned. I agree essentially with the member's interpretation of this particular section. This empowers the Minister of Finance to lend money from the consolidated revenue fund, trust funds and, subject to the

[ Page 7072 ]

bringing into force of section 36(9), pooled investment portfolios, providing such loans are secured by anything authorized as an investment under 36. To expand on that, authorized investments under section 36 include government guaranteed securities, short-term commercial paper — we do indeed have a short-term commercial paper program, as the member knows — issued or guaranteed by a savings institution, or certain secure commercial paper and investments allowed under section 15 of the Trustee Act. Therefore it is a broadening of the source of funds for these purposes.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I agree we do have short-term commercial paper that has not raised any new money for some years — it's simply rolling it over every time there is a new one.

Section 14 approved.

On section 15.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is similar to the previous one in that it does away with the need for the issue and sale of securities that the minister referred to, I think, in section 14. But beyond that it occurs to me that there is a requirement currently that orders-in-council authorizing the borrowing of money from foreign sources are required to include the Canadian equivalent. As I read the change, we will no longer have that information made public, when money is borrowed from foreign sources.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the existing provision in the act being amended requires the order-in-council which authorizes a borrowing to state the maximum amount that may be borrowed in Canadian dollar terms. The member is correct: the amendment eliminates the requirement for the amount to be stated in Canadian dollars, because should the borrowing be in a foreign currency, then a fluctuation in the exchange rate could create a shortfall in the authorized amount. This problem will not arise under this amendment, because the currency of the authorization will be the same as the currency of the borrowing. If we are authorized to borrow to a stated maximum amount, the currency dealt with in the authorization will be the same as the currency stated in the borrowing. This amendment is consistent with section 45, Mr. Chairman. So we're dealing with apples and apples in the reporting of a borrowing, should there be one in a foreign currency.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, I appreciate the minister's explanation, Mr. Chairman, but I wonder: will we then have somewhere in a report of some kind — in an annual report perhaps — the information as to just exactly how we stand debt-wise in terms of Canadian dollar apples? Will that be included in the report of the financing authority, or...?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In Canadian apples, Mr. Chairman, yes.... I'm looking back through the comments that were made at the time of second reading, where there is indeed the requirement for a report to the Legislature of what has been borrowed and where.

[3:45]

MR. HOWARD: Just a thought of caution, I suppose, which may not be needed. But we have found in the past that we've gotten ourselves into difficulty in borrowings in foreign markets. I believe it was the last budget presented by Mr. Wolfe when he was Minister of Finance — the predecessor of the current holder of that office — who mentioned in his budget how pleased he was that B.C. Hydro was able to borrow in the U.S. market a certain amount of money at a certain interest rate. As I recall it, the interest rate was comparable to what we could have acquired in Canada, in any event; but there was gloating about borrowing U.S. funds. As the exchange rate, over the years, has moved in the direction to place the Canadian dollar at a discount to the American dollar, we find that basically what might have been a reasonable interest rate at one time has become an inordinately high interest rate because we're paying that interest in more expensive dollars. In other words, the rough calculation in my head would say that if the bond had a coupon of 10 percent and the Canadian and U.S. dollar were at par, now that there's a 25 percent discount we would be paying an effective 12.5 percent interest rate, or paying more money out; in other words, more Canadian dollars out to service that debt. So a fluctuation of international currencies vis-a-vis the Canadian dollar can put us in a very awkward position, and it can work the other way as well. It can work both ways, admittedly. But it's a question of caution on that.

The other thing that I'm terribly concerned about, if there's an excessive move in the direction of borrowing foreign currencies, is that while the borrowing may bring into the country — I'm talking about balance of payments now — or into the province a stated amount of money at a given time, that has to go back out again many times over, depending on the coupon rate and the term of the borrowing. What does a 10 percent rate compounded, say, for...? Is it six or seven years? I believe it equals the amount of the original capital. In other words, you can double your money in six or seven years at 10 percent compounded rate. So if we are paying out a coupon rate of 10 percent on a borrowing that might be of a 20-year nature, we're paying that 10 percent out each and every year, forgetting any redemptions that may come along in the meantime. So while money may come in that will assist the balance of payments question, we've got to put that money back out again — and that balances that fact — but we are losing on the balance of payments side. We're running a deficit position every time we pay interest to foreign countries; there's a disadvantage to British Columbia on that one. So it's a matter of being, I would think, extremely careful and cautious about going in the direction of borrowing in foreign markets.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the section before us, I accept the member for Skeena's caution. We have not been borrowing in foreign currencies for some time. Your colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and I touched on that in second reading debate yesterday. As a matter of policy, for so long as I have held the portfolio we've not borrowed in other than Canadian or U.S. dollars. Now I hear what the member says about U.S. dollars. But it is a matter of record that a number of provinces, for reasons which they considered appropriate at the time, have borrowed in Swiss francs, in yen, in sterling. It is not in here.

I don't think that any government would want to be restricted from the opportunity to borrow in foreign currency, but as a matter of policy, insofar as I'm concerned, for capital purposes, which is this bill, we're borrowing in Canadian dollars. There may come a time when it is appropriate to

[ Page 7073 ]

again borrow in U.S. But I take the member's caution; it's good advice; and it's advice which in fact has been followed for a number of years by this government.

Section 15 approved.

On section 16.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, again I say, with some caution, everything I speak on in these sections.... As I read section 16, it gives the cabinet the authority to expand the definition of government bodies — as to just exactly what a government body is — that can by cabinet decision be added to the list, perhaps even deleted from the list. I'm not sure whether they have in mind creating more government bodies that will be borrowing instruments, or what. But it does seem to give the cabinet that authority.

It concerns me a little more that it would seem to remove the requirement that the rate of interest be made public — the form of the security, the terms of repayment, the terms and conditions of the loan. This is all information that formerly was available to us, so that we would know exactly where we stood, order-in-council by order-in-council. It would seem now that that information just will not be available until some later date when it's history rather than current news.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, authorizations for loans to government bodies are defined under existing statute. We're not trying to broaden those. Government bodies or entities have to obtain them individually, and this, as I attempted to explain yesterday in second reading, is administratively impractical when a large number of government bodies as defined under the Financial Administration Act — such as school districts, but they could be colleges and institutes and Crown corporations, including the smaller Crown corporations — are going to share in an amount which is borrowed by the government to be — I don't like the phrase, but the phrase in the business, as I understand it, is "off-loaned" — passed on, if you want a better phrase, to those particular institutions or Crown corporations. To overcome this, the amendment would permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to authorize a loan not only to a specific or named government body but also to a class of government bodies. It will be after the fact, but the reporting as to the disbursement of the money borrowed will be made available to this Legislature and to the public. But it permits the pooling and then the disbursement.

MR. STUPICH: I thank the minister, but he didn't respond to the second part of the question, and that is that we will not have the interest rates, the terms of the loans or repayment provisions and all of that information with respect to that borrowing. Is that correct? We may have it later on, as I say, when it's history rather than current news.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the member feels that we are deficient in that regard, I would certainly welcome a conversation with him about it in order that we can more adequately and accurately disclose that information. What would really occur here, though, is that if $75 million were borrowed for capital purposes, $5 million would go to post-secondary education institutes, $3 million might go to UBC....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, that is usually disclosed at the time — by press release, I admit. But to my almost certain knowledge it's disclosed when the order-in-council deals with that particular borrowing.

If the member has suggestions on ways in which we can elaborate upon the terms, the borrowing and the rate and so on, I would be happy to consider that. I recall sitting on that side a few years ago, attempting to find out the country of origin of a borrowing, never mind the rate. That member was not the Minister of Finance at the time, but it matters not. We later learned. But there was apparently a restriction upon the government of the day, in undertaking the borrowing, not to disclose. So it wasn't an unwillingness on the part of the government of the day, but it was one of the conditions of the borrowing.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that indeed was the case. The member may or may not be aware that the information as to the source was offered to the Leader of the Opposition in confidence, which is the way it had to be at the time. The offer was not accepted, but it was offered by the then Minister of Finance.

But the minister has said that this is usually made available, and I think he'd go even further and say it has always been made available in the order-in-council when the borrowing was done. My concern is that this changes it so that the minister will no longer be required to give us that kind of information at the time, using the example he used, that the $75 million is borrowed. We don't really care about the little bits and pieces that make up the $75 million. What we want is some assurance that when the $75 million is borrowed, wherever it goes after that, we know all the terms of that $75 million borrowing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I hear the member and invite him.... If he wishes, we can discuss this. While this is essentially designed for streamlining, no reporting or accountability functions are abandoned by this amendment. Transactions are reported to the Provincial Secretary, and full disclosure is provided to the Provincial Secretary, then to public accounts. The member is speaking of the more immediate reporting and I would be happy to review that with him.

Section 16 approved.

On section 17.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me as though the cabinet may actually control borrowing by government bodies to the extent that the government could announce that Nanaimo School District is going to borrow x million dollars to build a new high school, even before it had occurred to the Nanaimo School District to ask for that x million dollar borrowing to build that high school. The government apparently has the authority to announce this kind of borrowing on behalf of government bodies in advance of the government bodies themselves asking individually. I read it that way. I'm just wondering and wanting clarification.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The provision, as it presently stands, is not clear, and this is one of the amendments that I certainly believe is quite important. The amendment would

[ Page 7074 ]

clarify that when borrowing from the Canada Pension Plan, the government may borrow for the purpose of off-lending. It says to the Canada Pension Plan, "Yes, we will take x millions this particular month," without first having received a request for a loan from a government body. That is the point. But that money then may go to that government body. But it does not mean that we would suddenly say: "Surprise, Nanaimo School Board" — to use your example — "you are going to build a new school whether you want it or not." But we may borrow that money — and reinvest it, indeed — knowing that there is going to come a request from the Nanaimo School Board or a Crown corporation.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

So it simply clarifies our accessing Canada Pension Plan money, knowing that at some point in the relatively near term there will be a request for a portion of that money.

Sections 17 through 32 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On section 33?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was simply expressing the not-too-silent wish that you might slow down a little in order that I can follow the sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine.

Sections 33 to 40 inclusive approved.

On section 41.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On section 41, I believe it has been reviewed that the wording of the section makes it somewhat difficult to follow normal committee procedure with respect to the review of the subsequent sections listed under the amendments. There are also on the order paper some amendments to some of the sections which are contained in the reference following "substituted."

Would it be possible for the committee to consider section 41, but in a slightly different manner than printed, but I don't think in violation of the intent? That would be perhaps to deal with the sections 214 to 223 in their repeal and substitution individually rather than collectively.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In terms of the question, by all means. We have done this before where we have complex subsections. That can be done here quite easily.

[4:00]

MR. HOWARD: I was going to raise the same point not only with respect to this particular bill before us but also with respect to another bill in which there is a section that encompasses dozens and dozens of other things. In addition to the chamber agreeing that we proceed as outlined or advanced by the Minister of Health, I think we might take it upon ourselves to express thoughts to legislative counsel — is it legislative counsel that drafts these things? — that perhaps it might be more appropriate to draft bills henceforth in a manner in which they are segmented in a way that the Minister of Health has indicated. It would make it much easier for members of the committee to be able to follow the proceedings, particularly to deal with amendments. Maybe if we could incorporate that kind of thought in what we're saying as well, and perhaps unofficially the Chair might transmit that request or that information to legislative counsel and say we'd prefer to have it the old-fashioned way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I thank both the House Leaders for their comments. We'll proceed in an orderly manner and discuss each subject as it comes up. With respect to your comments, Mr. House Leader for the opposition, I share that, particularly on the other bill that you are referring to.

Now here we are. We have passed sections 39 to 40. In section 41, shall sections 214 to 223 be repealed? Shall that portion pass?

Repeal of sections 214 to 223 approved.

Proposed new section 214 approved.

On proposed new section 215.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 215 as amended approved.

Proposed new section 216 approved.

On proposed new section 217.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 217 as amended approved.

On proposed new section 218.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new section 218 as amended approved.

Sections 42 to 49 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. Ree in the chair.

Bill 54, Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985, reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 7075 ]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 63, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR FUEL TAX ACT

The House in Committee on Bill 63; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Sections 1 to 70 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 63, Motor Fuel Tax Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 2.

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY
CONSTRUCTION ACCELERATION ACT

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Ree in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sections 1 and 2 have previously passed.

On section 3.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a few questions for the minister. My first question is: does he anticipate that $375 million will be sufficient to complete construction from Hope to Kamloops?

HON. A. FRASER: That's the anticipation, yes.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether or not his ministry has made communications with either or both the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance with respect to securing approval for additional expenditures beyond those anticipated before later this year?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. The member was asking the Chair a question.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, thank you for the answer. Now may I direct that question to the minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

HON. A. FRASER: Would you repeat the question?

MR. GABELMANN: Has the ministry, or the minister, made any communications with the Treasury Board and/or the Minister or Ministry of Finance with respect to securing approval for anticipated expenditures beyond those already allocated by either this Legislature or Treasury Board?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the question, you're referring to phase 1 and phase 2. We haven't made any additional requests to them. First of all, I believe $281 million was provided for in the current budget, in relation to phase 1 and phase 2. We don't anticipate that it will require more, if that answers your question, in the fiscal year 1985-86.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the minister correctly just now, he said that he anticipates that the budget required for phase 1 and 2 in 1985-86 is $281 million — if I heard correctly — and he confirms that, Mr. Chairman.

He said in the Legislature yesterday that $250 million to $260 million has already been spent on the Hope-Merritt section, and another $7 million on the Merritt to Kamloops section in preliminary work, bringing the total to somewhere between $257 million and $267 million already spent. The budget in 1985-86, according to the minister a moment ago, is $281 million. Taking the lower figure, if my quick arithmetic is correct, we're looking at $24 million remaining in this fiscal year that's been budgeted for the continued construction between now and March 31. Am I correct?

HON. A. FRASER: That's either spent or committed. In other words, we award a contract and if the contractor hasn't completed, it mightn't be actually spent but it's been either spent or committed by contract.

[4:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I want to go through this slowly, just so we don't get off track. Am I to understand from the minister's answer that the $250 million to $260 million plus the $7 million that he talked about yesterday in the House may not yet have been spent, but may include money that is committed in contracts that are now let? Is that my understanding?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, I think you are correct there, sir; the money mightn't be spent but it is committed by a legal contract with various contractors, and of course they are at work.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me go back, then, to the question that I didn't pursue earlier: that is, had any discussions been held between the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and Treasury Board, or the Ministry of Finance, with respect to the need to secure at a later date, by special warrant, some additional moneys, over $100 million worth, in order to complete this phase, the Hope to Merritt phase, of the Coquihalla Highway? Have any discussions been held between his ministry and the Ministry of Finance or Treasury Board?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, there could well have been. I'm not aware that.... We're getting a little confused here now, because we're dealing with Treasury Board at the present time on matters for the new fiscal year, but in this particular phase the figures that we're given here seem to be that we'll be able to fall in line on this section of highway from Hope to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops.

MR. GABELMANN: I don't have the pleasure of being confused by the 1986-87 figures. I want the minister to think

[ Page 7076 ]

very carefully before he tells me that there is no communication by letter between his ministry and the Treasury Board concerning the need for additional moneys to complete the Hope to Kamloops — in effect — portion of this project.

Mr. Chairman, let me be more specific. Would the minister deny that Treasury Board has given conditional approval for an expenditure somewhat over $100 million beyond the original estimate for this project?

HON. A. FRASER: To the section of road from Hope to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops? No, I don't think that's correct. It might be for other highway expenditure, but not on this section. The figures we have there I believe to be correct, which we've dealt with here, for this section.

MR. GABELMANN: So the minister is saying that the letter that I am referring to, the approval that I am referring to — if it exists, he would say.... I'm saying that he should tell us whether it does or doesn't. But he's saying that if it exists, it exists for some other purpose, some other activity of the Transportation and Highways ministry, that it may be for some other road construction. Is it for operating? Is it that you are taking money from other sections of the ministry in order to pay for the overruns that are involved in this so that you can keep this particular budget apparently within line? Just what kind of juggling is going on? What is that approval related to specifically?

HON. A. FRASER: It could well be if the letter exists for additional funds, I think that your question under special warrant in this fiscal year.... It could be for projects we've done other than Hope to Merritt, Merritt to Kamloops, in the highways system generally.

MR. GABELMANN: Under section 3 the government may borrow up to $375 million for this project. Is the minister prepared to provide the House, one way or another, or to provide to the opposition, the precise numbers of dollars expended, contract by contract, to date on the Coquihalla? Are all of those contracts and the dollar amounts, both dollar amounts in the original contract and the excesses to those amounts where they exist.... Is the minister prepared to give us, one by one, a list of those dollars that have been contracted for, and also a list including those dollars that have gone beyond the original contracts, so that we can see whether it is $250 million or $260 million?

HON. A. FRASER: Work is still going on. I guess we have figures probably up to the end of October, as an example, of contracts completed, contracts awarded and contracts not completed.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, then if the figures are available up to the end of October and clearly some of those contracts are still not completed — many are completed — much of the work is completed and therefore there should be an ability to give to us a list of the contracts, and beside each contract the dollar amount of the contract and the amount extra if such an extra amount was involved, up to the end of October. It may well be that on some of the latter contracts we won't be able to know what the extras are, but we'll at least know what the contract figure is. Can the minister provide us with a list of those figures so that we can properly debate this section?

HON. A. FRASER: I suppose the figures are available, but I say we can't give the figures if the work is still in progress, as an example on about 15 bridges; I don't know how many millions the total amounts to. The bridges are supposed to be finished, as an example, by the end of November or in December, and of course we haven't got that figure. But we have the original contracts that were awarded — the figures.

MR. GABELMANN: Then, Mr. Chairman, may I ask him to give us the list of the contracts that have been awarded and the amounts in each case of the contract, and while he's doing that, to give us, in those contracts that have been completed and all of the financial dealings with the particular contractor that have been completed, the extras that have been paid on those particular contracts. I'm not concerned about the ones that are still continuing. Obviously we don't know yet. We know what the contract figure is. So can't we have the contract figure and those other figures that relate to the completed contracts where there have been moneys expended beyond the contract amount? Can we have that before we proceed?

HON. A. FRASER: I would assume the ministry's got those figures up to the end of October.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, that would be fine, if we could have those.

MR. SKELLY: I'm still having some difficulty with statements that the minister made yesterday, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday you'll recall that the minister indicated that something like $260 million to $280 million had already been spent on this highway project.

AN HON. MEMBER: Estimated.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sorry; he estimated that that amount of money had already been spent — that it had been authorized in the budget that we passed earlier this year and that it was taken from consolidated revenues.

If the minister has already spent this money and it was authorized and paid out of consolidated revenue, my question is, why do we now have to authorize the minister to borrow $375 million? Why do we not authorize the minister under this bill to borrow the balance — the $110 million or so that he needs to complete the project, rather than giving the minister carte blanche to borrow $375 million, which he clearly does not need?

So can the minister tell me, was the money that he used on this highway — the $260 million or so — borrowed? And if so, under what authorization?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the money was borrowed or not. It was supplied by the Treasury Board or the government, and I'm not aware whether they had to borrow it or not. I don't follow your question at all.

MR. SKELLY: But what we have to approve here today, Mr. Chairman, is an authorization for the minister to borrow an additional $375 million, and the minister said to us yesterday that he didn't need it — that he'd already paid for a good part of this highway with the money he got from consolidated

[ Page 7077 ]

revenue. So I'm wondering why we should be approving the borrowing of an additional $375 million. Clearly it's not going to be used to build the Coquihalla Highway. Obviously it's going to be used for some other purpose. If that's the case, we really shouldn't be approving it under this piece of legislation.

HON. A. FRASER: I'm not aware of the mechanics of that. As I said yesterday, all this bill does is authorize the borrowing of $375 million. You're reading into that that they'll automatically borrow it, and I'm not aware that that would happen. This authorizes it.

MR. SKELLY: Then why should we authorize you to borrow it? That's my concern, Mr. Chairman. All he needs to finish the highway is $110 million, roughly — correct? Because you've already spent $260 million to $280 million. All you need to complete the highway is $110 million. If so, why are you asking for authority to borrow $375 million? That doesn't make sense, and we shouldn't be giving you that kind of carte blanche in this Legislature to borrow money on the public's credit rating. We should be here acting responsibly; we should be borrowing the minimum amount that's required to complete this highway project. Instead, you're asking us to borrow $275 million more than you need.

I think it would be the responsible thing, Mr. Chairman, for the minister to come in with an amendment to this section that empowers him or the government to borrow what he needs to finish the highway project. That way, this Legislature and that government can act responsibly in this issue.

I'm calling on the minister to consider an amendment to this section, so that he or the government only borrow on the credit rating of the people of this province the amount that he requires to finish this highway project.

HON. A. FRASER: On that subject, I think that's what the bill says. We intend to spend $375 million on phase 1 and phase 2. This would authorize the government to borrow that if required.

MR. SKELLY: I guess this is another area where the government is asking us, on trust, to approve money after the fact. We're passing legislation to authorize the government to build a highway that they've almost finished. In addition, they want us to authorize the borrowing of money that they've already spent. Somehow, Mr. Chairman, this can't make much sense to you as a business person.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You want everything to stop.

MR. SKELLY: The member for Surrey says that she wants everything to stop.

MR. REID: You want everything to stop.

MR. SKELLY: The other member for Surrey corrects the previous member for Surrey.

Everything has almost reached the point of completion, and when it's finished I want it to stop, sure. But we've already paid for 90 percent of this, or we've paid out $260 million. If we didn't have to borrow that money, that's a good thing, because the province should be paying its bills on a pay-as-you-go basis, right? Isn't that the Social Credit philosophy? It's certainly our philosophy that you should be doing things on a pay-as-you-go basis if you can do it. If you need to borrow money for a project that's worthwhile, that creates construction jobs, then by all means, borrow what you need.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this bill treats this Legislature with a bit of contempt. It's asking us to authorize a highway construction project that's almost complete, and it's asking us to borrow money that the government doesn't need. I think that that's treating the Legislature with contempt.

I have a question for the minister. A bridge collapsed on this highway project — one of the bridge construction projects collapsed, it's my understanding. What amount of money was lost, or what increase in costs resulted from that bridge collapse? How much did it cost to repair the damage?

[4:30]

HON. A. FRASER: Dealing with the bridge collapse, the total bridge didn't collapse. Some girders collapsed, and they were replaced, it is my understanding, by the contractor at no cost to the provincial government.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I guess there's still a lot of questioning in terms of how much has actually been spent and how much has been allocated. I certainly agree with my colleagues that it seems to be a rather fruitless endeavour of this Legislature, rather silly indeed, to okay the loaning of $375 million when, in fact, that loan is no longer necessary. I would like to ask the minister, just to confirm it in my own mind, exactly how much money has actually been spent. You might have gone over this earlier, and I apologize if I wasn't here to hear it, but exactly how much has been spent and billed out? How much remains committed to be spent?

Thirdly, in terms of dealing with these contracts, does the payout of a contract await the completion of a project, or is there a payout as the project...? For example, as it is 50 percent complete, is there a 50 percent payout of that project, or does the ministry in fact wait until the project is fully completed? Just how is the payout schedule arranged?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Okanagan North, we'll use an arbitrary figure. First of all, all contracts are awarded to low bidders. As an example, a low bidder gets a contract at $10 million. He starts work, and we pay him on a progressive basis on work accomplished every 30 days.

When I said yesterday that $260 million is probably spent, maybe I should have said "committed." Maybe the figure actually paid out by the government is $200 million. Most contractors are still at work until they're completed. But we award the contracts and pay them every 30 days, and I am not aware of the status of all the contracts — where they're at.

As an example, I believe that at the present time there are 18 bridges under construction and winding up probably in November or December. Of course, that's why when I said we're committed by those contracts to a total of $260 million, maybe on progress payment basis in actual cash from the government they might have received $200 million.

Further, I believe the government holds back 10 percent on our contracts after completion of the project for a period varying from six to twelve months. We're talking about cash flow.

[ Page 7078 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: So the minister is in fact confirming that along with the 30-day payout schedule that is applied towards work contracted, certainly a minimum of $200 million has in fact been paid out at this point, with the remainder of the work being allocated.

We're sitting here, and somehow the ministry has found $200 million plus out of consolidated revenue or in various accounts — Lord knows where it comes from — to actually pay out on the projects completed to date.

At the same time, the minister comes to the House and requests us as members of this House and as members responsible for controlling the finances of this province to release $375 million to pay out on a project that is already partially paid for.

I would like to reiterate the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that perhaps the minister should be coming back with an amendment to this bill requesting the approval of expenditures for that portion of the cost that remains as yet unpaid for — I guess somewhere around $150 million or something, but certainly not the $375 million.

Would the minister entertain the suggestion of an amendment to this?

MR. GABELMANN: I want to come back to the earlier discussion that the minister and I were involved in. If you look at the quarterly financial report effective September 30, and you look at the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, you note that in the first six months of the year, the ministry spent $250 million — spent, not allocated; paid out — more than it did in the same period in 1984.

When you look at the ministry budget, the only significant item — I shouldn't say the only significant one, there are others — but the major item of expenditure that is different in 1985 than in 1984 is this Coquihalla. Other projects are going on; we all know about them. Many of them had been going on in 1984 as well.

We're looking at an expenditure of $250 million more spent by September 30. The minister says that $260 million or so has been committed as of today, November 21. I don't want to say to the minister that he came to the House with the wrong figures yesterday, but I'm led to that conclusion. That's why I am interested in having the minister, before we conclude this debate on section 3, give us the information available in the ministry as to the dollar amount of the contracts that have been let to date on phases 1 and 2; also, as I said before, in those completed contracts, the extra number of dollars that have had to be expended. Why can't we have a list of those just to see where we're at on this project?

I've asked the minister a question. I'm interested to know whether he will answer me.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, as I said, I'm sure we can get the figures as of the end of October on what you're asking about.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't watch every minute, but I didn't notice the minister send a note to his ministry to get those figures for us. Will he do so?

HON. A. FRASER: That's where I have to get them — from the ministry. After they do some work.

MR. GABELMANN: I would therefore suggest that we cannot continue this debate until we get those figures, and would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 26

On section 3.

[4:45]

MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems pretty obvious that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is not prepared to give this House any information from his ministry to substantiate the claim that only $260 million or so has been expended to date. In fact, considerably more money than that has been expended. The facts are that phase 1 and phase 2 will not cost $375 million or thereabouts, but approximately $500 million. Those are the facts that the minister is not prepared to share with this House. He could prove me wrong simply by coming in with the figures; we could extrapolate from that and know approximately what kind of costs are involved.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The reason the government isn't going around this province waving this bill as a great political act.... It was brought in in the first place purely for politics, because we passed the appropriation in the estimates earlier this year during the budget debate. The reason they're not going around talking about this great bill and the Coquihalla is because instead of $375 million, phases 1 and 2 are going to cost approximately $500 million, and discussions have already been held between the ministry and the Treasury Board to ensure that the additional funds to cover that expenditure will be available. The Treasury Board has assured the ministry that those moneys will indeed be made available — a $500 million project, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY: That's a serious charge, Mr. Chairman. The minister has indicated that the highway will cost $375 million, and a member has charged that the highway will actually cost $500 million — phases 1 and 2. Surely the minister should respond to a charge that the project has overrun its budget by $130 million or so in this year alone.

[ Page 7079 ]

Surely we in the Legislature deserve a response from the minister.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, to be at odds with my colleagues here, I'd like to correct some figures. The minister has in fact told this House just a few minutes ago that he has spent $200 million on the project. He is also requesting from the House a sum of $375 million for the completion of this project. Now unless the math has changed since I was involved in the education field, if you add those two figures up, that comes to $575 million. I believe my colleague here challenged the minister that he was in fact expending $500 million. I would like to challenge the minister and say that his figures in fact add up to a total cost for the highway of almost $600 million — $575 million if you simply add those figures up. That seems to be what we're dealing with here, and I offer the minister an opportunity to reply and rebut those figures.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that we had this debate, the minister was answering, and everything was going along fine. He was a little bit fuzzy and a little bit hazy. We had a division. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) came in here and walked directly over to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Don't forget that the Minister of Finance is the president of the Treasury Board. They had a nice little discussion, and ever since then the Minister of Transportation and Highways has sat in his chair. I suspect that what happened was that the Minister of Finance said: "Look, don't embarrass us by answering any questions. Just sit there, like I do." I'm talking about the way the Minister of Finance just sits there, mumbles, and then that's the end of it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, can the minister...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we return to the section?

MR. COCKE: That's precisely where I am, Mr. Chairman. I'm on section 3 of Bill 2, and I'm describing exactly what happened in this House around section 3 of Bill 2. If that minister can deny it, let him stand up and deny it. I watched him have two separate conversations in rapid order. He wasn't asking the Minister of Finance what he's having for dinner tonight, nor was the Minister of Finance asking him what he's going to have for dinner or where he's going in the snow. The fact of the matter is they were discussing section 3 of Bill 2. I surmise that that discussion was pretty deep and pretty hot for a moment or two. Can he answer the questions that are being put forward?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. It's a little noisy in here.

MR. COCKE: We in the opposition are caught between a figure of $500 million and $575 million. Which is it?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know where to start or stop, there are so many figures being batted around here. But the figure that we're talking about in the bill is $375 million. I have always said that phases 1 and 2, Hope to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops, would be built for that amount.

I have used a lot of estimated figures to try to satisfy the members' questions. As an example, $260 million is what I think contracts have been awarded for so far. Of that $260 million, I would estimate and guesstimate $200 million has actually been paid out to the end of October. The member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) took as an example the $200 million and added on $375 million. You know, I don't know how he ever got that: I don't know what college he came from, but it doesn't add up.

What I'm saying is that it is estimated at this stage that $375 million will look after phases 1 and 2. The expensive one is phase 1, which is coming close to completion. We've hardly started, as I told you yesterday, on phase 2. It breaks down, in rough estimates, at $250 million for phase 1 and $125 million for phase 2. If it goes over the $250 million on phase 1, it's anticipated that the global figure would still be $375 million for completion of phase 1 and phase 2. I want to emphasize that that's the area from Hope to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Again, if in fact the total cost of this construction project is $375 million, which the minister has repeatedly said, and if in fact we've already spent $200 million, which again the minister has repeatedly said, then all that remains to be in cost unaccounted for and unexpended is $175 million. I have to ask this House why we are going into a debt load and servicing a debt by approving a loan for $375 million when we only need $175 million? That's $200 million in excess. Where are you going to use it? What are you going to do with that $200 million? Is it going to be used on the Coquihalla or is it going to be used paving your way to the next election?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. All members will be allowed an opportunity to speak in committee. Shall section 3 pass.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. A FRASER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 2, Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Committee on Bill 60, Mr. Speaker.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

The House in committee on Bill 60; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7080 ]

On section 20.

[5:00]

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to move the amendment standing on the order paper in my name. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

On section 20 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the minister why it includes psychologists and optometrists as professionals who must report to the superintendent. Did he think in terms of other medical practitioners that might be expected to do something similar? There are other practitioners that may be very useful, such as public health nurses and others.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I answered the member's question properly, but the amendment, as outlined in Bill 60, expands the reporting requirement for registered psychologists and optometrists. This is being put in here because there was a drafting error in the original bill. I don't think that answers the member's question, but that's what it's here for. We want to add these people; they were left out in a drafting error.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Section 21 approved.

Title approved.

HON. A. FRASER: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 60, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, reported complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I move we go to public bills in the hands of private members. I call Bill M202, An Act to Regulate Smoking in Public Places, in the hands of the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena on a point of order.

MR. HOWARD: Although I do have an argument that it should not be the prerogative of the government House Leader to call this particular class of bills, public bills in the hands of private members, but that's what our rules say.... But once having done that, I want to submit, then, that standing order 27(1) prevails, which says: "All items standing on the orders of the day, other than government orders" — and that's where we are now — "shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the order paper." The precedence assigned to each does not start with Bill M202; it starts with Bill M201. I submit that's the one that should be dealt with, and should be dealt with as they appear on the order paper, pursuant to standing order 27.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member's point of order is correct.

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to rise, Mr. Speaker, to move second reading of Bill M201, intituled Forestry for the Future Act, which if passed and it came into existence, would start us on the road of creating thousands of jobs in the silvicultural segment of the industry in British Columbia. That's the purpose of it: to create jobs in forestry.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. A member has risen on a point of order.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I would agree quite readily with the hon. member for Skeena's (Mr. Howard's) observation that it is not the prerogative of the government House Leader, absolutely, to call a bill in order. However, when the House Leader believes that there is agreement between both sides of the House that this is the area in which we are supposed to proceed, then it is the Government Leader's prerogative to call that bill in such order. But it definitely is not the prerogative of the House Leader of the opposition party to call whatever bill he wishes to order.

So, Mr. Speaker, if there is no agreement, if I have been given the wrong information on agreement to move to Bill M202, as I had selected, then I would ask leave that we move to Bill M202.

MR. HOWARD: I have two things. First, I didn't exercise any prerogative to call Bill M201; that just happened to be the first one on the order paper. I was following the instruction of Mr. Speaker in so doing.

The chief government Whip nods across the floor to me that there was an agreement that they would be called and dealt with in a different order than appears on the order paper. I have no knowledge of that, and if I am in error, then of course I have.... But my Whip gives me different information. My Whip says that there was no agreement, that we were handed a piece of paper that said here they are — the list as they are going to be called. In any event, Mr. Speaker, if there was an agreement — which I am advised by our Whip did not exist — then it was incumbent upon the people who made the agreement to stand up and ask for an order of the House to that effect, and ask for leave of the House to proceed to operate at variance with standing order 27. Otherwise standing order 27 must prevail.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I agree completely, and I was going to respond to the comment made by the government House Leader, which is that the government has called private members' bills. Standing order 27 says they shall be called in precedence.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, and I did ask leave to move to M202.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thirdly — just before I call for that, if it is your wish — the Chair has no knowledge of other arrangements that might have been made. The member for Skeena has a further point of order?

[ Page 7081 ]

MR. HOWARD: No, but I want to submit to you that it is difficult for the government House Leader to rise on a point of order and then move a motion to do something. He did not obtain the floor for that purpose. I have the floor and have moved the motion for second reading of M201 and was proceeding to debate it. I think that is the prevailing situation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. Please proceed.

FORESTRY FOR THE FUTURE ACT

MR. HOWARD: So if I could continue, Mr. Speaker, to talk about the creation of jobs in the forest industry in this province under the proposal in the Forestry for the Future Act, Bill M201.... That is its intention and that is its desire. It's advanced as the alternative to the government's ineptitude in dealing with forest land management in this province.

The forest and range resource analysis report that was given to this chamber in the spring of this year by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) clearly showed that the government had been woefully negligent in managing the forest land in this province. It clearly showed by statistic and chart and graph after graph and word after word from within the Ministry of Forests that we were falling behind drastically every month, every week and every day in managing the forests of this province, that we were squandering the timber assets of this province, assets which are only ours to use and to hold now, and to preserve as well for future generations — we were destroying that.

The purpose of this bill very simply is to establish on a long-term, committed basis a fund that would tackle the whole range of silvicultural activities and forest land management activities, to ensure that the public money we invest now will bring returns now in the form of jobs for people to deal with the denuded forest land, and returns in the future by providing long-term, committed jobs in forestry as well as right now, and that the investment we make now will bring returns in the future in the form of an asset called timber, which will have a value to it and employ people in its cutting and the processing, and which will result in the generation of cash flow to the provincial treasury. Invest now, and reap the benefits now as well as later. That's what this bill is all about.

In 1980 when the Minister of Forests announced in this Legislature for the first time a departure from the ordinary annual budgetary constrictions that are placed upon government financial commitments, when he announced the five-year range and resource fund, that move was applauded by every member in this chamber. It was applauded in a tremendous way by the NDP spokesman for forestry, Bill King; it was applauded by people in industry and professional foresters; it was applauded by the IWA because they thought that finally a move had been made that has a commitment to the future.

The most regrettable, disastrous move was made just two years later when that five-year range and resource fund still had $86 million in it, and we saw the long arm of the Minister of Finance reach in, grab the money, wipe the fund out and destroy the concept of a commitment to the future of forestry in this province. That was a regrettably black day for employment possibilities, job creation and the future of forestry when the minister did that. And the Minister of Forests — regrettably, a lightweight in cabinet — obviously was not able to hold on to those funds for future generations.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

The purpose of this bill is to attempt to prevent that from happening again, so that no future greedy Minister of Finance, or whoever it might be, can reach in and grab money committed to forestry and squander it on other things which the government might consider to be a priority. So it seeks to establish a regular, steady commitment of funds into a particular fund on an annual basis. It seeks to put the administration of that fund at arm's length from government in a trust capacity — trust for the future. It seeks to ensure that the operation of that fund will be reported on an annual basis to Mr. Speaker and that it will have an automatic referral to a standing committee of the House so that you can have a regular public review of the events of the preceding year and be able thereby to keep current, to keep abreast of what's happening in the forest industry and in reforestation, and make whatever recommendations the committee might itself deem advisable on an ongoing regular basis to ensure that the road we attempt to embark upon today will be carried into the future for as long as it is necessary and possible.

It seeks also to establish a committee comprising community groups, associations of professional foresters, workers, industry and the like — and that's enumerated in greater detail in section 4 of the bill — who would, having access to the information from professional foresters and others about the needs and requirements of different aspects of silviculture, be able to keep abreast of that and make recommendations with respect to that as well, so that we will be guided on an annual review basis and by professionals, by those interested in it and by community groups, particularly, to ensure that the expenditure of the funds, the employment of workers in that industry and the efficient and effective use of those funds will bring us the greatest amount of benefits and will keep us current in dealing with those matters.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, as noble as the intent may be — and the member certainly should know from his past experience that we've been hoping to hear something new or different — I think he has now referred to funds on numerous occasions, so I think you'll find, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is out of order, because in section 2 it involves the expenditure of public funds, and in section 4 it imposes obligation on the Crown. A private member's bill would therefore be out of order on those grounds.

[5:15]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member wish to respond to the point of order?

MR. HOWARD: Well, it has been a tradition. If the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing wants to destroy that tradition for some convenient purpose of his own, that's on his shoulders. But it has been a tradition to proceed through with an explanation and an argument about a bill, and then at the end of that, if it is considered that way, then Mr. Speaker makes a decision. But we can see now that by raising a point of order in the midst of a presentation about a very fundamental piece of legislation to create thousands of jobs in this province, the government isn't interested. The government isn't interested in talking about job creation. They're interested in huffery and puffery and baloney. But when it comes

[ Page 7082 ]

down to the absolute of creating jobs, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the only thing this government knows about jobs is the last two letters of that word itself.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: That's what they're filled with — the last two letters of the word jobs.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Skeena will come to order. I think we've had an adequate explanation in response to the minister's point of order. However, as the minister has pointed out, and pursuant to standing order 66, "the House will not receive any resolution stating an express or abstract opinion of the House on recommending the expenditure of public money unless recommended by the Crown." The minister's point of order is in order, and at that point the motion fails.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: They would endorse this completely if they wanted to create jobs in this province. Obviously they don't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister did not state that in his point of order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill M202, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO REGULATE
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the same problem with this bill that my colleague had with his, because this bill is in order. I have been assured by the Clerks that it is in order this time. Time after time I have introduced this bill in the House and it has been, on occasion, ruled out of order, and it has been debated. I think at the last session the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) adjourned the debate two or three times on the pretext that he was still looking at it, but we never got a chance to vote on it. And this is the bill that everybody in these premises agrees with, would like to support....

AN HON. MEMBER: Does Lockstead support this?

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Lockstead supports this — my colleague from Mackenzie supports this.

As the years have rolled by, so has the evidence mounted that second-hand smoke is just as harmful as first-hand smoke. I was reading an article that appeared this spring in one of the local papers regarding a hearing that was held relative to a worker who wanted on-the-job smoking prohibited. They called in an expert witness during these hearings by the name of James Repace, of the American Environmental Protection Agency. He told those hearings that smokers subject fellow workers to cancer risks 100 to 250 times greater than acceptable environmental standards. He said he was using a conservative estimate, and he said non-smokers in normal office surroundings inhale smoke volumes equal to one and a half to three low-tar cigarettes per shift. There's no allowance made there for heavier smokers. That was based on one-third of the workers smoking and each smoking two cigarettes per shift. So that doesn't allow for heavier smokers, chain-smokers and so on.

Repace said there was no safe cigarette and no safe way of smoking one. Even one cigarette a day will seriously increase the cancer risk. He said that tobacco smoke contains 60 known or suspected cancer-causing substances; and I won't go into them all, because some of them are almost unpronounceable. Other authorities have indicated that there are at least 50 known cancerous substances. So there are a lot of cancer-causing substances in tobacco smoke.

People are changing in their attitude as well. People are becoming more aware of the difficulties that are faced by non-smokers as a result of smoke pollution. We have seen a lot of voluntary moves made. We've seen government corporations like.... The B.C. Ferry Corporation has set aside separate smoking areas for a long time. ICBC has recently gone to no-smoking. I think the Ministry of Health at one time did that. I'm not sure what their status is now. I know that the current minister is addicted to the weed, and whether or not his staff have regulations relative to smoking or non-smoking, I'm not sure.

MR. MICHAEL: What about the former Minister of Health?

MRS. WALLACE: I agree that the former Minister of Health for the New Democratic Party smokes, and I think he would agree with me that he has an addiction, and we all know he has an addiction to smoking. But at the same time he supports the concept that people who do not smoke should not have to breathe smoke-polluted atmosphere. There have been more and more moves towards bringing in this concept. The Capital Regional District has accepted a bylaw and is in the process of dealing with that. Sure, it takes education, but I submit the time has come when the provincial government needs to take a stance. Certainly from a dollar and cents point of view it makes a lot of sense. It would drastically cut the kinds of costs involved in our health care, and we know they are escalating. Cancer is the fastest growing disease that we have, and why?

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Just as deadly.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, just as deadly, and it's controllable; that's the difference. It's controllable. We don't need to search for the means of controlling lung cancer. We know what we can do to reduce the incidence drastically.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: And throat cancer, yes.

We are afraid, as legislators, to take a stand. We know it's the right thing to do, but we are afraid that somehow we are going to be criticized. You know, we're prepared to move in to doing all kinds of things. I know I can't refer to another bill, but we're going to be looking at what parents can name their children. We're afraid to move into this area, and it's far less of an intrusion into civil liberties or rights of individuals.

[ Page 7083 ]

I'm not calling on people to ban smoking; I'm not calling on the minister to tell people they cannot smoke. What I am saying is that we need to ensure that those people who do smoke do so in an area separate and apart from the people who do not want to breathe that smoke. They have a right to smoke. I have some concerns whether they make much sense when they do it. I have some concerns whether or not they shouldn't be paying higher insurance premiums because they are certainly more prone to fires. They should probably be paying higher health care premiums because they are putting a burden on our public health system. But they have a right if they want to do that. They do not have a right to pollute the atmosphere that I have to breathe, and that's all this piece of legislation does. It has been in this House over and over, and it's high time the government decided to accept it.

I would move that the bill be now read a second time.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The member for Cowichan-Malahat has made it be known that she will not be seeking re-election, and as a parting gift, I am sure she would appreciate the passage of this bill. However, the concept and the principle of this has been debated a number of times, or at least there has been some debate in the House a number of times.

The member pointed out that a great deal has been done with respect to voluntary actions by municipalities, organizations, corporations and others to attempt to resolve the conflict between smokers and non-smokers on their premises. As we have said previously, maybe that's the way to go. A great deal has been done. It is commonplace now to find little corners set apart — usually in the drafty area of a building — for smokers. More and more buildings are becoming exclusively non-smoking, such as restaurants.

The information the member spoke of, and other information which has been made available, I guess, has convinced a lot of people that that's the way to go. Perhaps that is the way it should go rather than have, as was mentioned during debate on a previous subject today, Big Brother government making these decisions for all these people.

I know it's unpopular to suggest that smokers perhaps have some rights too. I know it offends others to suggest that a smoker should pollute a non-smoker when they have no choice but to be in the same location. It comes down, in that instance, to a matter of courtesy more than anything. But even though it's unpopular, smokers are still permitted certain rights of action and movement and so on.

I find it difficult to agree that government should bring about such massive intrusion on a very large number of people, leading to more regulations, possibly action against people, maybe a lot more argument, discussion and debate about what is a public meeting and what is a public place, even though it's defined. One example is an enclosed office occupied exclusively by smokers, which means that if there's an office of a dozen people and one is not a smoker, then the other eleven would be denied their filthy habit, which they enjoy — or at least they can't help themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot support this method of trying to resolve the problem, and I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[5:30]

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Second reading of Bill M203, Mr. Speaker.

AN ACT TO DECLARE BRITISH COLUMBIA
A NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with a very grave subject in this bill. I would hope that the government would not raise any objections to the technicalities of the bill. It's an expression that should be made a unanimous one in this House. At the very least, I think, because there are tuggings of conscience in a bill like this, it should be a free vote.

The title of the bill says the whole thing: to declare British Columbia a nuclear weapons free zone. It's not dealing with the Bates report or the question of nuclear energy or something else of that kind for peaceful uses. I nevertheless move the bill with the thought that I've considered quite valid: that the peace of the world in the last 40 years has depended upon mutual deterrents, and that Russia and the United States and the allies that might be drawn in — sooner or later they would be — have not gone into World War III simply because that kind of a war, with the nuclear weapons that are at the disposal of each side, is unthinkable.

The question that Canadians should think about is the extent to which these weapons have developed into a situation of massive overkill. There isn't a member in this House who doesn't appreciate that three or four hydrogen bombs getting through — I won't try to give the figures of the megaton and the tonnage and things of that kind, but three or four getting through on a country would be absolutely devastating to the people of that country, to its atmosphere, to its ability to carry on civilized life. Yet we have nuclear arsenals in the world today, including some from smaller countries — and the number might increase — which are staggering in the extent of their destructive force.

We now have the situation where something loosely called Star Wars is going to be embarked upon and deployed by our good friends the Americans, with a lot of dissenting Americans who unfortunately do not have the influence necessary to stop that program — very good people like James Schlesinger, who served as secretary of war in the United States. It's not just radicals and left-wing people, but people who think responsibly and come from all sections of the community. But they're powerless because of what General Eisenhower, in his parting remarks, called the power of the military-industrial complex. These things seem to have acquired a momentum of their own. If we in this chamber can check that nuclear arms race in any way, we should do so.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

Coming back to the total, consummate mindless folly of what's happening now, the Americans are proposing to build a nuclear umbrella which will safeguard them from intercontinental missiles and any other delivery systems of missiles. They will not believe that that will give them safety. They know some can get through. The Russians, on the other hand, sitting over there watching that, will say: "We don't want to be subject only to strikes and not be able to retaliate, because then we are the victims." So they will believe that the nuclear umbrella really works. They will set about ways of penetrating it, and they'll build their own nuclear umbrella. The penetration possibilities of science, Mr. Speaker, are in the long run not only less expensive, but more likely to succeed than the defensive possibilities of stopping all of the weapons that cause such great destruction.

[ Page 7084 ]

We're not suggesting in this bill that we should pull out of NATO. We're not suggesting that we are not allies in many ways with the United States of America. In fact, the truth of the matter is that there are many other ways in which Canada could contribute to the stability and peace of the world through economic and social measures and even by maintaining some kind of an army in a conventional sense for trouble spots. There are many other things we can do. But we've got to call a halt to an arms race that is spinning out of control, so we say here in British Columbia that we declare that we do not want nuclear weapons within our territory.

We are not in any way endangering our security by such a measure. The danger to our security and that of North America is not of attack. The danger is of use anywhere of nuclear weapons. If it happens — if World War III comes — we're gone. British Columbia is gone. We can't absent ourselves from our geographic position. So we say we take this stand, asking people conscientiously to consider a check upon the mad momentum of the nuclear arms race — mad because it increases the danger of war, which is not likely to come through human intelligence and careful planning or anything of that kind, but could come, with this kind of an arms race, from a flaw in a computer chip or from somebody who loses their mental balance and is in a position of responsibility.

We ask also that we call a halt because the diversion of economic resources into the war machines is proving absolutely devastating to the health and nutrition of peoples around the world, as well as being a pregnant cause in itself of war breaking out.

So all we're saying is "Halt. You don't need us. You don't need nuclear weapons from the province of British Columbia." There is overkill there that is unimaginably high. We're never going to get out of it. There will always be that question of deterrence. We'll never be able to get back to the old conventional war with tags and scatter bombs, devastating as that would be, and which would quickly turn into a nuclear war in any case. We're just saying: "Stop. You don't need us." But our gesture is a very clear message that the overkill — the mad momentum — of the nuclear arms race must be checked and checked now.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make a few comments with respect to what the member who moved the bill spoke of. The concept and concern he expressed with respect to nuclear annihilation is such a serious matter that it, in my opinion, deserves to be aired and heard.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, not as a criticism but as a comment: the House permits an opportunity for members to speak on matters of interest to themselves on Fridays by members' statements. The opportunity to do something similar by way of an act introducing a bill perhaps could be considered not as proper in procedure in that, again, this bill is out of order. I did not attempt at all to interrupt the previous speaker, because I think the subject is very important and should be aired. But, Mr. Speaker, the bill fails because it calls for fines and/or imprisonment, and is out of order. But I wanted to say and point out that the matter is of such importance that I thought that, although being technically out of order, the mover should have the opportunity to express his opinion with respect to it. But I would suggest it is out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition wishes to rise on a point of order?

MR. SKELLY: The Speaker has yet to make a ruling on the...?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would hear your opinion, if you are rising on a point of order.

MR. SKELLY: I would ask the government House Leader in this case, Mr. Speaker, to accept this private member's bill and to accept it as the government. In that way this Legislature can allow all members to speak on the bill and allow this Legislature to resolve itself in favour of the bill. I think that that would be the most appropriate way to go. So rather than taking the step of calling for this bill to be ruled out of order, I think that the best approach that can be taken, Mr. Speaker, is that the government accept the bill as its own, allow members of the Legislature to express their opinion on the bill and then allow the Legislature to resolve itself in favour of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point made by the Minister of Health and House Leader is correct in that it does involve penalties and therefore is out of order. I so rule.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, because of the inclement weather and some of the difficulties the members and members of the staff will have returning home, I would move that the House do now adjourn.

Motion approved.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, please. The Chair recognizes the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a message from the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. COCKE: The House is adjourned.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, it isn't.

MR. COCKE: Yes, it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point of order raised by the member for New Westminster was correct. The House has been adjourned.

The House adjourned at 5:42 p.m.

[ Page 7085 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

45 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 45) intituled Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985 to amend as follows:

SECTIONS 2 (c), 13 (c), 16 (c), 18 (c) and 26 (c), by adding the following before the proposed subsection (8.1):

(5.1) Notwithstanding subsection (5), where a demand is made in respect of a periodic payment referred to in subsection (3), the demand continues in effect until it is satisfied unless no periodic payment is made or is liable to be made within 90 days after the demand is mailed or served, in which case the demand ceases to have effect on the expiration of that period.

SECTIONS 4 (c), 7 (c), 11 (c), 20 (c), 23 (c) and 28 (c), by adding the following before the proposed subsection (9.1):

(6.1) Notwithstanding subsection (6), where a demand is made in respect of a periodic payment referred to in subsection (4), the demand continues in effect until it is satisfied unless no periodic payment is made or is liable to be made within 90 days after the demand is mailed or served, in which case the demand ceases to have effect on the expiration of that period.

54 The Hon. H. A. Curtis to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 54) intituled Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985 to amend as follows:

SECTION 41, in the proposed section 215 by deleting subsection (4).

SECTION 41, in the proposed section 217 by deleting subsection (3) and substituting the following:

(3) A board that is authorized by the minister pursuant to subsection (1) (b) to borrow or to make an expenditure shall, where the minister so directs, expend on the capital project such part of any surplus referred to in section 240 (5) as the minister specifies.

(4) A board that obtains a loan of money in respect of a capital project approved under subsection (1) shall, where the minister so directs, apply to the discharge of the loan such part of any surplus referred to in section 240 (5) as the minister specifies.

SECTION 41, by deleting the proposed section 218 and substituting the following:

Other capital expenditures

218. (1) In this section "ineligible assets" means assets that have been specified by the minister under section 184 (2) as not eligible for grants under this Act.

(2) Where approval for a capital project is required in an emergency the minister may, subject to the regulations, approve capital expenditures for the project.

(3) Where the minister is satisfied that the total costs of a capital project proposed by a board will be paid wholly with all or any of

(a) money derived from the disposition of ineligible assets of the board,

(b) levies made by the board on residential land and buildings, or

(c) sources approved in writing for the purposes of this subsection by the minister,

the board may, after receiving the written approval of the minister, proceed with the project and make the expenditures required for it, but no part of the cost of the project is eligible for a grant under section 184.

(4) Section 217 (1) (a) does not apply in respect of a capital project approved under subsection (3) of this section.

[ Page 7086 ]

60 The Hon. A. V. Fraser to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 60) intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985 to amend as follows:

SECTION 20, by deleting section 20 and substituting the following:

20. Section 221 is amended by

(a) by adding "and registered psychologist, optometrist and" after "Every legally qualified",

(b) in paragraph (a) by adding "psychologist, optometrist or" after "in the opinion of the", and

(c) in paragraph (b) by adding "psychologist, optometrist or" after "warned of the danger by the".