[ Page 8375 ]

CONTENTS

Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1986 (Bill 17). Hon. A. Fraser

Introduction and first reading — 8375

Ministry Of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1986 (No. 2), (Bill N121 1). Mr. Howard

Introduction and first reading — 8375

Oral Questions

U.S. shake and shingle tariffs. Mr. Howard — 8376

Export of cedar logs. Mr. Howard — 8376

B.C. electoral boundaries. Mr. Hanson — 8376

Tourism information centres. Mr. MacWilliam — 8377

Purchasing Commission appointment. Mr. Stupich — 8377

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

On vote 28: minister's office — 8377

Hon. Mr. Curtis

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Macdonald

Mr. Lauk

Mr. Rose

Division

Mr. Cocke

Ms. Sanford

Mr. Howard

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Hanson

Tabling Documents — 8400

TUESDAY, MAY 27, 1986

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon watching the start of our proceedings is a constituent of Saanich and the Islands, Mr. John Verlan. Would the House make him welcome.

MR. ROGERS: Would the members please join me in welcoming Dorothy Miller from Ontario, who is here today.

Introduction of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENTS ACT, 1986

Hon. A. Fraser presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendments Act, 1986.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'd like to make a few remarks. At the present time a driver convicted of impaired driving or another serious motor vehicle offence is automatically prohibited from driving for six months. Amendments contained in this bill would double the length of time of mandatory prohibition to one year.

This government's response to impaired driving has always been a strong one. This measure is intended to further strengthen it. Over the past five years there have been approximately 16,000 impaired-driving convictions each year. In 1985, 152 people were killed and 5,450 were injured in traffic accidents involving alcohol. While we have made good progress in British Columbia in reducing the costs associated with drinking and driving, these figures are still unacceptable. While increasing fines and jail terms have had some effect on impaired driving, we feel that lengthy and certain prohibitions from driving are perhaps the most effective deterrents available. This increase in the automatic prohibition to one year not only increases the deterrent value of our laws; it also provides the public with an additional six months' protection from the convicted impaired driver.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also contains a number of amendments to address deficiencies in the Motor Vehicle Act identified as the result of recent Charter decisions. In addition, the bill corrects a number of references in the act to motor vehicle-related sections of the Criminal Code. Bill C18, which came into force on December 4, 1985, established new offences and renumbered several existing offences.

Mr. Speaker, this is a relatively straightforward bill, and I'm sure it will have the support of all the members of the House. I again move first reading.

Bill 17 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.

MINISTRY OF FORESTS ACT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1986 (No. 2)

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to introduce a bill intituled Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1986 (No. 2).

In moving that the bill be introduced and read a first time now, I would point out that it would authorize the Minister of Forests, who has the responsibility by law of protecting the forests and the forest industry in this province, forthwith to communicate to the government of Canada and the President of the United States of America that this Legislature regrets very much that the President of the United States saw fit to impose a 35 percent tariff against red cedar shakes and shingles, and urges the President of the United States forthwith and immediately to withdraw that tariff and to declare in addition to that that no additional tariffs or countervailing duties will be put in place by the United States government during the continuance of the comprehensive trade talks between our two countries; and urges further that the government of Canada use all reasonable efforts and strategies to obtain both the withdrawal of the 35 percent red cedar shake and shingle tariff and the declaration from the President that no further tariff or countervailing duty impositions will be placed against Canadian products during those comprehensive trade discussions.

Motion for first reading approved unanimously on a division.

[2:15]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, standing order 81 prompts me to say that the government of Canada ignores the government of B.C.'s pleas, and there exists an urgent and extraordinary situation today. This is an urgent and extraordinary occasion when the Legislature of this province should speak immediately, unanimously. In one voice, and tell them what we think about the action of people in the United States, and do it immediately and quickly by the passage of this bill. I submit to you, pursuant to that standing order, that it ought to be permitted to be advanced in all its stages today. I would therefore move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading later this day.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, with no copy of the bill before the Chair, the motion cannot be put.

MR. HOWARD: I have sufficient copies for distribution, and I'm waiting for them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, as is the Chair's usual practice in matters of urgent and otherwise pressing matters, the Chair will reserve on it ever so briefly and bring a response back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

MR. HOWARD: With respect, the custom has been, Your Honour, that when there are no voices differing from that expressed about the urgency of the matter and the necessity of proceeding through three readings in one day, Your Honour has with speed and dispatch, having heard no opposing voices, agreed to the proposal.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order relating to this matter dealing with section 81, there is no question about the urgency of the matter itself. But section 81, it seems to me, speaks to the urgency of handling the matter, and there are other remedies available without having to go through the legislative process in an unusual manner such as section 81 describes. Yesterday in the House during question period the

[ Page 8376 ]

Premier, in answer to questions from some of the hon. members on the other side, indicated that actions have already started in regard to the matter which is before the House now in this bill, and will continue. The remedy is there and is being taken, so that the urgency of debating this bill today, in my opinion, doesn't stand in relation to section 81.

MR. HOWARD: I want to point out that it isn't a question of urgency of debating: it's urgency of making a unanimous decision in this Legislature. That's what's crucial. I can't believe the minister is opposed to that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, while there may be varying points on the matter from either side of the House, the Chair will nonetheless reserve on the matter and bring a response back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Oral Questions

U.S. SHAKE AND SHINGLE TARIFFS

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Forests a question. When it was drawn to his attention on March 21 of this year that the United States International Trade Commission had forwarded to the president the petition recommending tariff action against the shake and shingle industry in British Columbia, did the minister immediately advise his colleagues in the cabinet, the Premier particularly, to take some action with respect thereto? What did he do when that March 21 decision came to his attention?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: When the decision was rendered by the International Trade Commission, it came really in two parts. The international trade administration made a recommendation that a countervail or tariff in the amount of 35 percent ought to be levied. That decision was four to two. It was reviewed by the International Trade Commission. The decision was split three to three. When that occurred, the information was obviously.... We were aware of that when it was communicated to us by the Canadian Forest Industries Council, CFIC, led by Mike Apsey, and the Council of Forest Industries as well as all other provinces. That communication was reported, and the decision had to be made on or before May 24. The Premier tabled in the House yesterday a letter which had been forwarded to the Prime Minister, dated May 7.

We were very much aware of it, and my colleagues were aware of it, as I'm sure all members opposite were as well. It seems to me that the information passed to the members of the House by the Premier yesterday makes that point abundantly clear.

MR. HOWARD: You did nothing in March and nothing in April. That's what I asked the minister: what did he do to urge immediate action with respect to this? He refuses to answer that question, but recites some history that is of no relevance whatsoever.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you do?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

MR. HOWARD: I'll tell you, if I was in government I'd have damned well done something more than you guys would have done.

Interjections.

EXPORT OF CEDAR LOGS

MR. HOWARD: The sooner you put that test to the people of British Columbia, the better off we'll be.

I want to ask the Minister of Forests a question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received any applications for the export of raw western red cedar logs from British Columbia; and if so, what action is he taking with respect to them?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, it was made abundantly clear yesterday that we would not entertain applications or permits to export red cedar. If I recall, very little has been exported in the past. Most red cedar has been consumed within the province. This note was made yesterday.

It might be of some interest to the member, Mr. Speaker, that a request was made for a small volume, but I can't be sure exactly how much. I have turned it down. I might also say that those who telephoned me yesterday, who are in a very difficult position — and let's be very candid about it; there are some market loggers right now who have been harvesting cedar for the purpose of supplying shake and shingle operations in British Columbia.... They presently have several thousand cubic metres of red cedar, which is in the water, and they have some concern as to what they are going to do. I've inquired as to what the cost would be to remove that wood out of the water so that it is not eaten by teredos in three to four weeks' time from now, or whether it could be put in fresh water. I should say that I've told them that we will not be entertaining any applications for export of red cedar logs.

B.C. ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

MR. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary in her responsibility for looking after voter rights and the voting process in this province. Recently a respected author, T. Patrick Boyle, completed a book, Elections British Columbia. He concurs with the view expressed from this side of the House that we have in this province a gerrymander of electoral boundaries. Will the Provincial Secretary now, in view of the fact that there's a leadership race in the Social Credit Party and the opportunity to allow the people of the province to give that party a clean launch in the next provincial election, free the Electoral Commission to redefine electoral boundaries in the province of British Columbia?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Not only do I think that the question is not before the government, but redistribution has been announced and passed by this House — by all members in this House. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I think the preamble given by the member who was just on his feet was out of order in itself. But the answer to the question is no.

[2:30]

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, the people of this province point the finger directly at that minister. We have 600,000 people not on the voters' list. We have gerrymandered electoral boundaries. We have people who should have the vote and who are not entitled to the vote, and that minister is in

[ Page 8377 ]

charge. My question, Mr. Speaker: there's a bill before this House that contains the provisions to give the people of the province of British Columbia a fair election in the coming election. Have you decided to bring that bill forward?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Clearly, hon. member, that question is out of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Provincial Secretary again: can the Provincial Secretary advise the House whether, like the former Provincial Secretary before her, she would approve expenditures for the Speaker's office of jackets, slacks and shirts totalling $600 — acquired in Hong Kong?

MR. SPEAKER: Hong Kong? Order, please, hon. members. On Thursday of last week, on Friday of last week, the hon. member was advised that that question could best be placed on the order paper, and was not appropriate during question period, and could better be placed in other forums. It would not in any way prevent the member from having a press conference outside the men's washroom in the rear of the corridor.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Further questions, hon. member?

TOURISM INFORMATION CENTRES

MR. MacWILLIAM: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. The Ministry of Tourism funding policies have resulted in the closure of tourism information centres in Osoyoos, Yahk and Dawson Creek. I wonder if the minister would explain, in view of the importance of Expo 86 and the tourism industry, the reasons for the closing of these regional tourism information centres.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: I'd be happy to answer that member's question. First of all, we have an operating arrangement with the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce wherein they will operate the tourism information centres throughout the province, not only providing excellent service but expanding the number of offices throughout the province. The only places where tourism offices were closed is in areas where they were being duplicated by chamber of commerce offices.

MR. MacWILLIAM: A new question to the same minister. The Osoyoos Chamber of Commerce in fact confirms that they don't have the financial means to operate the centre. They also confirmed that they were not consulted in the closure of the Osoyoos centre. Would the minister explain why this decision was made without consultation of the local chambers and those individuals involved?

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, as usual the member's information is inaccurate, or at the very least out of date. The information centre in Osoyoos will be open this summer. We have come to an excellent arrangement with the chamber of commerce there to maintain the operation of the existing information office, so I can only ask the member to check his information a little more accurately. He's totally incorrect.

PURCHASING COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker. a question to the Minister of Finance. There is an order-in-council indicating that a Mr. Jack S. Waldie was appointed to the Purchasing Commission. Is this the same Mr. Waldie who was a campaign manager for the Minister of Finance in the 1983 general election?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh. Oh!.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us whether there were any other applications for the job, or were applications invited?

MR. SKELLY: None on the short list.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to have his own answer. I would like to introduce him to the member for Nanaimo, sitting just there.

I indicated at the time the legislation was amended in this House that an unstated number of individuals would be invited to serve on the Purchasing Commission as outside members. Mr. Waldie is the first of such outside members, and there will be other appointments.

Did we post it, Mr. Member? No, we did not. But I invite all members and interested British Columbians, if they think of individuals who would enjoy serving as outside members of the Purchasing Commission. to do so; the list is by no means closed.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

On vote 28: minister's office, $209, 220.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to bring my estimates to the committee again for this year. May I take a few moments to provide some background information in support of the ministry's estimates for fiscal year 1986-87.

The 1986-87 estimates for the ministry, as members will note, comprise five votes: number 28 for the operation of the office of the Minister of Finance: 29 for the operation of the six ministry divisions. It further provides funding for the B.C. Assessment Authority, courts of revision and assessment appeal boards. Vote 30 provides for an operating grant and beautification funds for the Provincial Capital Commission serving the capital area. Vote 31 provides for the operation of the office of the commissioner, the compensation stabilization program: and vote 32, which the committee will note is a new vote for 1986-87, provides for the operation of the critical industry commissioner's office, the office occupied by Mr. Art Phillips. We can discuss that, I am sure, as the committee progresses this afternoon or later.

Total spending for these five votes is estimated at $63.5 million. Mr. Chairman, that is up $4.8 million or 8.2 percent

[ Page 8378 ]

from the estimates for fiscal year 1985-86. However. If the committee adjusts or if one, in looking at this, adjusts the 1985-86 funding base to reflect the newly introduced postal services charge back, the transfer of staff from the B.C. Systems Corporation and the fact that the critical industries commission and its office was funded by statute last year, the real increase in spending is only 3.7 percent.

So excluding these one-time funding adjustments, the majority of the ministry's expenditure increase is accounted for by the revenue and purchasing divisions of the ministry. The revenue division continues to be a priority, particularly in terms of preserving the integrity and the equity of the tax system and simplifying taxpayer compliance. I hope I am asked a question or two about that later.

Mr. Chairman, a total of 12 full-time-equivalents were reallocated from other parts of the ministry for this purpose. Emphasis continues to be placed on automating revenue systems as marked by the recent completion of a new land tax information system. Considerable effort is also being expended in improving communication between taxpayers and the Ministry of Finance. An example of this latter is the development of a new series of information bulletins on the property tax system insofar as the government of the province is concerned.

I also want to speak about the public sector purchasing policy which was introduced well over a year ago, now firmly in place, ensuring that our estimated $2 billion in buying power is used to maximize the creation of new jobs and business opportunities in the province, at the same time minimizing the cost of services and supplies to government. In recognition of the Purchasing Commission's vital and expanded role, 13 full-time-equivalents were reallocated from elsewhere in the ministry.

We will also see in 1986-87 the development of a new supply network information system called SupplyNet. This system will make an extensive range of current purchasing information available to buyers throughout the public sector. The objective here is to help public sector buyers use their purchasing power to stimulate economic development within the province of British Columbia. They will be better able to substitute goods competitively produced in B.C. against those purchased elsewhere. They will also assist in identifying B.C. companies in developing products and the promotion of local and regional distribution.

Basically an automated and an expanded data base in this area of activity means improved economies and a more effective means for promoting B.C. Jobs and B.C. business opportunities.

Mr. Chairman, aside from the revenue and purchasing divisions, the Ministry of Finance 1986-87 budget also includes significant funding increases for the government agents system, and I hope I can speak about that later, as well as for the Provincial Capital Commission, the latter on a percentage basis at least. The ministry is continuing with its program of upgrading government agency offices throughout the province. In addition, funds have been set aside for the installation of computer terminals in those offices. The objective here is to recognize that a very considerable number of British Columbians live not in Vancouver and not in Victoria, and it is essential that those other citizens of the province have as much information available to them as is humanly possible.

The Provincial Capital Commission will be receiving an additional $255,000 in 1986-87 for that organization's beautification initiatives. This really represents a partial restoration of the funding which had to be cut as part of our 1983 and 1984 restraint program.

Members will notice that the 1986-87 estimates for the ministry include a new Purchasing Commission working capital account, This account was originally established in the Purchasing Commission Act of 1985 and funds those activities which operate on a full cost-recovery basis. Concurrent with the introduction of the account, a new enterprise accounting system was established which promotes the operation of these commission activities in a businesslike manner.

The new account also allows the commission to be more responsive in furthering the opportunities identified under the public sector purchasing program. It should be noted, however, that the account's transactions do not affect the bottom line of the ministry. All costs are ultimately recovered from ministries or other public institutions.

In a few moments, that concludes an overview of the ministry's estimates for 1986-87 fiscal, and I will try my best to answer fully any questions that come from members of the committee.

[2:45]

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to start by asking a few questions about B.C. Rail, and I suppose it starts with a press release indicating that B.C. Rail was going to pay the first dividend ever to its shareholders, or shareholder — singular. Looking at the balance sheet of B.C. Rail for the year ended December 31, 1985, the first thing I note is the Dease Lake extension, which is described in note 2: "Construction was suspended in 1977, and there are no commitments to continue. In the event any portion of this extension is abandoned, the cost less any value covered will be written off at that time."

I saw a story somewhere recently to the effect that the forest industry was going to make, or had made, requests of the government that there be some bringing back to life of a part of the Dease Lake extension. What I'm wondering about now is the cost of $98,020,000 that was accumulated by 1977 — eight years ago. I would expect by this time that even the grade 1s in a sad state of disrepair, that most if not all of the ties would have to be replaced, that some of the rails might have been borrowed by this time.

I wondered if the minister has, in the last year or so, had any occasion to ask anyone just exactly what is the current value of the Dease Lake extension, because certainly I think he would agree with me that it's much less than $98 million.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Whenever I appear before Committee of Supply, I try to be as completely helpful as possible. The member for Nanaimo, however, is asking questions which I respectfully suggest move beyond my responsibility as Minister of Finance and fiscal agent only for B.C. Rail. He started out by referring to the dividend which was paid to the shareholder, and that's fair enough. But I have to remind the committee that I am not the designated minister responsible for the British Columbia Railway Company. That rests with one of my colleagues.

In terms of debt, in terms of borrowing, in terms of dividend, I can assist the member, but I don't feel that I am authorized, quite apart from anything else, to comment on the book value of a portion of the rail line, whether it is in use

[ Page 8379 ]

or not, or on aspects of the operation or future operation of the railway. I'm sorry that right off the bat we run into one where I have some difficulty, but I am not responsible for the British Columbia Railway Company.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the member, the Chair must concur, and I recognize this could maybe be a problematic area inasmuch as we are dealing with the fiscal agent. The minister responsible to the Committee of Supply for the British Columbia Railway is the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), whose estimates have been before us, and operating and administrative questions of the BCR Could have been asked of that minister. I guess with respect to questions directed to the Minister of Finance in his capacity as fiscal agent, they are in order. In terms of the operation of the railway itself, they would be out of order.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't think we are going to have any real difficulty here, but I think perhaps I'll make the point, then, on my own that I believe that the balance sheet figure for the Dease Lake extension is very much in excess of the current value. What I'm getting at is the ability of that railroad to pay, or even the propriety of that railroad's paying, a dividend at this particular point in time. The dividend referred to in the minister's press release was in the amount of $10,307,540. I'm wondering, in part. about the basis of calculation, how that figure was arrived at. There may be a very simple answer to that. I'm wondering what the dividend is going to be charged against. I believe, in all fairness, there is no balance in retained earnings, it's one were to take into account the Dease Lake extension write down that I think should properly be made, that hasn't been done, so I suppose technically the minister could say that it is coming out of retained earnings. But I think that is stretching it a bit.

I note that although the railroad is paying a dividend to the province this year — and everybody's happy that it's paying a dividend of $10.3 million — the railroad received by way of government assistance in 1985, some $6.6 million. So something like 65 percent of the amount that the government is now receiving by way of dividend was paid to the railroad by way of government assistance last year. I wonder whether the minister has in mind the amount of government assistance paid to BCR in 1986, in the same year in which we are receiving a dividend of $10.3 million.

HON. MR. CURTIS: First of all. Mr. Chairman, the member has alluded to the B.C. Rail annual report for 1985, and the auditors have reported to the shareholders, indicating that they feel this is a fair representation of 1985. So the retained earnings question, Mr. Member, is a matter that I think the auditors have satisfied themselves with. However, I do not want to intrude on the area which I identified just a few minutes ago.

The B.C. Railway as such, Mr. Chairman. Is at once now what we had wanted it to be: that is, a commercially operated organization. I know that predecessors in government even the NDP when it was in government from '72 to '75, would have wanted the same thing. It has a fundamental duty to serve the province of British Columbia, and to serve it as closely as possible as a commercial concern would. However, there are certain other aspects of the railway that are not necessarily something that would be done commercially. I refer to the Fort Nelson extension and I refer to passenger service. The questions of what the government allocates for B.C. Rail to do those things which are not traditionally commercial and what the railway company felt it could send to the shareholders. as a dividend. are not related. Now they're all to do with B.C. Rail; I concede that point. Butthey are not related. We saw, as did B.C. Rail. that there was an opportunity for the payment of a dividend; and that was alluded to in the 1986-87 budget: at the same time, on page 15, about in the middle of the page, is the reference I made earlier to what will be provided through the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to the railway for specific non-commercial purposes."

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister has said about the reasons for giving government assistance to BCR: but my question to the minister was: could he tell us how much that will be in 1986, the year in which we are letting, a $10.3 million dividend — maybe more: maybe there will be further dividends declared this year. But for the moment at least, we know that we're getting $10.3 million. Really. I was wondering whether it's associated with the operating...what section of the line, or whatever: whether the Fort Nelson line should be taken into it. Leaving all that aside, my question simply was: how much is the B.C. Rail going to get from the government by way way of assistance in 1986? If the minister doesn't have that figure, well, that's okay for now.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I refer the member, at his leisure, to page 15 of the budget document for this year. It mentions $14.5 million; that is for operating and capital requirements of the passenger service and the Fort Nelson extension. It may also include some non-passenger capital of a relatively minor nature. That is the amount.

With respect to a second dividend being declared by British Columbia Railway in fiscal 1986-87, I have not raised it with the railway company, nor with my colleague who is responsible. As I say, we saw the opportunity for one dividend, and that is the extent of my consideration — up to this point at any rate — but I appreciate that circumstances can change. I have nothing in mind, though, at the moment.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for that reference to page 15. I'd missed that in the budget speech, so I wasn't aware that we will be.... I don't argue against giving B.C. Rail $14 million plus this year, nor do I argue against getting back a dividend of $10.3 million, but I am raising the question with the minister as to whether or not it was proper for a corporation whose current position — and there's a difference between current assets and current liabilities for others in the House who might be here.... It was in a deficit position of almost $12 million at the end of the year, and its quick asset position — that's leaving out the value of materials and other items included as current assets — was in a deficit of almost $47 million, Did the minister think it fair to ask BCR to pay a dividend of $10.3 million at a time when its quick asset position was in a deficit of $47 million? At least it was at the end of the year.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, let the committee and the member know that I did not, nor would I, demand of B.C. Rail a dividend which the directors and senior management of the railway felt could not be paid. We don't function that way, and I'm sure the member would not, were he in this

[ Page 8380 ]

position. The balance sheet shows that B.C. Rail Ltd. operates a relatively low cash position. They certainly have done so in '84 and '85 — relatively low. I can tell you that the decision to give and to receive a dividend was arrived at through the best of consultation and with no coercion whatsoever.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't use the Clarkson Gordon report as the definitive source of all information about this, but I do note one statement in here on page 5. I didn't invite the minister to bring the Clarkson Gordon report today, but in speaking about Crown corporations it says: "If the corporation does have cash, the government has the opportunity to cause the corporation to declare a dividend." Now it would seem that at the time Clarkson Gordon reviewed government finances in January 1976 their feeling was that if a Crown corporation paid a dividend, it was because the Crown or the government asked — or as the Clarkson Gordon report said, "caused" — the corporation to pay the dividend.

There's another liability that B.C. Rail has. I refer now to page 18 of the report, note 4: "B.C. Rail Ltd. must make all reasonable efforts in each quarter, beginning January 1, 1986, to purchase for cancellation in the open market ¼ of 1 percent of the series 1-A preferred shares outstanding at the beginning of the quarter, at a price not to exceed $25 per share and all transaction costs." Now I believe that's about $1.5 million, and B.C. Rail was to make every effort to pay that by the end of the first quarter. I wonder whether B.C. Rail made that first payment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't have that information at this moment, but we will have it for the committee in a matter of minutes. I see the note 4 which the member for Nanaimo has identified, and we will have that information very quickly.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think that's as far as I want to go at the moment on B.C. Rail — except that it does introduce another matter, and I'd like to give the.... Oh, I was going to ask something about the minority interest, and the minister may not have this information. I don't know, but the minority interest.... Were those preferred shareholders all British Columbians, or is there any knowledge as to just who they might be? I thought there was some particular advantage to British Columbians as opposed to others, but I'm not positive about that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we would have to look at the prospectus for the preferred share issue, which is a public document. My recollection is that there was no restriction in terms of British Columbia residency or British Columbia citizenship with respect to those. I'm subject to correction, but I think the bulk of the preferred shares were taken by British Columbians. That was a decision made by British Columbians, rather than a requirement established by the regulations associated with the preferred share issue. I'm quite sure that the prospectus, which is available to all members, would show that there was no restriction.

[3:00]

MR. STUPICH: I'd like to move on a little from looking at BCR itself, and took to the issue of preferred shares, and to a matter that was raised in question period by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) on March 13. It's about the possibility of a conflict of interest when the Minister of Finance invested in this preferred share issue.

I don't make any accusations at this point. I simply raise the question that it would seem to me there was no one in the province who knew what was happening in more detail than the Minister of Finance. I believe that it would be the Minister of Finance who would be discussing with experts in the field the terms of the issue and what would likely be the public reaction in pricing them and deciding the interest rate that was going to be available — all that would have to be taken into account. I believe that this came out at the time of the issue, when the Minister of Finance said that he was very heavily involved in discussions, with whoever they used for selling the shares, on the details of the issue — to make them attractive, because the government or B.C. Rail wanted to raise $200 million. That would be the only way to make sure that it was a fair issue. My suggestion is that the Minister of Finance knew a good deal more about what was happening than any other possible investor, with the exception of the people they were using.

In his response, delivered in the House on April 11, 1986, the minister detailed his acquisition of shares — how many he acquired — and it was a nominal investment of 100 shares at $25 a share. He invested $2,500 and he sold them for $2,712.50, making a capital gain of $212.50, and I assume he received dividend income of $228 — $440 on $2,500; a small thing, Mr. Chairman. The minister didn't argue.... I think the implication was that it wasn't much of a purchase and he didn't make very much money on it, so there was no conflict of interest. As the minister said in responding: "That's the background in order to answer the member's question. I purchased 100 shares, and I have computed that to be .0000125 percent of the total issue." I think the minister was trying to say that it was really a very small thing in the total financing scheme — and I agree, it was.

These shares were purchased on the open market through an investment dealer on June 4, 1984, with a settlement date of June 19, and they were at the issue price of $25. He didn't make any back-door deal to get them at the special price. That's not the problem. "I held the shares for approximately 13 months, selling them again on the open market through an investment dealer. Over the 52-week period, the trading price varied from 25¾ to 28⅜.

The size of the transaction is not what concerns me. What concerns me is that the person who knew most about it got involved in it in any way at all, without saying at the time to the people of British Columbia: "This is a good deal for British Columbians to invest in. I recommend to all of you that you do it. I'm going to go out and buy some myself."

There is a precedent for that in the history of Canadian legislatures.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a real brick.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not talking about BCRIC. I'm talking about something that happened a long time ago — in 1944, when the CCF government in Saskatchewan was first elected, and Saskatchewan government bonds took a nosedive because there was concern in financial circles as to the financial stability of the government. Saskatchewan government bonds went down seriously in price, and the Minister of Finance of that day went on radio, not on TV, and urged the

[ Page 8381 ]

people of Saskatchewan to back their government and to back their province. He said that those bonds would one day be worth face value, he said that he was going to borrow everything he could borrow to buy those bonds himself, and he urged other people to do the same thing.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, I think there's nothing that anyone could attack about that approach, but the minister didn't do that. In this case the minister did not advise other people to take advantage of what he thought was a good deal, even though he didn't invest very heavily in it.

There's an editorial I saw recently in the Financial Post, talking about another minister, and the heading was: "The Honourable Way." "Public office holders have an obligation to act in a manner that will bear the closest public scrutiny, an obligation that is not fully discharged by simply acting within the law." I don't know that the minister broke a law. I can't think of any law that he might have broken, but that's not my field. Nevertheless, even if he didn't break a law, I want him to have an opportunity to tell us that there really was no conflict of interest. He knew all about it; he knew all the details. He thought it was a good deal to the extent that he invested $2,500. He made some money on it — not very much — but he didn't tell the people of the province that it was such a good deal that he was going to invest in it.

The editorial goes on:

"Yes, they do. Anything less than this eats away at a fundamental underpinning of our democratic system — the ready consent of the governed to the laws imposed on their behalf. The example set by government is crucial to fostering that consent and to maintaining a high standard of moral and intellectual conduct in the community."

This is speaking of another minister, as I said. "He did not, technically, breach the conflict-of-interest guidelines." And perhaps the minister before us now didn't — I don't know those conflict-of- interest guidelines that they have in cabinet. It goes on to say there could be an ultimate benefit accruing to him. Perhaps the minister calculated that it would be a much larger gain than he actually realized. People make mistakes. Nevertheless, there was the possibility of him gaining a benefit from his inside knowledge of what was happening. "Furthermore," the editorial goes on, "there is a perception that his cabinet position could have been a factor, " Because of his position in cabinet, because he is the fiscal agent for BCR, because he is the one who had the opportunity to set the whole deal — the one responsible for putting it all together and he then went out and quietly bought some, I have to raise the question as to whether there was conflict of interest. I would invite the minister to comment beyond what he did in Hansard when he responded to the question from the hon. first member for Vancouver East.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, there's no question whatsoever that the minister made a mistake and forgot the well-known parliamentary tradition that a minister shall not benefit from his own office. There's no doubt about that whatsoever.

Prime Minister Thatcher has been in the newspapers in Britain. Statements have been coming down as to what constitutes a conflict of interest there, because she invested in some Australian enterprise that had some remote connection with her government. That was all.

The member for Nanaimo is quite correct in saying that the amount the Minister of Finance made or might have lost is not the issue. The issue is that there's an arrogance here, an unwillingness to respect the traditions of ministerial government. That's a very serious thing. I haven't heard the Minister of Finance get up and say to the people of British Columbia: "I made a mistake. Mea culpa. I should not have done what I did." His failure to do so is to invite other ministers to profit — maybe not very much — from the knowledge they gain in their portfolios. Whatever the amounts involved, it is a most pernicious position for any government to be in.

So what is the minister going to do in his estimates? Is he going to get up and acknowledge: "I made a mistake, I set a very poor example. I set a dangerous example." If I hear that, then I say to myself: this government listens: this Legislature has some command over the upholding of well-known traditions of parliamentary government. I haven't heard it, and the minister definitely made a mistake. In England the minister would be excoriated for his conduct in this matter.

He did not even buy a bond. I don't know whether I agree at all with.... I recognize that the Clarence Fines situation that the member for Nanaimo referred to was bonds. These were not bonds; these were shares. I admit they were preference shares. Preference shares are shares. In addition to the tax benefit that they very often confer and in addition to the interest rate that accrues to the holder, preference shares fluctuate in value and the price range is usually very narrow. A minister who had knowledge of this particular issue could look back and say to himself: "With the government guarantee behind these preference shares. and the interest rate of return and the term of these shares, I can reasonably predict" — as could somebody outside, to be sure — "that they will increase in value by one or two dollars — $25 to $26 to $27; something of that kind — over one month. twelve months." Not too difficult a calculation to make. People outside could have made that calculation, but the minister had no business profiting from his knowledge of that particular issue or getting in ahead of the public who might have bought at $26. Some of them might buy at $26, $26.50, $25.50. There is no question that the minister has committed a breach of the cardinal rule of cabinet government. The question is whether he will fully acknowledge that and say: "I made a mistake, mea culpa." I urge other ministers never to go down that particular path, because that path is a very dangerous one.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I undertook for the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) to get word back with regard to note 4 on page 18. He in effect said B.C. Rail Ltd. must make all reasonable efforts in each quarter beginning January 1, 1986 to purchase for cancellation in the open market. etc., at a price not to exceed $25 per share.

Well, Mr. Chairman, in the first quarter of 1986 the market price has not been below $25 per share, and therefore we would be unlikely to have many people tender their shares for the take-up which is described as: "B.C. Rail Ltd. must make all reasonable efforts...." That is a demand which I think is appropriate in connection with the preferred shares. I trust that explanation is of assistance to the member for Nanaimo.

Mr. Chairman, I dealt with the question of my purchase of a number of B.C. Rail preferred shares when the question

[ Page 8382 ]

was posed by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and answered at some length earlier in the session. The member has called them "preference shares." Let's not engage in semantics, but they are preferred shares, and they are interest rate sensitive. They are not sensitive in terms of what the railway company may or may not do, and the member knows that.

I am distressed when the member says — and Hansard will show it — the minister got in ahead of the public, or may have got in ahead of the public. Now that's clearly not the case. That is clearly not the case. No, the member for Nanaimo did not say thato the member for Vancouver East did say that. That was his reference just a few moments ago, that it was possible that the minister got in ahead of the public. It's not clear. It's not true at all. It's not correct.

MR. MACDONALD: You got in ahead of the person you sold the shares to.

[3:15]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, you see, I have some difficulty. The member was not in his seat as he interjected, but I have some difficulty. When there is an issue of preferred shares and they are reported publicly, they are dealt with in the press. They are not yet but will soon be in the hands of any interested investor. That is not, Mr. Member, getting in ahead of the public. I think that in your heart of hearts you know that to be the case. But you'll have your opportunity. The member will have his opportunity to pursue this further.

He also said that the minister could reasonably predict whether these preferred shares will increase or change in value. Well, if you take that statement at face value, that is also not correct. I don't say the member is misleading the committee, but the member is not accurate in that observation. We are dealing with an instrument here which is entirely interest rate sensitive. Mr. Chairman, neither the member for Vancouver East nor I can predict with any certainty whatsoever what is going to happen to interest rates from one clay to the next or one week to the next.

Indeed, I wish I could, and perhaps the member wishes he could. So it has to be seen, in my view, in perspective. The preferred shares were purchased, as I indicated in my statement to the House some weeks ago, after they were available to any member of the public who was interested. That is clear. That is not debated, cannot be debated, Mr. Chairman.

The fact of the matter is that the holding of those shares was disclosed in line with the disclosure act about five weeks later, the July reporting date under the disclosure law of this province and reported five weeks later, reported throughout the period that the shares were held,

If the member for Vancouver East researched other disclosure forms which I have made during my time as a minister, let alone as Minister of Finance, he will see that I have previously held preferred shares. It is an instrument which I find rather attractive. It is an instrument which certainly is attractive to a good number of people in the province. Not common shares. We are not speaking about stock in this instance; we are speaking about a preferred share which has a value that will move very narrowly. The member for Vancouver East, who has left for the moment, certainly knows that.

The member will also note, if he has researched the disclosure forms, that at one time or another I have held British Columbia Hydro bonds, and I have disclosed them. I have purchased them, and I have subsequently disposed of them. The member will also note, if he has looked, that I have held province of British Columbia bonds: bonds issued not for Hydro but by the province itself. I have purchased those on the open market and have disposed of them. I have also held, admittedly not much, but I did for much the same reason as B.C. Rail, Mr. Chairman.... I did hold one of the housing and development bonds issued a few years ago, which have just recently reached the maturity date.

There was no attempt, at any point.... The member can argue the point for today and Thursday and Friday. I live here; that's fine. We can go on as long as the member wishes. He can argue that I should have announced to the world that I had purchased a preferred share, or some preferred shares, in British Columbia Railway.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He speaks from his seat. He will want to say that. But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that throughout my time as Minister of Finance it will be seen that as a matter of direct commitment as an individual British Columbian, I have acquired those issues — not all, but most — which have been undertaken by the province as in its own way the very kind of thing about which the member for Nanaimo spoke, reaching back some 40 years or more to the CCF government in the province of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Chairman, take it at face value: that is what occurred. You can make all sorts of other suggestions. That is what occurred; that is why it occurred; that is why it was disclosed, as required by law; and that is why I cannot accommodate the member for Vancouver East and say I made a mistake. In my view, in my heart, I did not make a mistake in acquiring that which was available to the people of this province and this country at the same time — not beforehand, at the same time.

MR. LAUK: In this case, with respect to the Minister of Finance, it's difficult: I have to set aside my personal regard for him and my respect for his contribution to public life. Certainly the minister did disclose his holdings; others have not. Some have said that those who have not have paid the penalty; I say, not yet. This is an area that I have for many years regarded as one of the most important areas of the British parliamentary system: not only the actual honest and clear dealing, as cabinet ministers, but the appearance of it as well.

I accept completely the minister's explanation. I reject completely the conclusion he draws.

The point is simply this: the British parliamentary system cannot survive, it cannot operate, with ministers who have that kind of attitude: that it's okay, or there was not much involved, or a preference share doesn't go up or down very much, or it's not affected by the decisions I can make as Minister of Finance. Those are not reasonable excuses for the Minister of Finance. The reasonable excuses for the bank manager, the doctor, the plumber and the lawyer are unacceptable excuses from the Minister of Finance. They are completely unacceptable.

In terms of actual effect, I'm much more upset at the situation involving Westcoast Savings Credit Union, which was dealt with in question period — I'm not going to elaborate on the circumstances — where the Minister of Finance was directly involved in large government deposits for that credit union and yet was indebted to that credit union in some way. It's not enough for a minister of the Crown to say:

[ Page 8383 ]

"Well, how am I going to operate in my community without having a bank deposit or a mortgage some place, and several financial institutions have deposits from consolidated revenue? How am I going to operate?" I'm sorry, nobody said that the life of a Minister of Finance would be easy. But when a minister, particularly a Minister of Finance, not just any minister of the Crown, is chosen, there is an absolute requirement upon the minister to be absolutely sure there is no appearance of conflict of interest. There is absolutely, then, no excuse for what has happened. Under the circumstances, the very least that would have been required for the Minister of Finance was a full disclosure and an understanding, that.... He could have said: "I misjudged this situation. Of course I realize it must not happen. It must never happen."

It's too bad that we've lost the focus of this issue regarding this minister because of the much more blatant conflict of interest situations that arose with other cabinet ministers at the same time. I stood in the House some time ago this session and tried to explain to the press, who have very little understanding of what conflict of interest means, what is going on here. The principle in itself is essentially important, and I don't really care how much of the public understand it or how much of the press understand it.

What really concerns me is that the Minister of Finance does not understand it. That's the critical problem. Had the minister made a full explanation and said, "I have, on reflection, considered the history of the system, and I admit that I am quite incorrect; it should not happen again," perhaps his resignation should not have been demanded. I say the proper and honourable thing for the minister to have done then and now is to resign.

It's no good to point to someone else who resigned and is still sitting in this House — the former Minister of Health, former Minister of....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I haven't pointed to anyone.

MR. LAUK: All right. I'm saying, from the point of view of discussion, there's no point in pointing to others and saying: "That was more blatant, this was that, this was the other." The issue is very clear to me. Yes, of course, it's too bad that a minister who has acquitted himself very well in his portfolio and has done a job, of course, enforcing and administering policies that this side has been very critical of.... That's not the point.

The point is that it's too bad that a good and competent minister is caught in this trap, but it's for that very reason that he must resign and set the example. It's for that very reason that he should have completely done the most honourable and respectful thing to do — respectful of the traditions of parliament.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: My hon. colleague from Vancouver East mentions the Attorney-General. The two portfolios that are critical to the integrity of government are the Attorney-General and the Minister of Finance. If we haven't got people that are absolutely meticulous in their roles in those portfolios. we haven't got parliamentary government. Parliamentary government does not survive on law and enforcement so much as it survives on confidence — public confidence, the confidence of the other institutions of our democracy.

I am most disturbed by the attitude of the minister, and have been for some weeks now. It is inconsistent with his career as a politician and his almost compulsion — and I use that in a complimentary way — for doing the right thing. Yet steadfastly and stubbornly he refuses to see the important breach of principle that's involved.

The credit union situation is more disturbing. A great benefit has gone to a.... There is no doubt in my mind personally that the minister did not use his offices to benefit the credit union because he was indebted to the credit union. I have no doubt that that was not the case. That is not the issue. He cannot afford to leave himself and the government and this institution open even to the accusation, the appearance, of conflict of interest. It's simply not the issue, because one day there is going to be a Minister of Finance across the way that doesn't have that kind of meticulous adherence to doing a good job, that doesn't personally hold the sway that this current minister has.

That's why the principle must be upheld strictly. The concept in law is strict liability. It makes me heartsick to see all across this country the slovenly attitude towards parliamentary traditions and institutions that is going on in this country, We're the backwater of the British parliamentary system when it comes to upholding the traditional values and conventions of these institutions. It's about time we matured and grew up, because if we're going to make democracy work, Crown ministers have to adhere strictly to the conventions and the unwritten rules that have come down through hundreds of years.

[3:30]

I heard one minister say: "What am I supposed to do, not invest in anything?" There is a question about that. First of all, conflict of interest, strictly speaking, does not apply to anybody other than a cabinet minister. We in our democracy keep on floating these phrases back and forth. It only applies to cabinet ministers. There are situations involving MLAs who vote — standing orders deal with that — for or against their own interests, depending on what the standing order says. That is not conflict of interest. That's under standing orders. It's a separate situation. It has never been conflict of interest. MLAs, as individuals, can own and invest in what they like. They can withdraw from votes, they can disclose their holdings, they can do what they like. Under our law in B.C., disclosure is applied.

The press has dealt with a former minister who recently was charged and convicted of non-disclosure as if that ended the matter. The minister was charged....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please hon. member. I think debate has probably gone fairly extensively afield in what is normally permitted under Committee of Supply, and possibly the Chair could bring debate back to within order. It is not within the purview of the committee to debate the personal character references of the estimates under debate. We are possibly getting into character reference, and unless it is of a substantive.... Matters that could be supported on a substantive motion cannot be debated under the Committee of Supply, and that's dealing with character reference. I would ask the member to get back to the administrative functions of the Ministry of Finance and the minister.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman knows full well that any substantive motion in this regard would never be called and never be heard in this chamber, and if we can't defend

[ Page 8384 ]

parliamentary institutions in this chamber, where on earth are we going to defend them? If you want to muzzle the opposition on conflict of interest, where on earth are we going to defend them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I'm sick and tired of the attitude of the breach of parliamentary institutions in this chamber.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you please take your seat for a moment.

The Chair has no alternative but to administer the rules laid down by this House. If the members of this House wish to change the rules, there is provision for that. In the meantime, the Chair administers the rules laid down by this chamber, and on that basis I have no discretion.

If the member would continue on the administrative functions of the Ministry of Finance.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK: We are precisely, Mr. Chairman, discussing the administrative functions of the Ministry of Finance. I made it quite clear what my personal view of this minister was, and it has nothing to do with the personal character of this minister, which is of the highest standard. I made that clear when I started my remarks. I'm not breaching that rule of debate in this chamber. I'm trying to.... I'll admit to lecturing the minister on his attitudes and his beliefs about parliamentary institutions with respect to conflict of interest. That's what I'm doing.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Well, I've said my piece. Obviously I feel very strongly about this issue. Perhaps I feel more strongly about it than most, simply because most are not feeling strongly about it. This is what bothers me. You and 1, Mr. Chairman, have devoted a great many years of our lives to this institution and it's our solemn responsibility to take whatever opportunity we can to defend it. I was referring to the situation of disclosure, and disclosure statements is a totally separate issue. That's a separate law requiring all of us to disclose: Crown and minister, and back bench as well. Conflict of interest is the substantive problem; disclosure is the breach of a statute. For the life of me I can't get anybody in the press — or anybody else — to understand the distinction. The former cabinet minister who pleaded guilty to a disclosure breach — that's a separate issue. That cabinet minister's conflict of interest is not that substantive and has not in that case been dealt with, and has not in the minister's case been dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Within the confines of the vote, please. The member is well aware.

MR. LAUK: This is the administration of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Of the Ministry of Finance.

MR. LAUK: The Ministry of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

AN HON. MEMBER: Can you not use an analogy?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Debate must be strictly relevant, hon. members. We're in Committee of Supply.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the minister stood and said: "I disclosed all of this." Of course he did, and to that extent he's acquitted himself admirably. I didn't think that would be such a great thing for somebody to do, but having regard for some of the history of another person in this chamber, maybe it is a feather in his cap.

The point I'm trying to make is that the substantive issue is conflict of interest, and there's no such thing as a pro forma breach. To me, any breach of that tenet of parliamentary institution is a fundamental and substantive breach. We're losing sight of that. All across this country we're losing sight of that. The press doesn't care. A lot of people in this chamber don't care. The press goes running off and writing stories about people's private lives, but when it comes to office, where they should be concerned with it, they let it drop. I confess that some of my own members let it drop. It should not be let drop; it should be pressed forward. And if you're attacking a good guy and it's all the more difficult, it's even more important, because if the good guys are making mistakes, what are the bad guys doing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the vote, please.

MR. LAUK: That's the point I want to make, Mr. Chairman. I repeat: I regret very much that this incident involved this particular minister especially, because of the role that he's played over the years and the contribution he's made to public life. Nevertheless, he must understand that it's a breach.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, the general subject that has been going on here for some time has been permitted with some latitude. The member here was admonished not to stray from the particular vote into personal reflections. However, the minister was permitted to stand up and discuss his case and what he did, or what he did not do. I think that any of us should be entitled to that latitude. I don't think we're hounding the minister. I deeply regret I have to say anything about it at all. And I'm not calling for his resignation. But I deeply regret it because he's personable, he's open, and I've had excellent dealings with him. I regret very much that he's taken the position that he did.

The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) got himself into a little trouble here in estimates the other day, but he had the decency to say: "Look, I made a mistake. I goofed. I was wrong." That's what we want. Because you can't be a little bit pregnant. The amount doesn't amount to anything in terms of the principle.

We're all inclined to be self-righteous. I don't think any of us are free of that disease. But our aim here is not to get up and to hound the minister. It's a serious thing, but it reminds me of the Shaw story at the cocktail party when this man asked a woman if she'd sleep with somebody for a million dollars. She said, "Well, I might consider it." And then she was asked: "Well, would you sleep with him for a dollar?" She said: "What do you think I am?" Shaw was reported to

[ Page 8385 ]

have replied: "We've already determined that. What we are attempting to determine now is the price."

So I don't think it's an issue of size. It's the issue of bad judgment. I think if the minister would say: "Look, I happen to be a director of B.C. Rail. It was a dumb thing for me to do...." That's all we're saying. We're not suggesting that there was anything crooked or that it wasn't disclosed or anything. But it wasn't very smart. It wasn't a brilliant thing to do. I don't think that any of us is incapable of making those errors of judgment — I certainly don't claim to have perfection — or will not make others in future. I'm not saying that. But when you do that, I think it's incumbent upon the minister to stand up and say: "Look, there's nothing illegal about this. There may not even be anything immoral, but it sure looks awful. On reconciliation, to me it wasn't worth the trouble,400 bucks."

As I say, I really regret that this thing has happened. because we have a great deal of difficulty commanding the respect of the general public, as legislators — not just in this House but all over the place. People are very cynical about politicians: they're on the make, they're on the take, they're this, that or whatever they are. So it isn't the dollar.

If this were coming up, I'd like to see the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) in here helping the minister. The minister's not a lawyer. Where is the Attorney-General, his colleague?

Just let me say that I have a personal regard for the minister. But I would like to see him say, "Look, I think that what I did was a mistake, and upon reflection, if I had it to do over again, I wouldn't." That's what I want.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, recalling your admonition earlier with respect to the debate and the question of personal actions, I look to you for guidance. I must correct the member who has just taken his seat, however. I am not now nor have I been a director of B.C. Rail. So if the member is concerned about this matter in one context, then I assume that he is still concerned. But I am not a director of B.C. Rail. I am fiscal agent for B.C. Rail and have been during the interval. But he did clearly say a director of B.C. Rail.

MR. ROSE: I'm not reluctant to apologize. I did check that, and I asked someone. Obviously my source was incorrect. However, you are the Minister of Finance, and B.C. Rail comes under your ministry. We'll be discussing it during a vote. Therefore I think you're hardly at arm's length from B.C. Rail as Minister of Finance, and you are intimate in almost every financial transaction of the provincial government. I apologize for the error on your role there, but I think the main case that I tried to put remains.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was going to continue with some remarks for the member who has just taken his seat — the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

Let us go back just a little bit. If the members opposite on the committee are waiting for me to say I made a mistake, as I indicated earlier, in my heart I do not believe that I made a mistake. I heard what the member for Vancouver Centre said with respect to the difference between disclosure and conflict of interest. But you see, some people outside this chamber have been less than completely accurate over this issue. I don't say they were deliberately so. But I make the point again.... If I may draw an analogy, if the Minister of Finance for Canada, having decided that there will be a Canada savings bond issue, then exempts himself from purchasing them after they are available to the public of Canada, I think that is absurd. If the Minister of Finance for Canada quietly pre-orders — you know, phones his broker and says, "All right, fine, we'll be doing this: I'll be doing that; this is the way I want to go with an issue that is coming" — that's an entirely different matter.

Mr. Chairman, let me tell you something else that happened. At the time of the issue of the housing development bonds, I realized with a shock that just about the last day those were available to the public of British Columbia I didn't have one. I phoned in a hurry and placed an order for a $100 bond. Why? Because I wanted to be able to say to anyone who asked: "I believe in this. I bought one." If anyone had asked at any point, "Did you, by the way, think that the B.C. Rail preferred share issue was so good that you put your money where your mouth is?" I could have said yes.

I have not used the defence today nor previously, inside this chamber or outside, that it was just a small purchase. Some others have tried to characterize me as having said that. I didn't say that. And the recollection of Shaw is interesting, Mr. Member. I could have placed an order for many more; I didn't happen to have the money. I simply wanted to show commitment to a preferred share issue — which is then totally at the mercy of interest rates; not decided in British Columbia, not decided at the cabinet table, not decided by the Premier nor the Minister of Finance, but decided by North American and world interest rates.

I have some regard for the members who have spoken on this — almost all who have spoken on this — and I would like to discuss this with them sometime. I'm not trying to shuffle it out of the committee. If the committee wishes to continue the debate, fine — only, of course, if it's in order, with deference to you, Mr. Chairman. But the point is a very interesting one. I hope that sometime we can continue the debate. Thank you for the Chair's tolerance; I did not take longer than other members of the committee in discussing the same topic, Mr. Chairman.

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: While there has obviously been some latitude allowed, hon. members, the Journals will show that the previous Chairman took exception to personal allusions to members other than the Minister of Finance. Of course, our standing orders indicate that debate upon the conduct of a member of the House can only be dealt with by a substantive motion. We have had latitude, there's no question about that; but we should deal with the administrative functions of the Ministry of Finance.

MR. STUPICH: When I spoke on this issue.... I raised it. I then invited the Minister of Finance to explain the transaction. I'm not sure whether it was me or the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) who invited the minister to apologize. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) invited the minister to apologize. The minister hasn't done that. He obviously doesn't look on it in the same light as several members on this side of the House. I treat it as a serious matter, as some of my colleagues do.

I'd like to move that vote 28 be reduced by the sum of $1.

I'd like to discuss this just a little further, with a couple of other points. To refer to some of the minister's remarks, he mentioned B.C. housing development bonds. Well, the interest rate on B.C. housing development bonds was established;

[ Page 8386 ]

there was no question about what was happening there. I think even there the minister should have said to the citizens of British Columbia: "I recommend this to you. I think you're investing in British Columbia. It's a good investment." In the short time that I was Minister of Finance and in the three years that I was on Treasury Board, I bought B.C. parity bonds. I said publicly that I was buying them, even though we weren't selling as many as had been the case previously, because we had been warned by the Department of Finance that there might be a run on these, and it would be bad for the province. That was all I invested in in the time that I was a minister.

The minister said that preferred shares are interest sensitive. Well, I would suggest that common shares in a blue chip company — and while BCR may not be a blue chip company, certainly its earnings record is well known and it is a well-established company.... The fact that it is government backed makes it a blue chip company. Preferred shares are interest sensitive. So are common shares in this kind of a company. There isn't that distinction. There still is the possibility that preferred shares will rise and fall in the marketplace in response to interest changes which can't be predicted. But the fact that they can't be predicted absolutely does not stop knowledgeable people from trying to predict them, and one of the reasons they have for buying and selling preferred shares is that they believe they can do a better job of predicting what will happen to interest rates and what will happen to the price of preferred shares than can other people, the vast majority of those who are buying and selling these preferred shares.

The minister compared it to B.C. Hydro bonds and said that he buys those. Well, Mr. Chairman, there is a significant difference. The minister had absolutely nothing at all to do with the terms for those B.C. Hydro bonds that he bought, with establishing the terms for those bonds, the interest rate or the length of time they were going to be out there, because those bonds were all issued long before the minister became the minister, long before he became an MLA, if he is talking about the old B.C. Hydro bonds. This issue he had total control of. He was the fiscal agent, he was the one totally responsible and the one most knowledgeable, and that has to be the difference.

There is another difference, and again I am not suggesting that he deliberately did anything wrong, but I think he made a mistake and I think he should apologize. You will remember — I would have to check my dates to be absolutely certain on this, and if I am wrong the minister will correct me — that he bought those shares not too long after legislation had passed this House making a gift to B.C. Rail of $470 million, although when the amount was actually paid to BCR — and I can only say arbitrarily because I don't know what the reasoning was; we've never heard why, and there may be another explanation — it was arbitrarily changed to $440 million, give or take. So that amount was changed.

The railroad gets government assistance year after year in varying amounts, and the decision as to how much government assistance may be given to the railroad is something that this minister is certainly very heavily involved in. As chairman of Treasury Board he makes those decisions. There is a difference between preferred shares and ordinary bonds. There is the difference when the minister himself is the one a that set the condition. There is the difference when the a minister himself has so much authority over the railroad that t he can suggest to someone that it pay a dividend, or he can out of consolidated revenue make a gift to B.C. Rail. There is a total difference, and I believe if the minister had invested in almost anything else we couldn't have raised this issue in the way that we did today. But he didn't.

He did invest in others, and there is no question about them. Nobody's asking about this investment in B.C. Hydro bonds. Nobody is asking about this investment in B.C. Housing Development bonds. But we are raising questions about his investment in B.C. Rail preferred shares where he set all the terms, where he was most knowledgeable; and while no one can predict with accuracy what is going to happen, he was in the best position of everybody in the province of British Columbia to make a value judgment as to just how good an investment these were.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, there is a motion. Would you be ready for the question on the motion? The motion is that vote 28 be reduced by the sum of $1.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, once again I was hoping hat the minister would speak on this. It appears as though he feels it's not something for which he should apologize. He is quite determined that he did the right thing. I believe he did he wrong thing, and that's the reason for moving this particular motion. The minister might want to comment on.... I tried to explain why I see a difference between housing development bonds and preferred shares, and B.C. Hydro bonds as opposed to preferred shares. I have raised the question as to the minister's fiscal control over BCR and the way in which — I'm not saying he did; for this kind of investment he wouldn't for $2,500 — he had the authority, and everyone knew he had he authority, to pump large amounts of money into BCR or to draw large amounts of money out of BCR. He had all that authority, and at that time he was buying preferred shares. I would hope the minister would have more to say on the subject than he has.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was not taking the member's comments lightly nor for granted. I felt that there was nothing more I could say other than what had been said in response to the member for Nanaimo, the member for Vancouver East and the member for Coquitlam-Moody on this particular point. I don't want to be accused by the committee Chairman of being tedious and repetitious. I have canvassed it as fully as I can. There is nothing more that I can add to the committee on this issue. I can repeat it, but I don't think that's what the committee wishes.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I might ask the minister whether or not he did tell me in his response that he purchased it as one way of sending out a signal that these were good investments. Did he say that, or imply that, in any way in his response to me? I don't have Hansard ready yet.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We'll all have Hansard soon enough. No, I indicated that that was the reason.... I didn't attribute — I did not intend to attribute — that statement to the member for Coquitlam-Moody, but rather to be able to say quite honestly and forthrightly, if I were asked anywhere: "Do you think this is a good investment? Do you think this is worthwhile? Do you think this is important...?" Then I would be able to say yes, I do. I indicated

[ Page 8387 ]

that was my view at the time, and it remains my view. I did not attribute the statement to the member.

MR. ROSE: I was asking for a clarification from the minister because I felt that that's what he had implied by his response to me. He's clarified that now. The minister, then, made no public announcement whatsoever that he had great confidence in these shares, so much so that he was going to buy some himself. He made no public announcement, no press releases, no announcement from his office, nothing to show his leadership in the sale of these, and his confidence, so that other British Columbians might purchase these shares as well.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That is correct. However, I was asked at the time of the housing and employment development bond issue, as I recall in Nanaimo: if I thought this was so great, would I buy it? I was able to say: "Yes. Indeed, I have. I have made a purchase of that issue." The same thing could have occurred in this instance, although at the same time I think that I would be under fire in the committee if I had issued a press release recommending acquisition of these shares from the office of the Minister of Finance, because there is a prospectus with regard to the preferred shares, and we have canvassed previously in this room what one can and cannot say regarding a particular investment.

MR. MACDONALD: You're criticizing the Premier now about BCRIC.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's the member's interpretation; that's not mine.

[4:00]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 18

NAYS — 24

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk about debt.

MR. CHABOT: Expo.

MR. STUPICH: I don't think this minister is responsible for Expo. The member for Columbia River, if he wants to talk about Expo, can get in on this discussion at almost any time, but I want to talk about debt first.

In the years since this administration has taken office, the total debt of the province, including the contingent liabilities, has quadrupled. The figure was $4.4 billion at the end of December 1975, nine days after this government assumed office, and including borrowings to date in the current fiscal period, we're now up to S 17.5 billion. That's a quadrupling in just over ten years. Even that figure doesn't include everything, Mr. Chairman. It doesn't include long-term leases of capital equipment that this government has gotten into since it took office in December 1975: commitments with respect to the B.C. Ferry fleet of $50 million, long-term leases; commitments for B.C. Rail rolling stock, $212 million; SkyTrain cars....

MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, historically in this House after a vote on a reduction of salary we haven't been able to continue with that particular vote — that was the end of that vote and we moved on to another vote. I'm just wondering if we're breaking a long-standing tradition that existed in this House from the days that I first came, and I'm sure long before I came as well. So I'm just wondering whether we're breaking these long-standing procedures that have been so historical to this chamber.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think there's another opinion. At least one; maybe more.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman. when you consider the length of service that that person has "given to this House," and he knows that little about the rules. I would hang my head in shame, were I the member for Columbia River. The fact of the matter is, we just voted on a resolution of the House; nothing to do with the minister's vote, which can proceed for the next six weeks. If in fact that's what we would like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two very interesting points of order, and I will point out to the House it is the English practice that if an amendment is defeated the vote passes, although I can't recall it being our exact practice here.

I will, though, caution the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), in that there has been some debate that has discussed previous legislation which does create debt, and there's been debate concerning Crown corporations for which the minister is not responsible to this committee, such as the operations of British Columbia Railway and British Columbia highways. Other ministers are responsible to the committee for the operations of those various Crown corporations, and it would appear to me at first blush. hon. member, that you are straying outside of the strictly relevant debate with respect to the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I really think you should take another blush — try second or third. The Minister of Finance is a fiscal agent, and we can't talk to any of those ministers about the debt that they're piling up. We would not ask the Minister of Education about the debt that the government is piling up with respect to building schools, or the Minister of Health about hospital debt. We talked to him about operating the hospitals, But when it comes to financing them, then the Ministry of Finance is the fiscal agent for all of these. He's the one who's responsible for raising the money,

[ Page 8388 ]

and he's the one who tells them when they may spend borrowed money. I don't think there's any question about that. Mr. Chairman.

I did add up capital leases of $369 million by way of commitments. Then, of course, there's the $200 million more that we talked about with B.C. Rail preferred shares, which is really a debt instrument, as the minister suggested in an earlier debate.

In addition to the quadrupling of the debt there is another $569 million in obligations of one kind or another — debt obligations that are not included in that figure. I wonder, where is the end, Mr. Chairman?

The deficit this year is just $15 million less than the deficit projected for the previous year. The minister talked about the budget which we debated in March of this year providing for a reduction in the deficit — I think he said for the first time, but I'm not sure. It did provide for a reduction in the deficit of $15 million below the budget estimate of the year before. I appreciate that the revised figure shows a higher figure for last year, but it may well be that the revised figures for the current year will be higher as well. Comparing budgets with budgets, there's a reduction in the deficit of only $15 million out of almost $1 billion.

[Mr Ree in the chair.]

On top of that the minister has found it possible to give to corporations — and he has, in most cases, selected those that have the ability to pay, and that has entered into our other discussions — in excess of $1 billion over a period of three years. It's more than that now, but last year programs were announced that gave to corporations a total of $1 billion over three years.

It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that we're accumulating a very heavy debt load at a very heavy rate. It's going on and on, and the minister's response to all of this is to say, "Let's give the corporations another handout," instead of trying to deal with the deficit situation and bring it under control.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. If you're talking of the provincial budget, there is a budget debate, as the member well knows. Here we're talking about the administrative functions within the Ministry of Finance. The budget debate has been held and dealt with. Now we're talking about the specific budget for the Ministry of Finance for the fiscal year.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure what you're trying to do to me. I'll find out, maybe, later on. I'm dealing with the Minister of Finance now. I'm dealing with the minister who is responsible for controlling the purse strings of government, I'm dealing with the minister who has brought in seven budgets, every one of them a deficit situation. Surely that's all within his administrative office, I would think; but I'll try it and see how we get along.

I'm expressing the concern that our debt load in the province is going up so fast, getting so large, and instead of dealing with it in a positive way, the minister is adding to it by making further handouts to corporations.

I have to ask what he has in mind. Is he concerned at all about the debt load that, as Minister of Finance, he is piling upon the people of the province? Does he have any plan to try to do something about this some time other than what we've seen so far, which seems to be to let the debt go on growing and do nothing constructive to stop it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I trust that I will not offend the Chair in answering the questions put by the member for Nanaimo. May I speak about debt generally? The member asked earlier on: "Where is it going to end?" Mr. Chairman, that's a question that we should ask — I'm not speaking in a partisan sense here as Canadians, and citizens of other nations should ask that too, in terms of the piling up of debt.

I won't take a great deal of time to say that which I've said before about controlling the debt. Mr. Chairman, the deficit, whether in British Columbia or Ontario or Quebec or Manitoba, is one thing. The member will know, and the committee will agree, I trust, that the other debt which relates to undertakings of governments — so-called commercial debt in the context of government, commercial debt in our context being B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail; non-commercial debt being that which is not related to an enterprise of government....

[4:15]

I think it's reassuring — certainly I find it reassuring — to notice that our non-commercial deficit, the cost of operating all the services for the province of British Columbia and her people, is declining from a previous high. That was dealt with well in the budget, so I won't dwell on it. It shows that the deficit, the operating debt of the province, is declining.

As a percentage of gross domestic product, it might help to examine B.C.'s commercial debt figure as of March 31, 1984. It would show the same or better — in the true sense of the word "better" — for 1985: 17.8 percent of GDP is commercial, 13.1 percent is non-commercial, for a total of 30.9 percent of GDP total debt. If you want a per capita number — $5,172.

Now I am not going to just mention Manitoba. I will mention Manitoba, but I will mention one or two other provinces in order to give the committee and those who are interested in the committee's discussion a little bit of comparison, if we are at 30.9 percent. For Quebec — the percent of GDP commercial, 20.7 percent; we're 17.8 percent. Non-commercial in Quebec, 22.4 percent — we are 13.1 percent for a total of 43.1 percent of GDP in net debt.

I will go to Nova Scotia as another large province: commercial, 12 percent; non-commercial, 38.7 percent; for a total of 50.7 percent. One more: Manitoba — commercial, 22.6 percent; non-commercial, 19 percent; 41.6 percent total. In terms of debt per capita, British Columbia is the fourth lowest behind Alberta, Ontario and Prince Edward Island, and in terms of non-commercial debt per capita — that is, our true debt if one excludes the commercial about which I've spoken — British Columbia is second lowest behind Alberta, notwithstanding the very severe impact that the recession had on us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, the Chair has a great deal of difficulty keeping debate within the ambits of the subject matter that is before the committee at this time. We have somehow strayed on both sides extensively into budget debate, which has been held in the House and is a forum for dealing with provincial debt and provincial budget. Possibly the hon. minister could, and I'd hope the opposition likewise, enter into debate on the minister's functions within his office and not the budget.

The member for Burnaby North on a point of order,

[ Page 8389 ]

MRS. DAILLY: I've been here a number of years now, and I know the minister has, and the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), who is our financial critic. I must say that we've never before been so constrained in the parameters of debate as we are being constrained by your statement just now. I simply want to say that it's most difficult to debate the Minister of Finance's estimates and budget if we're not able to discuss in detail and specifically the statements which he just made.

It's impossible to have a debate. We might as well close up shop and forget about debating with the minister on his budget if we're going to be this constrained. I have never seen this before, and I just ask the Chairman, who is I know a very fair-minded Chairman, to please give reconsideration to the parameters you are setting here.

MR. STUPICH. Mr. Chairman, on the same point of order, you mentioned the budget debate and said we're not going to have that all over again. But the budget debate is not in committee, such as this is. There isn't the opportunity in the budget so-called debate or any debate at all.... There isn't the opportunity then to ask questions of the minister and to have the minister respond. There is an opportunity, for all of us who care to, to make speeches, but not to ask questions and possibly get answers. This is the only opportunity we have to discuss the principles guiding the Minister of Finance. There's no other opportunity to do this.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that there's nothing wrong with the way things are going, except that the Chairman keeps interrupting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Both points are well taken. Standing orders do provide time for budget debate. The Chair has observed that a great deal of the debate so far under the minister's estimates is on the overall budget and not relating to the minister's functions as such. The Chair is only trying to facilitate the conduct of the committee, and apologizes if the members believe there is an excess of interruption. If the member stayed within the ambit of the Ministry of Finance, and debate was relevant, the Chair would not be obligated to take such action.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I was listening to this from my office, and I'd just like to add my two bits' worth to this point of order.

The fact of the matter is, the minister is responsible for the budget. The budget debate is a debate not in the committee of the House; it's not a give-and-take debate at all. The budget debate is where members get up and make their speeches, with all sorts of breadth, almost to the extent of the throne debate. This minister is responsible for the budget, is responsible for the estimates; that is his area of responsibility, totally. Therefore anything with respect to dollars and the Crown is his responsibility. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) has not only been within the parameters; he's been well within the parameters.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of respect for the Chair, vote 81 is one of the votes in my estimates; that's management of the public debt. That's what I was attempting to respond to. Whether a program in another ministry should or should not be increased or decreased is not something that we're trying to discuss here. But I do feel I'm responsible for the management of the public debt, whether commercial or non-commercial: and that was a theme that I was developing with the committee and in direct response to the member for Nanaimo.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has no objection with respect to that observation of the minister. Does the minister wish to continue?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, I have made my response. But there may be other comments.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, the minister in his response talked about the difference between commercial and non-commercial debt, and then started comparing British Columbia favourably with several other provinces. But the goalposts changed — change, not changed; they changed, but then they change from time to time. Included in the list of Crown entities — I won't say Crown corporations — are a number of new ones that may or may not exist in other provinces. It would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that a comparison of commercial debt within British Columbia, compared to non-commercial debt from one year to the next, is hardly relevant if you in the meantime establish a new Crown entity that goes out and borrows to raise money for some activity previously included in non-commercial enterprises. To compare them with other provinces where they may be doing the same thing, or maybe doing something totally different — I don't know. The minister. If he looks at the list, as I am doing now roughly.... I find there are eight new Crown entities in the past ten years, which owe a total of something like $1.7 billion. All of them are conducting activities which, prior to 1976. were what the minister would call non-commercial activities. Really, I think the comparison is not relevant.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think the lexicon is pretty standard from province to province. In terms of what is commercial and what is non-commercial. Clearly a Hydro in any province is going to be commercial. B.C. Transit, well, it's relatively new. It's clearly described as commercial. I'm sorry, I am corrected by my official: it is non-commercial. Anything that gets a subsidy is under the heading of non-commercial. Therefore a number of the Crowns to which the member for Nanaimo has referred would fall into that category. But when you are doing an interprovincial comparison, I think that, as I say, not only what individuals in this ministry or officials in this government do but also how external observers would categorize commercial and non-commercial debt, whether they be analysts associated with major houses, banks or whatever.... So I don't think the comparison is of apples and oranges — I think it is pretty much apples and apples.

MR. STUPICH: Well, I don't want to belabour this much longer, but I would have to ask about B.C. Buildings Corporation, for example with a debt of $474 million. Now perhaps it doesn't get a subsidy, but it gets all of its revenue from government now, and to say that anything which gets a subsidy.... Well, B.C. Rail we discussed earlier as getting a subsidy, but I think it must be considered commercial. I think that description doesn't tell the whole story. It may generally be true, but some of this list of new ones.... I don't know. I just can't say without having the lists from the other provinces. We don't know whether it is fair to compare

[ Page 8390 ]

them or not. I don't know if the minister wants to say more about this.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the B.C. Buildings Corporation is considered commercial because it acquires premises or leases premises at the market rate. It is not subsidized. If the member is interested in receiving a list of those rather than taking the committee's time, I undertake to provide it. If you don't get them by Monday, would you remind me. I can give you the full list of what we describe as commercial and what is non-commercial.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, now that B.C. Buildings Corporation has been mentioned specifically, it currently has a debt of $473.7 million, of which $205 million was to pay for the construction of B.C. Place Stadium. So its building occupancy charges are really paying for the financing of B.C. Place Stadium. I have seen reports and suggestions in the press as to what might happen at that site after Expo. It would seem as though there is a distinct possibility that the government will embark upon a substantial building program in that area. I wonder whether or not it is contemplated that B.C. Buildings Corporation will be absorbing the debt on further capital investment at the B.C. Place site. Maybe the minister doesn't know at this stage, but I just....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as a member of the executive council I do know, but it is not within my ministerial responsibility. That's one of the problems we have. However, I can tell the member that any activity which takes place at B.C. Place will certainly be minimized in terms of additional debt. It is not foreseen as something which will add significantly to the public debt — that is not the intention.

[4:30]

MR. ROSE: I have an ongoing and perhaps a consuming interest in the established programs financing acts. I am probably one of the few in the whole world, besides the minister, who cares a great deal about them. It concerns federal transfer payments of one kind and another that come from the federal government under that agreement. I would like to ask a few questions about it, but I don't want to ask questions if the minister is unprepared for quite detailed answers. If the material is not here, then I would prefer to wait and ask my questions when it is. But if the minister will give me an indication that he will either be prepared to answer some of these questions — and I have a series of them — or be prepared to go and get the proper information for me, I will wait and place my questions later.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, as the member would hope, I am reasonably familiar with EPF. We can discuss the actual moneys which are transferred to the provinces, or the cash and points which are transferred. I won't, as the member has not asked, discuss the programs which are delivered as a result of EPF, but we have the information and we have the officials available to deal with EPF. I can't guarantee that it will be to the full extent that the member would like, but in terms of the money which flows to the provinces and the tax points, yes, we can discuss that.

MR. ROSE: I'd like to ask the minister first of all whether he is aware or it is true that the federal government calculates the health and educational grants and tax points separately, even though since 1976 we've had legislation that really allots it in blocks, or block funding. Does he know whether the practice is to continue the previous practice of separating the grants before they're sent to the province with a so-called tag on each of them — health on one side, education grants and tax points on the other?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Coquitlam-Moody, yes, the answer to the member's question is that the national government has firstly informally, and then later — a couple of years ago; I'm sure the precise time doesn't matter to the member — by passing a bill, unilaterally split the health and post-secondary portions. Now they finally passed a bill, I think because the provinces' respective ministers of finance and treasurers, and ministers who administer the money and tax points which come, were very upset about that. It was initially established as a block amount.

The member is correct, and he and I have discussed EPF before in these estimates. It was a block amount, and then whether that occurred by design or by accident I cannot tell. Gradually we noticed a change on the part of the federal government to somehow create an imaginary split, later ratified by legislation. So now in any discussion, in any reference, in any transfer that occurs, the two are split.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Quite apart from political affiliation, as the member will know, Mr. Chairman, the provinces, almost without exception, if not without exception, have been strenuously opposed to that. It is block funding — at least that's what we thought it was, Mr. Member.

MR. ROSE: Does the minister not agree that the reason the government took the action it did in splitting these was because of the possible diversion of funds tagged for health into other general purposes by some provinces, and that under the new Health Act there was a clause which indicated that should certain fees be charged in extra billing by medical people, the amount raised through that would be subtracted from the grants which were destined for medicare? And so the minister, I think, is fully aware of that. I don't think I need to go through the business of the courtroom cross-examination technique on that one, but I would like to know what....

The other thing is how some sort of imaginary line could be sanctified in legislation. That is really reaching for it. I couldn't understand that one. Nevertheless, aside from the quibble, how much money does British Columbia receive from the federal government in this budgetary year which is tagged by the feds, whether you like it or not, Mr. Minister, for post-secondary education; and also incidentally, for the benefit of the record, for paying half our grade 12 schooling costs as well?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the supplementary material that was presented on budget day would answer the question posed by the member regarding precisely how much comes by way of cash and tax points to the province of British Columbia. But let me give what is I hope a more useful response to his question. It is that, insofar as I've been able to determine, there is no hard evidence that any

[ Page 8391 ]

province diverted the cash and tax points that it received for health and post-secondary under EPF to uses other than those two program areas. And the member will know, Mr. Chairman, that this government and his party disagree on many, many issues, and Conservative and Liberal governments disagree with the New Democratic Party on many, many issues. One that brings us together, at the provincial level at least, regardless of political affiliation — NDP, Conservative, Social Credit in British Columbia or Liberal — is the smoke that surrounds the federal view of EPF. The room is full of smoke, very thick and difficult to get through. Yet now, with the present federal government and its predecessor, with three Ministers of Finance nationally. we have argued this point, and we have said: "Show us the evidence." The leader of the national Liberal Party has come to British Columbia often on his own agenda, saying that we have been diverting money, but he presents no evidence. None of my colleagues in any province across this country, including Manitoba, has ever felt threatened by any hard evidence that the diversion has occurred. The accusation is made repeatedly for federal reasons, but not supported, not backed up.

MR. ROSE: How much did you get?

HON. MR. CURTIS: If the member has other points to make, we'll have that....

MR. ROSE: I started out this whole thing by saying that I intended to ask some detailed questions about EPF, and asking whether the minister was prepared to answer them. I laid the groundwork; I said that the feds separated the two after the health act. Therefore, whether you like it or not, it is a fact. Secondly, if they have been separated — health in one part and post-secondary education in another — how much did we get that the feds tagged specifically for post-secondary education?

HON. MR. CURTIS: We will have that information. The member prefaced these questions by saying he was going to ask some specifics. The member also knows that it is a very complicated formula. In my own defence, I have to point out that in the interval since the last time my estimates were debated the member has not, to my recollection, been in to sit down and discuss EPF — has not suggested discussing it. It's appropriate to discuss it here — I'm not suggesting otherwise  but the member knows, having served in the federal House and having served in this House, that you don't simply pick up one page of paper and say: "This is EPF — X, Y and Z equals X dollars or Y dollars or Z dollars." It isn't that simple, and the member knows that. We will provide that information, and if the member has other questions to ask regarding EPF or other points in my estimates, then I would be happy to answer those to the best of my ability — in the interval.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if the minister could confirm that the total amount from the feds for 1985-86 from EPF amounted to something like $517 million. Could he also confirm, from his own budget, from his own estimates, that the total figure to be spent on post-secondary operating is something like $511 million? What we're spending on post-secondary institutions is at least $6 million short of what we get tagged by the feds for EPF, and that might account for the cutbacks at universities and colleges, the larger classes and also the rapidly escalating increase in fees.

That's the question I'm asking. and I don't think any kind.... Talk about the smoke at federal-provincial meetings. There's lots of smoke around here too — lots of smoke but no fire. I think the fire is being smudged and smothered. The total operating budget for post-secondary institutions in this province is something like $511 million. The total EPF tag — if the minister doesn't know. I think I do, and he can confirm or deny — is $517 million.

As far as the diversion of funds is concerned, we've had a study into that, a virtual royal commission headed by former CBC director Al Johnson. Al Johnson said that B.C. was one of the worst. We're the only province in Canada that's making money out of EPF. University budgets are made up mainly of two sources: about 80 percent from the feds — now more than 100 percent — and about 16 percent from the students. We have one of the lowest participation rates in Canada. I'd go into that, but I would perhaps be ruled out of order. So I won't go into that: I'll merely assert it.

Anyway, if the minister is not prepared to answer that one....

HON. MR. CURTIS: You finish and I'll give some response. Go ahead.

MR. ROSE: Okay. I hope you'll be in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's delicate. The EPF is clearly the Minister of Finance: health budgets and education budgets are other ministries.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Member, I'm astonished. I'm surprised. I can't believe....

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocked and dismayed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Not dismayed; delighted. The member has referred to the Johnson report. Oh, Mr. Member. If we can put our hands on.... I thought I read it to you last year, but maybe you want to hear it again. The finest critique of the Johnson report, the finest attack I have ever read — which described its phony arithmetic; a discredited report, hastily conceived and executed — came from a New Democrat former Minister of Finance in Manitoba, Victor Schroeder. A devastating letter, a letter with which I agreed completely; an absolutely superb letter. It dismissed the Johnson report with a wave of Schroeder's hand, and he was right on.

[4:45]

Mr. Member, I am surprised. Not attacking a legislative colleague, but I am surprised that you, in your effort to suggest that the amount of money and tax points which comes for post-secondary education and which is then spent by the province for post-secondary education is not the same, would turn to the Johnson report. I thought I helped you out of that trap last year. I intended to help you out of that trap last year. Did I not read — or present when the committee rose — the Schroeder letter? We'll have to get it to you, Mr. Member, because it is right on.

I haven't heard anybody mention the Johnson report in the last many months. I think Mr. Johnson realized that he really blew it, and he just sort of crawled back somewhere, from wherever he came.

[ Page 8392 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: He's what? Oh, God save us. He's teaching at a university.

That was a bad report, Mr. Member, and I'm not saying that because we're on opposite sides of this chamber. Talk to your colleagues in Manitoba. Talk to others in other provinces who are of the same political persuasion as yourself. They'll tell you bad report, and certainly not based on accuracy. Embarrassing, it was so bad — not to us but to the author, and to those who were associated with him in it.

The member thought that he was developing some.... He referred to courtroom technique. We've never found in any province that the amount of money and tax point values transferred to a province under established programs financing has been spent on anything but those programs for which it was originally designed and which are still served by it. I can stay here as long as you want and argue the point. The fact of the matter is that there has never been anything conclusive, anything credible, to suggest that that accusation is correct.

MR. ROSE: Well, ridicule is always one excellent rebuttal technique. The fact is that two or three years ago, when we had Monique Begin as health minister, she put a clause in the Health Act because of diversions, because of extra billing, because of lots of other finagling that went on under the block funding. That was to protect the federal government from having the funds diverted to some other purpose. There is no question about that. Now the minister is going to tell me: "We spend all that money on education." I didn't say you didn't. What I am concerned about is the fact that where you once had to put in 50 percent for those dollars, you guys don't put in anything anymore. You get a virtual free ride on the backs of the kids and the feds.

The old story used to be: he who pays the piper calls the tune. You're calling all the shots and all the tunes, but I don't see that you're paying the piper. If you get $570 million in EPF, and your operating grants for all your institutions are $511 million, and the students' fees have gone up.... I won't bore you or make this tedious and repetitious, because I don't want to abuse the Chair or its sensibilities, but the fact is that we've had a constant increase in fees, larger classes, downsizing universities — and the money, of course. Why don't you use the argument of the former minister of post-secondary and universities: "Well, really that's not the feds' money anyways; it's B.C. money here. All we're doing is we're just getting back our own." That's the argument they used to use. The fact is that the feds....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the member is now talking about his view of class sizes and other matters that relate directly to the Ministries of Health and Post-Secondary Education. I have been trying to limit my discussion to EPF, the transfer of money and tax points from the federal government to the provinces — the provinces, plural. I'm quite prepared to try to assist the committee in that regard, but not to discuss how big a classroom should be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister's point of order is very well taken, and the Chair has indicated to the committee earlier that the minister is responsible for established programs funding, but the minister is not responsible for the expenditures of the Ministries of Post-Secondary Education or Health. The member for Coquitlam-Moody will speak to the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

MR. ROSE: I think the minister will agree that pre-1976 there was accountability for those funds. If a dollar came from the feds under EPF — so I'll be clearly in order — for health or education, there was an auditing or an accounting system, which meant that the province had to contribute equally, or another dollar. After 1976 — and I can go into the reasons for that; I don't think there's any particular purpose in that, to educate the people that are here — for whatever reason, there were motivations on the part of the feds to do this, agree to this, and the provinces as well. So it was agreed to; there would be block funding. When we got block funding we lost the accountability, so there was no way of checking whether the province has committed dollar for dollar.

All I know is that it has been estimated that if we were spending what the other provinces are, we would probably have something like 25,000 more kids in post-secondary institutions; and we're not getting a break for it, because the money is not being spent there, even though it comes from there.

I want to know whether the minister would agree that the recent cuts, first started under Finance minister Allan McEachern during the six-and-five period, where those cuts amounted to $14 million in 1983-84 and another $31 million in 1984-85.... What was the minister's position at that time, when the Liberal government, under Allan McEachern, embarked on those cuts?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the best way I can respond to the member and to the committee is to read a letter which I can then table, if the House wishes, from the NDP Minister of Finance in the province of Manitoba, to Finance minister Michael Wilson, the government of Canada. It says it all.

MR. ROSE: Point of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, he doesn't want the information. Okay.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I asked a particular question: what was the posture of the British Columbia government when Allan MacEachen first proposed cuts, amounting to millions of dollars, under EPF? I don't want a recitation of what some minister from some other province has said; I want to know our posture in this government when those cuts were proposed in 1983 under the six-and-five program. Did the minister oppose or support the cuts at that time? What was the province's position? That's what I'm asking. You can table anything you like; I don't mind. I'm not averse to that. But please do your best, Mr. Minister, to answer the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not a point of order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's more than just tabling a letter, Mr. Member, because you've made some accusations with respect to provincial policy.

MR. ROSE: I'm asking a question.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Asking a question and making an accusation. Earlier you spoke about kids in classrooms and

[ Page 8393 ]

so on. The Chair has told us all that we should not discuss that. One of the best explanations of EPF, vis-à-vis provinces and the government of Canada, that I've read is this letter. You don't want to hear a letter from a political colleague?

MR. ROSE: I want you to answer the question I'm asking.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I'll answer that question, happily. We strenuously opposed those cuts. Okay?

Now may I, while I have the opportunity, just read some of the letter from Mr. Schroeder, then Minister of Finance. It's a very fresh letter in terms of federal-provincial relations. It's last year, May of 1985.

MR. ROSE: Is it in French?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I meant in terms of.... Not five years ago.

MR. ROSE: Just happened to have it with you?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Just happened to have it around, Mr. Chairman. This is addressed address to Michael Wilson:

"With your letter dated April 4, 1985, you enclosed a copy of the Johnson Report on Post-Secondary Education and invited comments.

"I must, at the outset, express some disappointment that your government chose to release the Report without providing provinces with any pre-publication opportunity for federal-provincial consultations to ensure a reasonably accurate portrayal of the Established Programs Financing Arrangements and the public services those arrangements help finance, health and post-secondary education."

Continuing to quote from the letter:

"I note that federal ministers have taken every opportunity to distance the federal government from the Report by referring to it as 'a personal report! However, its release and subsequent federal comments suggest that it could become a focal point for federal — provincial discussions. Also, unfortunately, in the absence of specific comments by either level of governments, the Report appears almost by default to be becoming accepted as 'factual' information which, of course, it isn't."

The letter continues, Mr. Chairman:

"As you know, the Established Programs Financing Arrangements began in 1977 as a block funding mechanism for health and post-secondary education services. Unfortunately, over the succeeding years, the former federal government seemed bent more on minimizing and constraining its contribution to health and post-secondary education programming throughout the country than on ensuring stability, predictability and adequacy in federal funding.

"First, there was the unilateral cutting of the EPF block fund by Mr. MacEachen in 1982, rationalized by the former federal government as eliminating the so-called revenue guarantee component of Established Programs Financing.

"Then, in 1983, the federal government placed artificial caps on portions of EPF. You will recall that the former government sought to justify those caps as applying to what it viewed to be a post-secondary component of the Established Programs Financing block fund.

"All ten provinces, and I believe your Party, opposed that approach as being artificial, unjustified and unrealistic. Nonetheless, it was imposed unilaterally by the federal Liberals."

Continuing the letter:

"Over time, the former federal government sought to use the artificial allocation of the EPF block fund to justify efforts to further undercut its support for vital health and post-secondary education programming. Essentially, this generally took the form of over-allocating the EPF block to post-secondary education and then focusing on the federal contribution to post-secondary education as being over 50 percent and 'too high' — with a persistent federal refusal to discuss an analogous federal share of health program costs at well under 50 percent..."

Repeat, "well under 50 percent," Mr. Member.

"...and too low."

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

"That kind of cynical approach to the financing of these important services for Canadians was one of the major factors poisoning federal-provincial relations."

The letter continues, Mr. Chairman, and I will not quote all of it, but I will if that is the wish of the committee, having marked the paragraphs which I'm not going to read. Continuing on page 3 of the letter:

"Contrasted against the 1983 Provincial Consensus Statement, the Johnson Report fails on a number of different counts.

"First, it purports to break up the EPF block funding into post-secondary and health components. Provinces have never agreed to such a breakdown, pointing out that only by examining the entire EPF block and related programming can the full EPF picture be developed.

"Secondly, it counts too much of the EPF block fund as post-secondary education — roughly one-third compared with the one-quarter/three-quarter split in provincial spending.

[5:00]

"Thirdly, it dramatically understates the program costs of post-secondary education in Canada. For example, for 1977-78 the Johnson Report suggests that the costs of post-secondary education Canada-wide were $2.9 billion. In contrast, as the 1983 Provincial Consensus Report noted, institutional post-secondary education expenditures amounted to $4.1 billion in that year. Factors missed by the Johnson Report include senior matriculation..."

The member referred to that, Mr. Chairman.

"...capital spending, etc.

"Fourthly, the Report totally ignores the implications the misallocation of the EPF block to post-secondary education has for health financing."

And a few more paragraphs:

"EPF is a block fund. Federal input through EPF to post-secondary education cannot be divorced from the share the federal government provides for the total of health and post-secondary expenditure."

[ Page 8394 ]

Continuing to quote:

"Phony arithmetic which artificially splits the payments and redefines and limits the program costs which are being shared through EPF will not be helpful for our review and discussions on EPF. The broadest view must be taken as we begin our dialogue.

"Consensus should be vigorously pursued and unilateral action should be avoided.

"The appropriateness and adequacy of federal funding in EPF are essential concerns of federal and provincial Finance ministers. Given the integrated nature of the EPF arrangements, segregated discussions by program ministers are not likely to be successful.

"Stability and predictability of funding are major concerns."

He concludes the letter, Mr. Chairman:

"We must begin the next round of consultations on fiscal arrangements in an atmosphere which leaves the stale taste of the past behind us. To me the Johnson Report reiterated many of the Liberals' misuses of information and statistics. We shall need a more complete portrayal of the situation to guide our decisions.

"We have the Johnson Report. We will consider the information presented. I would recommend that it not become a focal point or agenda item for our future meetings on EPF arrangements.

Yours sincerely,
Vic Schroeder,
Minister of Finance,
Province of Manitoba."

I described the letter as May, 1985. It was received here on May 10, and I'll ask permission to table it later if it is the wish of the House.

Mr. Member, through the Chair, your argument on EPF is not in this chamber. It is with the government of Canada, and apparently two successive governments of Canada — the one which left office in 1984, and in large measure the government which is presently in Ottawa.

One final point, the committee having been patient with respect to that lengthy letter. The Canada Health Act was referred to. I will not intrude into responsibilities of other ministries, but the Canada Health Act was essentially addressing extra billing and user-fee matters. It was not, insofar as I am concerned, addressing established programs financing.

MR. ROSE: If, Mr. Chairman, we can take the minister at Mr. Schroeder's word, or Vic Schroeder — I guess that's how you pronounce it — it feels that the feds are cooking the books when they say one-third, two-thirds, and that it should be one-quarter, three-quarters. Would the minister be prepared to table — he's anxious to table letters — in the House the total amount received from the federal government in dollars and tax points, and also be prepared to demonstrate to the House how this government is matching dollar for dollar out of the total funds for post-secondary institutions, as occurred in 1976? Would he be prepared to do that? That's what I am interested in.

I am not interested in all this bafflegab, because that's all it is, whether it is Schroeder's bafflegab or whomever's. The question should be resolved in this House and nowhere else, because this is what we are doing. We are examining the minister's estimates. If we take Schroeder's word, it's a split: one-quarter, three-quarters. They used to be matching grants. I maintain the minister is not matching those grants for post-secondary education with the province at all. He may not be diverting it. He's replacing provincial responsibility with federal transfer dollars, and there is no escape from that no matter how he tries to slice it.

I've got just two or three more questions, because there are other people who want to speak. And maybe we've beaten this horse to death. It's not that I don't have other questions. I could keep this going for much longer and much more tediously, if that is what you want. But I think there are others who want to speak.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, there aren't.

MR. ROSE: Oh, aren't there? I thought you wanted to speak on health.

AN HON. MEMBER: Filibuster.

MR. ROSE: This is not a filibuster.

The minister said he opposed the MacEachen cuts. The minister supported the Wilson cuts. Come on now! You can't have it both ways. Mulroney campaigned on increasing EPF dollars, but then in Wilson's first budget he did the same thing as MacEachen. Different governments have different attitudes. Like heck they do. They had the same attitudes. The only thing that was different was that your former party colleagues were in government then, and you kept your mouth shut. Will the minister confirm that by lying there prone and not fighting Wilson as you fought MacEachen, you've deprived British Columbia of some $600 million over the next five years by rolling over and playing dead?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, no, it's not correct — rolling over and playing dead. The arguments have continued. That was the point I was trying to develop in quoting from my good friend Vic Schroeder. Apparently he's not yours. But that was the point I was trying to develop, Mr. Member. You were turning and talking to one of your seatmates; you weren't listening. I was trying to explain that the battle continues, and I made that point very clear, Mr. Chairman. The battle started, so far as I'm concerned, in the early eighties, and it continues. It is a battle between the provincial governments in this country and the national government — it apparently doesn't matter what party is around. That's the battle with respect to EPF.

I take offence when the member suggests that we just rolled over and played dead with respect to EPF He wasn't there, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, what the member is asking me to do is table that which we do not recognize as existing. Go back in Hansard for this afternoon. He asked, with respect to the artificial — I think that was the word he used — splitting of health and post-secondary cash and tax point transfers from the government of Canada to the provinces.... We don't recognize the split. It is block funding. As I said 40 minutes ago, it was changed unilaterally, against our wishes, over our protest — and not

[ Page 8395 ]

British Columbia's alone, but of all provinces from the Maritimes to the west coast.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It was opposed by all provincial governments, including one which carries the same label as you on the opposition side of the House — NDP. You're asking me to do something for your purposes in debate which I don't accept. I can't make it any clearer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. ROSE: If the minister doesn't remember, I'll remind him that he was the one who raised the Vic Schroeder split of one-quarter/three-quarters, not me. I said all right, if that's the case, I'll accept that. Bring it forward and table it. Show us what kind of provincial bucks you're spending on post-secondary education.

I'm not going to carry on much longer, but I would like to finally say to the minister that they aren't fighting this, because it's a Tory government. They're a pushover. In Halifax our Premier said that he agreed with the cuts, that everyone had to share in restraint, magnanimously giving away $600 million. You say that you're not pushovers? I don't know what you'd call it. I can quote him if you want: "I'm prepared to play a role in your restraint, Mr. Minister." So he agrees with the cuts. The same cuts that you fought MacEachen on, you agreed to when it was Wilson. You can't get out of it. If you want some more quotes.... You like quoting. You quoted for about ten minutes.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: It seemed longer, like ten minutes, but maybe it wasn't.

There's no escape from that, Mr. Minister. How can you avoid skeptical people, suspicious people, and I'm normally very trusting.... How can you avoid that kind of suspicion if you give us all the mushroom treatment, if you won't bring out the books, won't open the books cleanly — not in your office but right here in this chamber? That's what we need from you. We need people to be more candid around here. We should learn to trust one another.

Anyway, I'll meet you here again next year if we're both still around.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Candor in Committee of Supply is always an admirable goal. The member tried to get me hand in hand strolling down a path to the mushroom shed. That's what he was trying to do.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Schroeder was between us.

Mr. Member, it's not a question of saying: "Because I'm somehow feeling distressed or a little ill at ease." It's not a question of saying: "We'll talk about it in my office." This committee can meet again next sitting and so on, but if the member really wants to sit down with me and with officials in the Ministry of Finance to get our view of the scam that has occurred, or that has been attempted from time to time, emanating from Ottawa with regard to EPF money — cash and tax points — I would welcome that. I'm not trying to shuffle it off into my office. The member has raised it at great length on two occasions now — possibly three, certainly two — in debate on estimates of the Ministry of Finance, and you can't do it in this kind of an environment. You can certainly exchange ideas, but you have to sit down and examine a host of figures and a host of items. I would happily arrange that not in place of this, but in addition to it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this whole debate is just déjà vu as far as I'm concerned. The former Minister of Finance and the Premier went to Ottawa in 1976 and in 1977, agreed with Ontario and Alberta on this new EPF, and sold us out. When we were government in 1972 to 1975, and I happened to be the Minister of Health, our Minister of Finance and I went to Ottawa on a number of occasions and fought that question back. Then the Social Credit government got elected and decided that they were probably going to be in good shape. You know. we had a very vital economy at the time, lots of good solid tax base, and it looked like that would be a good idea. So let's go along with our pals in Alberta and Ontario. They sold us out. That's the problem now.

The minister says: "Come on down to my office and we'll go over all these details, this myriad of figures, and we can show you where the feds are working a scam." Of course the feds are working a scam. Both the Liberals and the Conservatives in their turn have worked a scam. The way they've got around working a scam is because we went away from the fifty-fifty proposition in the first place. We had a fifty-fifty proposition with provincial accountability to the feds, and vice versa. It was working fine. And don't forget that the feds were the ones who got us into it in the first place years ago — that cost-sharing — and it was on a fifty-fifty basis. We walked away from that, and we walked into this heaven knows what. All we know is the Minister of Finance has stood in the House today and said they're working a scam on us, and I say they're working a scam on us by virtue of the fact that we gave them carte blanche in the first place. That's where we made our mistake.

[5:15]

The Minister of Finance wasn't there at the time in that particular portfolio. But I wish it had never occurred, and I can go over chapter and verse what they tried to pull on us. They tried to tie the sharing to the increase in the gross national product. At the time the gross national product was increasing at some 6 percent, and the cost of those other services was increasing at some 13 or 14 percent. We said no, no, a million times no.

Then they came out with this other proposition that had been put up by Ontario. Our Minister of Finance at the time said: "We can't do that. What about the Maritimes? What about those provinces with the low tax bases?" It was ignored, unfortunately. I don't know if you could have stood it off forever in three weeks, but I do know there was not a fight, or certainly a fight that I could discern. I feel that's where we made our mistake, and that's why they've got us in this bind.

I don't know where we go from here. I do hope that the member for Coquitlam-Moody takes the minister's invitation seriously and goes over the myriad figures. But I can tell you right now that when he comes back and reports to our caucus, he's going to be confused. I believe everybody is confused. I think the Minister of Finance is confused. If he weren't confused, then being the type of person that he is, I would say he'd come here and give us chapter and verse, table it, we could all study it, and that would the end of it. But it ain't that easy. They have worked a real scam on us.

[ Page 8396 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member for Comox has kindly permitted me to respond just very briefly.

I agree with much of what the member for New Westminster has said. It is a matter of fact, however, that British Columbia and Quebec were the last holdouts in 1977. At that point the momentum, the pressures, were so great....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes, you're right. I did not hold this portfolio. But Quebec and B.C. were the last, and by then the national consensus was so strong that nothing could be done.

MR. ROSE: At the next ministers' conference where this EPF becomes a subject, would the minister agree that we should return to the pre-1976 accountability fifty-fifty as a basis so that we wouldn't have all these arguments and mistrust about where the money's going?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that question relates to future government policy. The Ministers of Finance and provincial treasurers will be here in Victoria. We propose to meet in June. I'm sure that we'll spend some little time in enthusiastic debate on EPF matters.

MS. SANFORD: I wanted to raise with the minister a couple of questions relating to a couple of different issues, very brief issues. One of them relates to the surcharge applied to wine when the government decided that they'd bail out the grape-growers as well as the wine industry. At that time they decided to apply this surcharge, which they indicated would be removed at some time in the future. Does the government have a firm date in mind for the removal of that surcharge, or are they going to continue charging until they've recouped all of the money that went into that bailout program? I'm confused on that issue at this stage, and I'm wondering if the minister could clarify that for me.

Also I would like to know if he can give me a ballpark figure with respect to the amount of money that has been raised since the surcharge was applied.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Comox has asked two questions which I feel do not fall within the ambit of the Ministry of Finance. Yes, it is money, I agree. Yes, it is an expenditure program. But I will do my best to encourage the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Veitch), whose estimates were debated earlier today, and if appropriate the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Waterland), to answer those two very straightforward questions. But I've made the point before. I don't think anyone occupying the post of Minister of Finance can answer program-specific questions.

MS. SANFORD: Well, the reason I was asking the Minister of Finance is that he made some comment on this issue some time ago with respect to the date on which they would t remove the surcharge. That was done earlier this year under the debate on a special appropriations bill. I asked the question at that time, and I understood the minister to say that they had a specific date for removing that surcharge. That's why I'm posing it again to the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. CURTIS: As I recall, I was responding to a question about a special warrant. I think when special warrants are being presented, then questions have to be answered. This question is not within the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Finance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point well taken.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, it seems very strange. It's under his administrative purview. Certainly the special warrants were introduced by him. The debate that took place surrounding those special warrants was handled by the Minister of Finance. It's certainly under his jurisdiction and under his purview. I don't understand, if the minister was willing to respond at that time, why he cannot respond today to the question about when a particular finance program is going to cease. Surely the Minister of Finance would have been involved in the discussions about how long they're going to apply that program, whether or not they're going to recoup the full amount of the payout made under that program to the wine industry and the grape-growers. I don't understand that. I mean, surely the minister could say, "Yes, we have a definite date in mind," or "No, we don't."

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'm not trying to be difficult. The Minister of Finance, whoever it may be, presents special warrants and answers questions with regard to special warrants. But this is Committee of Supply, and this is a debate on the estimates for the Ministry of Finance. Because I was able and happy to do it in another environment in this House is not sufficient for me to be able to do it today. I believe I would be contravening the rules of Committee of Supply.

I do undertake to ask the appropriate minister to provide you with that information, Madam Member.

MS. SANFORD: I'm going to have to look up what the minister said at that time, obviously, to verify in my own mind his comments of that day in responding to my questions with respect to special warrants. He obviously wants to be difficult. I don't know if he knows the answer or not. He knew the answer that day, but he doesn't know the answer today.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let's move to another issue, Mr. Chairman. I was reminded by an article about the sales tax that appeared in the Vancouver Sun on May 24, written by Nicole Parton, of a question that I had posed some five years earlier with respect o that same sales tax. It relates to the fact that the minister at hat time removed the sales tax from yard goods, particularly for the use of mothers who were going to be making clothes for their children, but neglected to remove the sales tax from knitting yarns, which are used by people who crochet and knit. I raised it at that time, and I see that Nicole Parton is raising the same issue again. Nicole Parton reminds the minister that it is now five years since he removed the sales tax from yard goods and admitted that it was an oversight that he had not removed the sales tax from knitting yams at the same time. I'm wondering whether five years has been long enough for the minister to reconsider and to indicate to the House that he's now prepared to remove the sales tax from knitting yarns as well.

[ Page 8397 ]

It's quite an important issue, Mr. Chairman, because the people who sell knitting yarns are very envious of those people just three or four doors down the street who are selling yard goods. They don't have to charge the sales tax, and people coming into the stores that sell wool say: "I just bought some yard material down there, and I didn't have to pay any sales tax. How come I have to pay it on this wool that I'm buying here?" I think it's high time the minister rectified the oversight that occurred some years ago and included knitting yarns under the exemptions for sales tax.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the member is correct in that at the time we did the yard goods, there were representations — I don't recall Nicole Parton specifically that we do other things, and I did reply to a number of people who had written.

I think that previous Ministers of Finance, since the sales tax was introduced in the 1940s.... The question of further sales tax exemptions is one of the more complex and fascinating aspects of the day-to-day administration of the ministry, because it is so difficult to draw a line. I don't want to take too much time of the committee. We have literally thousands of exemptions, when you start getting down to specific items, particularly in agriculture but not exclusively, and then children's. Some are more generally known, but many are not generally recognized.

We have done this faithfully, certainly for as long as I have held the portfolio, whether it is mentioned in May, as this is today, or in January or in October. We keep a record of all propositions with respect to sales tax exemptions. The fact that the member has mentioned it today will be noted and will come forward within the ministry at the time of the next provincial budget. I do not intend to make any change at this point in time, but it will come forward, and the member may also like to offer a second reminder in the fall or winter.

MS. SANFORD: I'll do it on Thursday.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Late fall might be better, but as you wish. We keep them all in any event, Mr. Chairman.

[15:30]

MR. HOWARD: I'm intrigued by the approach to sales tax, and that there are thousands of exemptions, and maybe thousands more by the way the minister is talking. Are there any guidelines that the general public could look at to see how these exemptions are arrived at? What attracts the minister to select item A but not item B? Is any policy direction followed there?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, a number of them are simply historic, as the member for Skeena will know: the exemptions have been in place for 10 or 15 or 20 years or longer. A number also are by industry. I mentioned agriculture to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford). It's a good one, because there are so many, Then by type of product: it's logical, as the member has suggested, that if you do it for these three or four products, then you do it for two or three others. In the 1985 budget we did a number associated with aquaculture/mariculture. By making a policy decision that we were going to exempt items directly involved in aquaculture/mariculture, we really opened up 80 or 100 specific items. I don't know, I may be a little high; but certainly a very large number of things — floats and rings and valves and that sort of thing.

There is no firm continuing policy with respect to sales tax exemptions, but rather, recognizing what the people we serve feel is logical and should be exempted. I think that's the way it has happened over time. Ten years ago. If someone had suggested that aquaculture and mariculture items be exempted, I think any incumbent would have said: "No, not right now. That doesn't matter." Now it does; it's important now. But a lot of them are historic.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm going to take the minister away from sales tax and high financing into a simple little problem that has arisen in the last year. I've talked to many people in his ministry, and I imagine they have shared my interest with him. Basically this is what it is. Last year there was a court decision, based on an appeal by a trailer-park owner from the Kelowna area, dealing with paying, I guess you'd call it, provincial land taxes on trailer parks on Indian land. There was a decision that came out of chambers by Judge Legg, which said that the principal occupier of a piece of property on an Indian reserve would pay the land tax. Eventually the ministry literally subdivided the Indian reserves into little parcels of land about 20 by 40 feet, and they said that that particular piece of property was subject to land tax by the owner of the mobile home situated on that park on an Indian reserve. Now I can't really follow the logic of it. Some parks on reserves are leased by a company, and that company has the lease. I don't care if that company is owned by a person who is not a status Indian or if that company is owned by a status Indian, but what you have is a company leasing a piece of Indian reserve land that has a financial obligation to make that land tax payment for schools, etc. But how can you cut up a reserve into these small little parcels and say that the person who rents that pad is responsible for paying the rent, because...?

I put it to the minister: if a person makes his land tax payments — and for a piece of property 20 by 40 it's not going to be that great — to the province, what rights does he have? I mean, normally if you pay your taxes you're good for three years. Can the minister give any assurances to someone that if he pays his land tax in a mobile home that he's renting, he has access to that land for three years if he doesn't pay it any more? The fact is that he hasn't. He can't stay there with any protection that normally is given to a person who owns a piece of property and has a house on it. You've created a real nightmare in taxation for certain mobile-home owners on certain pieces of property.

I'm asking the minister: what was the logic behind that particular decision, when the person who rents or has the lease for the park would normally pay the taxation, and when a person moves into a mobile-home park he rents a pad, and if he doesn't make his payment after 30 days he is evicted? He could be evicted for not paying his rent, but he has paid his taxes for that land. Is there any protection to the mobile-home owner, and what was the logic behind the decision of the ministry?

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to land tax matters, we're seeing constant change. Lifestyles change and new ways in which people occupy land are occurring. We have just, in a bill that is awaiting royal assent, looked after one problem with respect to paying a Crown lease twice in one year through a certain circumstance. I will do my best to

[ Page 8398 ]

analyze what the member has suggested. I've said this previously and have acted on what he has suggested, and I will certainly do my best to review this in the course of the coming two or three weeks and get back to him on it.

MR. MacWILLIAM: The minister is well aware of the number of opportunities that I and my colleagues have taken over the past year to try to elicit some information through other ministries with regard to financial information that should be supplied from Crown corporations under their ministries. I refer, actually, to legislation that has already been passed. As a matter of fact, I believe it was passed in February 1985. That legislation is now the Financial Information Act.

I just want to refresh the minister's memory with regard to the particulars of that act. In section 2 it says:

" (1) Every corporation shall, within six months after the end of its fiscal year, prepare a statement of financial information for that fiscal year in a form prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council that shall include (a) a statement of assets and liabilities, (b) an operational statement, (c) a schedule of the amount of all debts, (d) a schedule of all guarantees and indemnity agreements, (e) a statement showing the remuneration, bonuses, gratuities and expenses paid in respect of each employee, (f) a statement showing every account paid that exceeds an amount that may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and (g) a consolidated total of all other accounts paid during that fiscal year.

" (2) Every corporation shall keep in its office copies of the financial information statement prepared under subsection (1) and shall make a copy available at its head office during usual business hours for inspection by any person.

" (3) Every corporation shall, on the request of the minister and without charge, supply the financial information statement prepared under subsection (1) to the minister or to any person whom the Minister of Finance requests be supplied with that statement.

" (4) Every corporation shall, where requested by a member of the public, provide a copy of the financial information statement prepared under subsection (1) on payment of the prescribed fee."

The act also outlines in schedule 2 a fairly detailed list of Crown corporations that would come under this act. The one that I want to refer to, of course, is Expo 86. Now the minister may remember that I had questioned him with regard to the proclamation of this act. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you're concerned about discussing legislation, but this legislation is not in progress. This is legislation that has been passed. It has not been proclaimed; however, it's no longer in progress. The minister in remarks on May 12 said that he had found one or two problems associated with the regulations, and he was experiencing some difficulty with regard to the particulars of the regulations, and that is in fact why the act had not been proclaimed. I wonder if the minister at this time would like to expand further upon the status of this particular act at this time. It is an act that was passed over a year ago now. The minister in his introduction said that it acts as a sunshine bill in order to shed more availability of information on the finances of Crown corporations. Yet we sit here with legislation that has been passed and yet not proclaimed. I would like to ask the minister to expand upon why that legislation has not been proclaimed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In spite of the fact that the legislation has been passed, we are still dealing with legislation; at least that's how I understand the question. The minister may answer it, if he feels that it's within the administrative actions of his ministry with respect to the questions that have been asked it, but unless I hear contrary from the minister, the Chair would have to rule most of the questioning out of order. If there is an administrative responsibility that the minister can speak to, then please proceed.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, that's a pretty narrow passageway, Mr. Chairman, but I'll try.

The member has reminded the committee and reminded me as well that it was May 12 when I indicated that I was having some difficulties with respect to aspects of the regulations. If I am not offending the rules of the committee, it is my intention to clear that up and to move to the regulations and the proclamation of the issuance of the regulations, the proclamation of the bill. That was the intention when it was introduced and that is my intention today. May 12 is not that long ago in terms of a legislative calendar or an administrative calendar. It is my intention to follow through, as I indicated just a few days ago.

[5:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again the committee is reminded that we have had a very narrow answer, but the minister has indicated that is probably all he can say. Unless the member for Okanagan North has further questions with respect to this, I would ask that he really confine his remarks to the minister's answer and to the administrative responsibilities of the minister.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Just with respect to the question that was posed previously, can the minister give some indication as to when this piece of legislation will be enacted? We have been sitting on it for over a year now. Clearly he has had ample opportunity to address the small number of regulatory concerns that must be involved. This is a piece of legislation that we fully and wholeheartedly endorsed. Until this legislation is proclaimed and until the problems with the regulations have been cleared up, we're stonewalled in any attempt to elicit further information from these Crown corporations.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to stonewall any member of this Legislature with respect to a bill such as that. I have had some difficulties in framing and addressing some details — there are details associated with it. I can't give the member a date, but I did not introduce a bill only to see it incomplete. Mr. Chairman, that's the best and most straightforward assurance I can give the member.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, in reading Provincial Report for March 1986, I see there's a picture of the minister on the front and it says: "No Tax Hikes." But the taxes of the people who make the smallest amount of money in the province, those individuals who have a taxable income of under $2,000, went up by 2,500 percent. So I want to ask the minister: why the added tax burden on the lowest-income people? The people whose taxable income is under $2,000 went from $3.50 to $91. How come?

[ Page 8399 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the increase is due, as I understand it, to the federal government not proceeding with a low-income notch provision. But we do have income tax legislation in front of the House at the present time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee is reminded of legislation before us, so we cannot offend the rule of anticipation.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, apparently the reason for the increase on the lowest-income earners is that the province no longer matches the $100 federal tax reduction. This means that the lowest-income people, such as the unemployed, now pay as much provincial tax as they do federal tax. Higher income people pay only 44 percent of federal tax. It's disproportionately loaded onto the lowest-income earners. I'd like the minister to explain to the House why we would want, as a policy, to have that kind of an unfair burden on the lowest-income people.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the member for Victoria contact one of his colleagues in Ottawa and discuss the.... It is the federal income tax reduction being eliminated. It is not some action being taken by the government of British Columbia, but rather a reduction and then an elimination of a federal income tax.... It is not before the government of B.C.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind that minister that it was he who wiped out the renter's tax credit and the personal income tax credit which helped cushion people at the low end of the scale, within provincial jurisdiction. This government, in its policies, is not showing any concern for those people at the low end of the income scale. They come out with their propaganda, paid for by the taxpayer, that says no tax increases, etc. — low income taxes in the province of British Columbia. That is not correct, because they don't take into account the surcharges that are levied, nor the MSP premiums and all the other kinds of charges that are levied by the government. This minister is claiming that individuals in the province of British Columbia pay low taxes when, in fact, they pay high taxes. It's unfair of that minister to take advantage of a publication such as this to create that image, when it is false.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I guess it is just about that time of day, but I have a letter that I want to ask the minister about. I'll send him a copy of it. But I'm not sure that it's actually under his jurisdiction — the provincial pension benefit legislation. I don't know whether that comes under the Minister of Finance or someone else.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Provincial Secretary.

MR. STUPICH: You'd better give that back to me then.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Her estimates are what?

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: All right.

Mr. Chairman, I think from here on I want to get into a little larger presentation, so I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), after the introduction and first reading of a bill entitled Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act. 1986 (No. 2), sought to invoke the provisions of standing order 81 to regularize a subsequent motion that the bill in question be placed on the order paper for second reading later today. On a point of order the hon. member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) objected that while the subject matter of the bill was undoubtedly an urgent subject, there was no urgent necessity that further stages of the bill be considered today. Having had no previous knowledge of the content of the bill, nor any opportunity to examine and consider its substance, the Chair reserved a ruling under standing order 81.

Perusal of the bill will show that its content is in reality a declaratory motion, i.e. a proposal that the House order something to be done, and express an opinion with regard to the matter of tariffs. duties and trade discussions between Canada and the United States of America.

The Chair, while being troubled by the prospect of any practice developing of placing motions before the House clad in the format of a bill. must rule in the first instance that the point of order raised by the hon. member for Langley is essentially valid. The House has knowledge, through copies of correspondence earlier tabled by the hon. Premier, that declarations and requested actions described in the hon. member's bill have already been communicated to the government of Canada on behalf of the province of British Columbia. Accordingly the foundation of urgency and extraordinariness required by standing order 81 cannot be seen to exist.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a letter quoted extensively in Committee of Supply.

Leave granted.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, being at that point under standing order 25 about public bills in the hands of private members, and in view of your ruling, I therefore would move that the bill intituled Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1986 (No. 2). be now read a second time.

Embarking upon the debate on that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair needs just a second to consider the different aspects of the motion.

Hon. members. the member moved first that the bill be introduced and read a first time now, which passed. The only motion, therefore, that the member can make at this time is the second motion. which would be that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

[ Page 8400 ]

House after today. That motion, hon. member, would be in order and could be put at this time.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, standing order 25 says that we are now at the point, having dealt with public bills and orders and government motions on notice.... We passed through the budget debate, including Committee of Supply. We next get to the item of private bills, of which there are none. The next item is public bills in the hands of private members. I have such in my hand, intituled Ministry of Forests Act Amendment Act, 1986 (No. 2), and I desire to move second reading of that.

I want to submit to you that no action by the government, especially the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. McClelland) by a spurious point of order earlier, should be permitted to stand in the way of progress of this Legislature dealing with a fundamental question, and an important and urgent question.

MR. SPEAKER: At this point, clearly the member is beginning to embark more on debate than on the substance of the motion before the House.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it should be recognized that no one wants to impede the progress of the House under the orderly transition laid down under standing orders. The member quotes standing order 25, which allows him to proceed with the next stage of the private member's bill. I'm sure that's correct. The next stage, however, having not proved viability under section 81, is simply the next stage of the bill, which is to commit it to the next sitting of the House, Mr. Speaker, as you so rightly pointed out.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, hon. members, the acting House Leader has reiterated the point that the Chair has just made, and notwithstanding the member's wish to proceed, having ruled 81 not applicable in this case, the only motion or the only discussion available to the member at this time is the committal to second reading, which I would ask the member to do now.

MR. HOWARD: It's a sad day when the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development denies this Legislature the chance to deal with the shingle and shake question. Let it stand on his head that he objected to it...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: ...representing the government....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The motion is....

MR. HOWARD: It's unfortunate that the Minister of Industry puts us in that position. I recognize how much you have to pay attention to the rules, and therefore reluctantly, in order to maintain this on the order paper, I move it be placed on the orders of the day for second reading tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is the next sitting after today, hon. member.

Bill M211 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. McClelland tabled the annual report of the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development for 1985-86.

Hon. Mr. McClelland moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:58 p.m.