Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1992

Volume 2, Number 23

[ Page 1323 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 27, the Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1992.

MINERAL LAND TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. A. Edwards: I move that Bill 27, the Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1992, be now read a second time.

This bill has a number of different directions. It cleans up a number of things that we wanted to deal with. Probably the one that will draw the most attention is that it does increase the acreage tax. It's a revenue bill. It addresses the ownership of mineral lands and the tax on those lands. The base tax on mineral lands has not changed since 1974. This addresses that issue by increasing it. We did that after 18 years by applying an inflation factor of 4.5 percent per annum and calculated new rates based on that calculation. The increase in acreage tax rates will provide an additional $400,000 for the province.

As well, the bill deals with the collection and administration of the production tax on oil and gas from freehold mineral lands. The administration of that will be transferred from the Mineral Land Tax Act to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. That will thus give us the opportunity to consolidate revenue collection from oil and natural gas production, so it can be under a single royalty system. That's a simple housekeeping move.

The statutory authority for the Mineral Land Tax Review Board will also be addressed. That authority will be transferred from the Mineral Land Tax Act to the Mineral Tax Act. I'm sure that those who are familiar with the two acts will understand that. The board's function is to review appeals of tax assessments that are issued under the Mineral Tax Act, and therefore the statutory authority for the board must reside in that act.

Another issue is the authority to designate a mineral and production area. That authority currently resides with the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. This amendment to the Mineral Land Tax Act will transfer that authority to the administrator, who is the assessor of mineral land tax. This change will reduce the administration that is required to make designations of mineral and production areas and revisions of those kinds of designations.

With the passage of this bill, the right to apply for a deferral of mineral land tax will be repealed. The reason is that with the transfer of the production tax to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act, the remaining value of individual acreage taxes being assessed will be too small to warrant any deferral. It's basically consequent on the previous amendment that I talked about -- the second point I made.

In summary, the amendments included in this bill will increase the acreage tax on non-designated mineral land; it will transfer the tax on freehold oil and gas production from the Mineral Land Tax Act to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act; it will transfer the Mineral Land Tax Review Board to the Mineral Tax Act; it will authorize the administrator of the Mineral Land Tax Act to designate mineral and production areas; and it will delete the tax deferral provision.

D. Jarvis: This bill does concern us greatly. Any new taxation on any segment of this industry at this time is something that we should be greatly concerned about. We should be proceeding with great caution. This is not a time for tax, tax, tax on an industry that is waning. The introduction of Bill 27 once again demonstrates that this government's agenda of consensus is another broken promise. Here we are discussing a bill that again increases the taxation of the industry. Also, it takes authority and responsibility out of the ministry's hands again and into those of an administrator with having any input by the people it affects most. On the one hand, they put the policy decisions that should be made now into a review and delay the process. But of course, when it comes to taxation there's no review; they rush it through. They tax and spend, and they tax and spend again.

I had intended during the estimates to ask the minister what she and her government were going to do to encourage mining in British Columbia. However, the industry and the people in this province are more concerned than this government realizes about the state of the economy and employment. This government, through bills that have been presented lately, Bill 27 and Bill 32, are doing more to reduce the confidence of this industry than to encourage it.

As I said in a press release the other day, the workers' paradise promised by this NDP government is fast becoming a bureaucratic dictatorship. The introduction of Bill 32, for example, is the second time this month that this government has denied justice to the people.

I also pointed out on Friday that the Attorney General was made famous because of a statement he made in Hansard on September 24, 1973. He said: "Maybe we have to say that land can no longer be owned privately" -- in this province. Then just before his election he said that he didn't really mean to say those things and that they were said back in his youth. Then he does another about-face and sponsors a piece of legislation that unilaterally, in the middle of a court case, removes the right of appeal in a free and democratic society. Now we have Bill 27, which in many ways has been seen as a silent way of expropriating some of the landholdings without proper process or by simply, under section 4 of the bill before us, doubling many of the taxes on these properties.

During the wrap-up on this bill, we need to know how the minister would define exactly what type of land, or landowner or leaseholder, will be impacted by this tax. Would the minister be very specific about the definitions of the landholders she refers to? What 

[ Page 1324 ]

impact does the minister think these significantly higher rates will have on the industry?

[10:15]

I'll tell you that they are going to affect close to 1,000 small prospectors. These prospectors are trying to eke out a living in this province -- a living that will be affected by an increase in taxes. The big boys will not be affected, because most of them are already losing money.

In any event, I am informed that many of the properties were also the target of Dave Barrett's government back in 1972-75. In those days mineral royalty legislation taxed an industry that could ill afford it. At that time they raised the taxes, and people were forced to give up their lands and/or their rights to minerals originally granted to them as part of a title.

This legislation forces through high taxes on people who hold rights and forces them to consider giving up their private land or their rights without the right to due process, or hearings before governments or courts. It's high taxation by a socialist government, and it's what the citizens of British Columbia are slowly waking up to with this administration. Once again, it is a government that wants to tax and tax and tax, without any consideration whatsoever of what the impact is going to be. This government, through Bills 27 and 32, is doing more to reduce confidence in this industry than encourage it. The minister is obviously aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction out there at this time as to what is actually happening. Unemployment is up, costs are up and taxes are up.

The mining industry specifically is having very hard times, and here we are taxing them again. There is a rapid deterioration of this industry out there, and I believe the minister fails to realize it. It's in a quandary. I believe we are now down to approximately 14 or 15 mineral mines in this province. Few, if any, new mineral mines are coming on stream. With the announcement last night in the paper, we now can see that Windy Craggy, one of the largest copper finds in the world today, will now be delayed for another three years. Do you honestly expect this company to stay around in this country, after spending close to $50 million already, and wait for another three years for this government to make up their mind?

Madam Speaker, we are trying to find out -- and it's hard to ascertain -- just what the agenda of your government is, and which way your government is heading; which way this government is intending to encourage the growth of this industry. Bill 27 is just another tax increase. What is the government's philosophy on how this industry can continue to flourish and still be a taxable commodity? The mining business, it appears, is in its twilight years, for this is the direction we are heading. It's quite obvious. This government's budget has done nothing to encourage mine development. It has only added with this bill, as I said, more taxes -- pre-profit taxes.

The capital tax, for example, is another one on this industry, an industry that is already losing money. This does not give a very friendly signal to the industry, and to say that this government is a friendly government or a government that is even interested in the continuation of this industry that is being hammered by all sides.... Other governments in this country that are taking the same attitude are facing trouble with the creation of new industries and investments. I think there is only one government across this country at the moment that is encouraging investment, and that's the Manitoba government. In its last budget it finally came to its senses. It certainly did come to its senses, didn't it? They are encouraging mining, not discouraging it as this government is. They have granted such things as tax-free periods and incentives for new development. It's our opinion that if the government does not take a stand at this time to promote growth in the mining industry, we may be seeing a loss in future revenue. In fact, it may be too late to halt the departure of most of the mines that are leaving this country.

It can take, as you know -- or probably don't know -- from the original staking up, about ten years to bring a mine into production. We cannot wait until all the mines close down and then suddenly realize that we have to find another source of revenue in order to turn around and redevelop this industry.

With bills such as this which create more taxes, how does the government intend to stop the flow of capital out of this province -- investments which are going to countries to the south of us instead of to British Columbia? British Columbia should be getting its fair share, and it's not getting anything.

There has not been one new mine willing to come into this province in this last year. Why isn't there any thought to reducing or changing some of the indirect or non-profit taxes -- for example, the new capital tax, fuel taxes, fees or licences? It's time that we encouraged new business into this province.

In principle, what this bill should be doing -- and it appears obvious that it's not -- is the opposite of what this government is doing. We have relatively low power costs, so in order to attract industry, an advantage that we could offer to the companies would be to reduce water taxes, for example. Stop taking the dividends out of B.C. Hydro, as this is just another tax on the industry. Again, transporting is one of the major disadvantages, so we could offer this industry reduced fuel taxes on railways and vehicles. There are many things we could do through taxation that would be advantageous to the industry, not a disadvantage to the situation they put us in. It's apparent that the mining industry simply cannot afford what this government is doing to them. Last year they lost millions of dollars; this year, we don't know how many millions more they're going to lose.

Perhaps one thing to do is to consider what other countries would do if they had low-cost hydro power, low-cost natural gas and low-cost oil resources. Would these countries raise the cost to industries through taxes, or would they use these natural advantages to make their companies more competitive and more profitable in the global market? I doubt if they would do these things and then tax and tax again on top of those profits. This bill is part of an agenda to destroy the initiative in this province. It's just another nail -- mind you, it's small -- in the coffin.

For example, the water tax is a major factor in some of the areas of the province, which directly affects their 

[ Page 1325 ]

ability to compete in the world markets. It negates the one advantage we have, which is the low cost of power.

It is interesting to note that Sweden -- apparently the model for socialist governments in this world -- has recently announced its decision to abolish taxes on energy, both on electricity and fuel, for all industrial uses. The purpose of this is to benefit energy-intensive sectors such as forestry and mining, as it would give a greater initiative to the existing industries. It would show a sign of welcome to investors into this province.

British Columbia has been losing its competitive position with the rest of Canada and the world, especially in exploration and development. This bill does not do anything to encourage investors or exploration. It has been said before that over a billion dollars has left this country over the past year and has gone south, and $58 million of B.C.-based money has left this province and gone south. Over the past six months, many more companies have been preparing to leave. The reason they're leaving this country is that they could go down to Chile and make some money -- and make some money for that company as well. For example, let's say you have a profitable mine in Chile. If you were to leave that profit in the country, they would charge you 15 percent in taxes; if you were to take the profit out of that country, they would charge you 35 percent in taxes. There's another example in the United States, in Texas. The amount of tax they charge you would be 40 percent.

So what do you have here in B.C.? If you were to take the money out of this country, you'd pay approximately 75 percent in taxes. That's good! That's why there are not going to be any mines left within three or four years. It's criminal. As I was saying, we have 75 percent in taxes. Now this bill adds even more. How, therefore, can British Columbia keep its competitive edge? How do you expect people to invest money in this province when there's a philosophy based on tax before you make any money? This bill is for the government to once again put British Columbia into a competitive debt. This Bill 27 is another piece of regressive legislation -- another tax grab.

As I said, you have a thousand small prospectors around here who are barely eking out a living. They already pay close to $3 million in fees, and you're going to double that. How do you expect these people to make a living? In everything you do, you're doubling taxes. I'm surprised. I hope that some of your members who live up in those areas will speak to this bill, because they're going to have to go back and face them later on. This bill will adversely affect everyone in the business.

This government says that they are environmentally conscious, yet they don't understand the simplest concept of this industry. You've got to realize that if you want to keep a lot of the dirt in the ground, which you are intending to do, you can't do this by raising the fees. The more fees you pay, the more dirt and the lower grade of ore they're going to take out. The higher your fees, the less ore they take out, because they're going to high-grade. Some day you'll learn.

Your government started to drive the nails into the coffin of this industry 20 years ago. Now we are seeing the finishing spikes into this big coffin. You're taxing; you're reviewing; you're stalling; and you're taxing again. How long will you go on before a complete and utter collapse occurs? As I said, any new taxation on this segment of the industry is bad, and we should proceed with caution. Therefore I cannot support another tax bill that increases taxation by 100 percent and denies responsibility and access to the ministry itself.

[10:30]

F. Gingell: During the course of the election campaign the now Premier of the province said to the people of British Columbia that if you vote Liberal, your taxes will go up. He was right, because they did vote Liberal, and our taxes have gone up, and they keep going up.

The important thing about this bill and an important thing about the role of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is the message: there is a very tenuous, difficult situation in this province.

We hear a great deal about mining operations in Chile. I have checked with a couple of the major mining companies, and the deposits there do tend to be larger. The infrastructure in Chile is not as easy: there are fewer roads and railways and transportation facilities there. In the end, mining companies make economic decisions. The reason that they're going to Chile is because they have a clear message from the government of Chile that they are there to help, to facilitate and to ensure that things get done. I was very surprised, but I was assured that the environmental laws and rules and all of the things that you have to do are just as strict there as they are here. They are not any different. That's what they told me, and I believe them. The fact of the matter is that down there and in other jurisdictions they can get things done. They tell you what the rules are, and then they help you to get through the processes.

For us to save our mining industry in this province, it is critically important that we get the right message out. Yes, you've got to obey environmental laws and meet the requirements of the proper husbanding of our resources, but you are welcome, and you are encouraged.

I don't believe that the amount of money involved in this tax, in the scheme of an $18-billion budget, is a lot. It is relatively small. But when you go out and increase the tax by 100 percent -- all of a sudden, out of the blue, the tax has been doubled -- you are sending the wrong message. You're sending a message to the industry that says: "We only see you as a source of tax revenue. We only see you as someone who is going to help pay our bills. We only see you as an industry that we can double the taxes on." The message that doesn't get out is: "Your industry is important to this province. Your industry is necessary to this province, is a major job creator and pays good wages." They aren't minimum wages. People who work in the mining industry aren't earning poor, substandard wages; they earn good wages. The problem isn't the amount they're paid; the problem is that they're not working.

We need a strong message from this government to encourage the industry, to give them some succour and make them understand that the government under-

[ Page 1326 ]

stands their problems and is going to help them, not hinder them. That's the problem with Bill 27, the Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1992. It's actually the mineral land double-it tax act of 1992. I believe it's a mistake. I'm really sorry that this is one of the first bills brought forward by our hon. minister.

J. Weisgerber: It's a pleasure to join in debate on second reading of Bill 27.

I think it's important for us to recognize -- as the previous members have stated -- that the whole effect of this act is to bring more new taxes to the mining and petroleum industries and to do it in the most unacceptable way: flat taxes; more taxes that are not profit-related.

In the past few years the government has worked toward making taxes more profit-sensitive. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but most companies are willing to pay taxes if they're earning profits, and most will grudgingly accept taxes and tax increases if those taxes are profit-based. But what we see is one more flat tax, a tax based on a per-acre assessment. We have a doubling of the existing tax. Regardless of whether a company is making money, breaking even, or on the verge of bankruptcy -- unfortunately, we have too many mining companies facing those kinds of situations -- they are looking at another tax increase. Perhaps not a large one, but these are the same companies that are struggling with this government's new capital tax -- a tax that will take $225 million out of industry generally, and take a significant amount of money out of mining companies around this province. Regardless whether those companies are profitable or are struggling to keep the mine open, these taxes apply. These are absolutely the wrong kind of taxes, and this is exactly the wrong time for the government to keep bringing in these kinds of flat-rate taxes.

Mining companies are moving out of British Columbia. They're moving out of Canada. They believe that the taxes in this country no longer make British Columbia a particularly attractive place to bring capital. They're moving to Mexico and Chile, and they're moving to other places around the globe, looking for a more attractive economic climate than the one here in British Columbia.

This bill and these taxes are in themselves not that big a measure, but they are symbolic and indicate the direction the government's going with taxation on industry: taxes that are not at all profit-sensitive. We see the mining industry in as tough a situation as it's been in for many years. Unfortunately, 1992 becomes very reminiscent of 1972, when the mining industry decided that British Columbia wasn't the place to do business; the mining industry closed almost completely and exploration ceased. A good deal of the economic spinoff in the mining industry is through exploration and through the investment the companies are willing to make, like the $50 million made by Geddes Resources in the northwest part of this province, which by another action seems to have been money that if not wasted -- and I hope it hasn't been wasted, because those are investors dollars that went into that project -- is certainly now in an investment stockholders wouldn't have made had they been able to see where they would find themselves in 1992.

I'm worried about the mining industry and its future in British Columbia. I'm worried about seeing another period in the mining industry's history that is reminiscent of '72-75. I think you're going to see that capital can move, does move and will move. The Finance minister talked about there being room to move in the taxation field. He must also understand that there is room to move with capital. Capital can pick itself up and move out of British Columbia just as quickly as this new government can dream up new taxes on industry and on capital. I would really urge the government to seriously look at this bill, and look more seriously at the approach it takes to taxing industry in general, and the mining industry in particular.

I want to close by talking a bit about the petroleum industry. The petroleum industry in northeast British Columbia is critical to the economy of that region and this province. The way the petroleum industry goes is the way the economy of the northeast goes. When drilling activity and exploration are active, then the economy of that part of the province is strong.

We see here amendments to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act that the ministry would have us believe are tax-neutral and won't affect the industry with tax rates. But what's disturbing about this legislation is that it makes it very easy, it appears to us, for the government, the cabinet and the minister to increase tax rates on the petroleum industry, for it streamlines rate increases for the petroleum industry.

If you think that the mining industry and capital in the mining industry are mobile, then the minister should study the petroleum industry. Almost all of their equipment is on wheels, and it moves very quickly.

The decisions on drilling, exploration, seismic work and all of those things are made in Calgary on an annual basis. The industry looks at the actions of government in the four western provinces. It looks at what's happening in Alberta first; it analyzes what's happening in Alberta and decides what kinds of returns it can get in Alberta. Then it compares the climate in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and northeast British Columbia and decides whether or not in the upcoming year it will buy land in one province or the other, and how much it's willing to pay for land in each of those jurisdictions.

[10:45]

Those decisions bring in millions of dollars to this province every month through land sales. When the future for the oil industry looks good, land sales are high. When the future looks bleak, they still bid, but they don't bid nearly as much. So the government loses revenue on the land sale side of the equation.

But industry also decides whether or not it's going to do exploration work and in what jurisdiction it's going to do it. The gas and oil industry in Canada is facing very tough times. If the minister has had the opportunity to visit Calgary, she will know that companies are significantly reducing their overheads. The layoffs in Calgary are enormous. And the reductions are not all limited to Calgary; many of the companies are active and maintain offices in northeast British Columbia. 

[ Page 1327 ]

When they cut back on staff, they cut back in the northeast as well as in their Calgary offices. That hurts British Columbia.

I urge the minister and the government to think carefully about bringing in these kinds of measures. I want to stress again that the concern I have with these tax increases and with the direction the government is going with taxation is that they're going away from the notion of profit-based taxes to flat taxes, which are not at all sensitive to economic conditions or the competition in other jurisdictions. They will not, at the end of the day, help the government by bringing in more revenue; they will drive companies away from British Columbia. The net result will be exactly the opposite of what the bill sets out to do.

I would close by saying that it is my intention to oppose this legislation. I would encourage the minister to think about whether or not she wants to pursue this legislation, and I would encourage her, if she hasn't, to talk to the associations that represent the industries involved -- the Mining Association, the Canadian Petroleum Association, the Independent Petroleum Association. Find out what they think about these taxes. Don't expect that they're going to say that they hate all taxes. What they're going to say to you, I expect, is: "Make your taxes profit-sensitive. If you do that, we will have a far better chance of having a healthy mining and petroleum industry in British Columbia."

W. Hurd: I'm pleased to join in the debate on Bill 27. It's important for us to pause and reflect on the intent of this bill. The changes in rates do not apply to lands in production; they apply to lands that are currently non-designated -- lands that have not yet been tapped for their mineral resources. It's on those lands that the schedule of tax rates is intended to be doubled under this bill.

Our concern on the Liberal side is that the tax changes were apparently introduced with little consultation with the mining industry. On first reading of the bill the hon. minister noted that the administrative amendments will facilitate more effective royalty collection and administration. This may be more effective for the government in the short term, but certainly not for an industry that at this point in time is having trouble seeing its future in British Columbia.

I think the minister needs some sort of lesson on the effects of taxation on the mining industry. For too long increasing taxes and royalties on mining land merely resulted in more ore being left in the ground. The lower-quality, lower-grade ore simply doesn't get mined. The mining industry, perhaps more than any other, is a tax-sensitive industry. The amount of ore that's left in the ground is directly proportional to the costs of removing or extracting it. Even a seemingly small tax increase, such as the one being proposed for lands that are not yet in production, sends a signal out to the industry that there isn't going to be an incentive to develop this land into a working mine. When you couple the tax increase with the signals that have been sent out by this government from day one -- the effect of land being designated for other uses, the effect of Bill 32, which in essence will freeze compensation for mining claims -- if you have land available for mine designation in this province, there is a diminishing incentive to develop it.

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

It's interesting to note that under section 4 of the proposed bill there is an appeal process in place for people who feel that the cost or the assessment is too high in relation to their property. This is an interesting contrast to Bill 32, which proposes to extinguish any rights of appeal for resource-based industries. I find the inconsistency somewhat interesting. Companies holding mining rights have an appeal under section 4 of this bill but no appeal under the broader picture of whether their rights being extinguished.... They have some sort of redress in the courts.

We have some grave concerns about this bill: the signals it sends out to the mining industry; the fact that, as has been stated by the leader of the third party, it's another tax based on assets. It's not profit driven. It's a target tax introduced with little consultation with the industry that it's supposed to benefit in some way. Unfortunately, it's another example of a short-sighted approach to an industry which is very sensitive to royalties and taxes and which, in the view of our caucus, needs to be consulted far more than it has been.

A. Warnke: Mr. Speaker, could I ask leave of the House for introductions?

Leave granted.

A. Warnke: I'm speaking on behalf of the member for Richmond Centre. Visiting us today is a group of students from James Gilmore Elementary School in Richmond. There are 35 grade 6 and 7 students and their teachers Ty Binfet and Mark Nelstrop. They have spent part of today in the halls of the Legislature, and I gather they are going to be around later. With them are 30 exchange guests and their teachers Francine Daigle, Denis Roy and Joann Labonte from Pierrefonds, Quebec, which the city of Richmond is proud to consider as its twin city. Please join me in acknowledging their visit to this beautiful city and the Legislature.

C. Tanner: Like the other members who have spoken this morning, I find aspects of Bill 27, the Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1992, to be legislation which is not to be supported. Not only are you attacking an industry that is reeling under the effects of poor mineral prices, increasing a tax on lands that are unproductive and giving an appeal here which you don't in other bills, but under sections 1 and 2 of this act you are proceeding in a manner that I find unacceptable.

In the last few days the government has introduced bills that they call "housekeeping one-liners," which is always suspicious. They have introduced bills with a retroactive clause. Now we've got another piece of bureaucratic confusion, because you're introducing a bill where the initiative is taken away from the politicians and given to the bureaucrats. In sections 1 

[ Page 1328 ]

and 2, where you would read "Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council" -- which means the cabinet -- you now read "Administrator." By giving more power to an administrator, you are taking away from elected members and giving to bureaucrats power which should reside in the hands of elected members.

I consider it a very dangerous habit that I hope this government doesn't pursue in other legislation. It's a bit like giving the generals the right to make a decision as to who is going to war. That has always been the right of politicians in democracies. It's not the right of bureaucrats to make those decisions, and it's not the right of generals to make decisions about who goes to war. Bureaucrats can always hide behind legislation and regulations; politicians have to answer to their constituents. They have to be flexible, and they have to treat individually difficult problems that arise.

Once you put it within the bureaucracy to make those decisions, one can come to the conclusion that there are only two reasons to do so. One is that the elected officials -- cabinet and members of the government -- have something to hide, or alternatively, they don't want to face up to their responsibilities of making decisions, and they're passing the buck to somebody else who can hide behind legislation and regulations to make those decisions.

One of the reasons for standing for office, and one of the reasons for being elected by the public.... They expect the politicians to make those tough decisions; they don't expect bureaucrats. In fact, you could go one step further and say it's passing the buck and it's cowardly to expect employees to make decisions that employers -- in this case, the cabinet -- should be making.

Finally, I would say that it is the responsibility of cabinet and the elected members of this government to retain unto themselves -- because it's so difficult to take back once you've given it away -- the right to discretion, flexibility and responsibility. Therefore I, like the other members on this side of the House, will be voting against this bill.

R. Chisholm: I have to vote against this bill. This bill does nothing but send messages to industry that they are not welcome in this province.

We have doubled the fees on lands that are not in production. This is a definite signal to industry that they are not welcome. Industry -- mining in particular -- is moving out of this province and country at an alarming rate. This means money in our economy, growth and jobs are leaving with them. For a number of years they have been hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Now, with these last few knocks, they are definitely going to leave.

What alarms me the most is that the industries that are leaving are revenue-generating. For the future growth of this province, we need to send out the welcoming mat and say: "You are welcome here as long as you abide by our rules and regulations and the laws which govern our environment." This law sends out exactly the opposite.

We have a lot of projects with the environment, and we want to spend a lot of money, but how are we going to do this if we don't have revenue-generating industries in this province? People already cannot afford any more taxes, so who's going to pay for these extravaganzas that we seem to be bent on having? It's going to be industry, and whether we pick this industry, forestry or agriculture is immaterial; if we don't support them, don't invest in them and don't allow them to grow, we will not grow either -- and the people cannot afford to pay any longer.

The last thing that alarms me with this is that though we are talking about the mining industry, we are sticking our heads in the sand if we think it is the only industry that is watching these regulations being put in place and enacted. Forestry is watching what is happening to mining; agriculture is watching. Whatever industry you want to pick is watching. They are seeing whether there's any support for them in this province. I'm afraid that we're sending the wrong message, and I'm afraid the business people of our communities in this province are not going to have very much confidence in the government of the day if they continue in this manner. Thank you.

L. Fox: I rise, actually, to speak against this bill. I would think that members from all rural parts of this province, irrespective of what party they represent while sitting in this House, would be extremely concerned about the message that this bill is sending out to a very important sector of the economy of British Columbia.

I think the member from Peace River South stated it very eloquently and made many points with respect to what image this bill will create in the petroleum industry, as well as in the mining industry.

I'm concerned about the agenda of this government and the message that we're sending. While I spoke yesterday in favour of Bill 11, the rationale for that was this kind of agenda that is obviously going to create a displacement in the workforce because of the loss of economic opportunity in this particular resource sector. If you listen to the mining industry, they will tell you that if nothing changes with respect to the climate in this province by the year 2000, the mining industry in B.C. will be history. I would think that this government would be looking at incentive programs rather than disincentives in order to encourage investment and to encourage the dollars taken out of the resource industry to be put back into the province for the future benefit of British Columbia and the industry.

[11:00]

I think of yesterday's discussion with respect to diversifying the economy in single-resource communities, and I agree that it is a very important issue and something that we must address. But we can only address it if we instil some confidence in those communities. We do that by setting forth the rules and initiatives of this government in a way that instils that confidence for the investors to put their money back into the province. The member for Nelson-Creston said it very emotionally and very well yesterday when he talked about the prices of ore and what difficulty that's creating for the mining industry. I find it strange that one member of this government would stand up and 

[ Page 1329 ]

make those statements, while the minister appears to feel that this industry is strong enough to place more taxes on it. I find that approach rather interesting.

When I look at the Skeena, I'm surprised that the member from that area is not speaking out strongly against this bill. When I look at Bulkley Valley-Stikine and how exploration has diversified the economy in the Smithers and Terrace areas, as well as up in the northern parts of the province, I have to wonder why they too are not speaking out against this bill. The member for Cariboo North yesterday spoke up rather eloquently on the need to be sensitive to the issues regarding the loss of jobs, yet I don't see him in the House today to speak up against this bill that will help create the loss of those jobs.

I'm extremely concerned when I see other agendas being put forward by this government along this same line. We are sending the wrong message. We are reacting negatively rather than positively to the economy of this province. If this government continues with this agenda, we'll see the projections of the mining industry -- along the lines that there will be no mining in British Columbia by the year 2000 -- come true. That's a real shame, because we are going to need more Bill in order to look after displaced workers over the next few years unless we turn around and deal with these issues and put incentives into the program so that we can see this resource come back to a healthy position in this province.

G. Janssen: I ask leave to correct a previous notice concerning all members.

Leave granted.

G. Janssen: Due to the tremendous response from the motorcycling community, over 200 motorcycles will be meeting at the front of the buildings, rather than the back of the buildings, to have members take part in the annual MLAs' ride, which will commence at noon today.

Deputy Speaker: The minister on second reading of the bill.

Hon. A. Edwards: It's interesting, and I'm gratified to see that members of the opposition recognize the importance....

L. Fox: On a point of order, I think that was a rather inappropriate move. Others wish to speak on this bill, and that procession was stopped because of the leave that was granted. I would suggest that we allow those people to speak.

The Chair: There was no one on their feet at the time, and that's why I recognized the minister.

The member for Okanagan-West on second reading of the bill.

C. Serwa: I rise to speak in opposition to this particular bill. The bill does a number of things that I find unpleasant. By the structuring of the administrator, cabinet is trying to remove themselves from the ultimate responsibility and trying to save themselves, I suppose, by standing out of harm's way.

There are certain realities that occur here, and our leader spoke very well on those realities. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources is well aware of the very difficult situation that the mining industry in the province faces. Between the pressures of regulation, environmental concerns and, ever-increasingly so, taxation measures, which don't reflect on profitability in any way, shape or form -- completely insensitive to it -- we are jeopardizing the second or third most valuable industry in the province.

We've lost a number of mines recently. As I stated, in coal mining in the minister's area.... Westar is an example of a mine that is unable to pay taxes to the various communities in which their operations exist. The New Democratic government is going to provide legislation so that those communities can go out and borrow money utilizing, I suppose, the unpaid taxes as some form of security to pay down the loan.

It seems totally inappropriate to impose more taxes on an industry that is exceedingly heavily regulated and taxed at the present time. The tax rate increases are horrendous. They're virtually doubling taxes -- a 100 percent increase -- on a flat-rate basis without any sensitivity to reality. The industry has to survive. I guess it's the old saw here that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Unless we have that healthy industry, we're not going to be able to continue to fund education, social services programs or health programs, and most definitely we're not going to be able to support the labour force in an industry that is very important to the economy of the province.

You nibble away, you nibble away and you nibble away, and eventually you do something very disastrous. It was only one straw that broke the camel's back. Up until that time the camel was able to move around fairly well, but finally the last straw broke the camel's back. I would suggest that this type of an initiative is again based, hon. minister, on your government's basic fundamental politics -- one of envy and greed. That was exhibited in the 1972-75 tenure, and you're doing it again.

You've got to understand -- surely somebody in cabinet understands -- some basic economics. There are no left-wing economics or right-wing economics; there are only economics. Unless we create an environment where business and industry can flourish, we're simply not going to have jobs. Your taxation measures being imposed in the Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act are no different than the act that occurred in the 1972-75 tenure, where you decided to globally tax all ore reserves. Whether they were proven or unproven, it didn't matter. Somebody in your previous administration saw that as a marvellous opportunity to extract more taxes out of the system to pay out expenses where you deem, from your perspective, you would gain the greatest political advantage.

We've lost a lot of mines; we may lose Westar. Again, going back to Westar, if the ordinary private citizen -- the working person in the private world, they may be a mining employee, whatever -- didn't pay their taxes 

[ Page 1330 ]

for three years, their property would be put up for tax sale. But I see the government that hates big business and big industry is making accommodations so that doesn't happen in a large corporation's case. But they've shut down a number of mines: Premier Gold Mine; obviously the recent one, Cassiar Asbestos, where you decided welfare rather than workfare was the appropriate tack to take, and you killed that one.

Yes, you did, and you didn't have $12 million or $15 million to keep that operation going, but you had about $12 million to stop that operation. But you compensated by putting $300 million in the welfare program, and the minister has recently allowanced larger concessions and payments in that program.

The people really want work in the province of British Columbia. Unless somebody -- surely somebody in that cabinet, which is populated more by private members than cabinet ministers at the present time -- recognizes the importance of creating that environment.... It's paradoxical that you say one thing on the one hand and you do something entirely different on the other hand. You're not creating stability in the province of British Columbia. You're not creating an environment where the people of British Columbia -- and frankly all people in British Columbia are working people -- can look forward to continuity in their jobs, a strong and vibrant economy. You're not creating the environment where enthusiasm and energy could be expended with the hope of making this province greater, better and more beautiful.

No, you've taken the tack that you're going to extract more and more until you break the camel's back, and you're coming mighty close to it. You're coming very close to it when you're attacking the mining industry.

The minister comes from an area that has a rich historical legacy, with mining -- gold mining certainly, but hard-rock mining as well. The very foundation of the economy of British Columbia is being put in jeopardy with this particular piece of legislation, which I can't even come close to supporting. I find it exceedingly difficult and distasteful in this present recessionary period in British Columbia. We've got to encourage a volume of business; it's better to take a little bit out of a lot. As I used to say, it's better to have a hundred $1 customers than one $100 customer. With your concept, we're reducing the opportunities to do what government is supposed to do -- provide goods and services to people -- because you're going to kill the very foundation of the economy.

R. Neufeld: Bill 27 is another insidious tax on our mining and petroleum corporations in the province. It's a tax that is not based on profitability -- on whether that corporation should stay in business or not. It's just a flat tax, along with the capital tax. The Mineral Land Tax Act will encourage the industry and the corporations to leave our province. We've had a number of corporate and personal tax increases introduced by this government. A constant tax increase started right from when the Legislature opened. These tax increases cannot continue, or we will not have any industry in British Columbia.

Investment is leaving B.C. If we don't believe that, maybe we should read some of the articles in Mining in B.C., where the CEO of the mining industry has confirmed that. In fact, he's confirmed, as some other members have said, that by the year 2000 we may not have a mining industry and that our resource industries will be a lot smaller in British Columbia than what they are today. Then what we are going to do to provide those services that all of us British Columbians -- on your side of the House and our side -- want?

The services that are high on everyone's priority, of course, are health and education. They have to be funded from the taxes from these corporations. But we cannot continue to increase the size of bureaucracies and budgets on the backs of these corporations that are leaving. How will you be able to afford those types of services if we continue to drive corporations and industry out of British Columbia? At some time somebody has to put those two figures together and try and figure out how we're going to do it. Obviously not too many people on the other side of the House are trying to figure that out. They think there's a bottomless pit and the well will never go dry. The last member commented on the straw that will break the camel's back. I can see that that straw is coming closer all the time.

[11:15]

We in British Columbia enjoy the corporations that create the jobs. But they create the jobs on profitability. Corporations have to be profitable or we're not going to have any jobs. Higher water tax, corporate tax and mineral tax will not encourage this at all.

The gas and oil industry in northern British Columbia -- in Fort St. John, where it's headquartered for B.C. -- is near and dear to my heart, because that happens to be my home and has been for quite a number of years. When our leader spoke about that industry headquartered mostly in Alberta and about constantly cutting jobs because they have to remain profitable -- I think another corporation, Petro-Canada, just cut another 500 or 600 jobs -- those aren't just jobs in Calgary or Edmonton or Toronto; those are our jobs in Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, I can tell you. Mobil Oil is another one that's doing the same thing right now. They're cutting all kinds of jobs. Every petroleum-based corporation in Canada operates out of the northeast of British Columbia and in the United States. There are a tremendous number of corporations that operate out of northeastern British Columbia, and they are all cutting costs. They're cutting costs by cutting jobs.

In turn, we have a government that's increasing taxes while the corporations are cutting jobs. Where's it going to end? At some point in time there has be a coexistence between government and the corporations so we can continue to have the jobs we need so we can all enjoy British Columbia as it is today. The road I see this government going on is not in that direction. I wonder just where this government is really going. Where is it heading? What are the objectives of this government? It seems as though the only objectives are: "Let's raise taxes this year, and we'll get a little bit more money. We'll just see what happens. We'll see how far we can push them until we break them; until they fall. 

[ Page 1331 ]

Then maybe we can take them over and operate them ourselves." Is that where this government is going? That could be.

Our leader spoke about the room to move that the Minister of Finance has used in taxation. That's a very good line. Corporations also have the room to move, and it's evident in what they're doing. They are moving south of the border and into Chile or Mexico. I'm not familiar to a great extent with what happens in Chile or Mexico with the mining or the petroleum industry, so I can't comment on that. I know that they are moving there. I'm not saying that we have to provide all the same incentives that those countries do, but we have to provide a secure incentive for those corporations to stay in British Columbia. I think we can do that. They will stay in British Columbia and pay more taxes than they would in those other countries if they know they're in a secure British Columbia. That means an awful lot to them too. It cannot continue to be secure if we continue down the road of higher taxes and push those corporations south of the border. For those reasons I cannot support bill 27.

Hon. A. Edwards: The petroleum industry and the mining industry are two of the most important industries in British Columbia. The petroleum industry, which is centred in the northeast corner -- it may even spread within British Columbia -- is crucial to the economy there. I might suggest to the members opposite that there is nothing in this bill that increases taxes to the petroleum industry. The change is to where the tax is collected. There is no change in the amount. The change is revenue-neutral.

Interjection.

Hon. A. Edwards: The member opposite may not understand. I am saying there is no increase in the taxation to the petroleum industry. It is the petroleum tax that is being changed from one act so that it will be collected in another. It is a revenue-neutral move.

To move on to the mining industry, I don't think that anyone is more aware of the fact that the mining industry is part of the basis for this province. The province was established on the roots that miners brought in. It's an important, critical and very large industry when you take it in the context of our economy. The industry is having some very difficult times, and that is due largely to the price of minerals on the world market.

The members opposite have very clearly said a number of things about how businesslike the mining industry is and the fact that capital is mobile. It is mobile. It can't be mobile with companies that don't know what they're doing. It's companies that understand what's happened in British Columbia, which is that the management of the finances of British Columbia has been so bad that when this government came into office we faced a deficit that was larger than they said it would be and the prospect of an even larger deficit.

Corporations such as the mining corporations were very well aware of what was happening to British Columbia's economy because of the mismanagement by government. They understood that the best thing we could do for the stability of this province and to assure that they can operate in as healthy a way as possible under the circumstances is to maintain a healthy economic base and a stable economic climate. In order to do so, we have had to take some measures that.... Everybody would like it if we hadn't had to increase taxes at all. I don't know a single person that has asked to have their taxes increased. I don't know a single corporation that has asked to have their taxes increased, and believe me, it's probably never going to happen in the future either. In order for this province to retain its Aa-1 credit rating, we had to make some moves to increase our revenue. One of the obvious places to increase revenue was with a taxable asset that we have in this province, which is under mineral land taxes. As you say, it's non-designated mineral land.

I would like to remind members opposite that the measure will raise $400,000. Nearly three-quarters of that will come from ten major corporations. So the suggestion that this tax will be a burden on the small prospector is simply not true. In general, this will be carried by large corporations. I would also like to tell the members opposite that of the ten top corporations that bear nearly three-quarters of the load of this increase in tax on a very defined taxable asset, half of them are mining companies and the other half are forest companies. Now you may think that it's wrong to tax a mineral land for a forest company that's holding it when the tax in fact has not been increased since 1974. If you were a landlord, if you were a taxing authority, would you look to where taxes have fallen behind? If you're paying taxes on something else and the tax rate has increased to a fair rate with everybody else's taxes, do you think it's fair then that a mineral land should not be taxed on a fair basis?

From 1974 there has not been an increase in this tax. The tax has been increased to make it a fair tax. It's a fair tax on a generally accepted taxable asset. I would suggest that all the crying about the amount and the unfairness of it goes beyond reasonable consideration.

I would also like to deal with the suggestion about the task of designating mineral lands being taken from the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to a civil servant. The suggestion is that all of a sudden the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and/or the minister has no responsibility. That's not the case. It is a matter of administrative....

L. Fox: Convenience.

Hon. A. Edwards: It is convenience. It's definitely convenience. If the members opposite.... I was surprised that the member for Okanagan West -- who understands bureaucratic process -- would suggest that this is an abdication of responsibility and that the matter of convenience for some of these things that have to be done very frequently and would have to be taken to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.... That that would necessarily be a bad move is a strange suggestion.

[ Page 1332 ]

I simply leave it at that. I moved second reading previously.

Motion approved on the following division:

[11:30]

Bill 27, Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 33.

GOLF COURSE DEVELOPMENT
MORATORIUM ACT

Hon. B. Barlee: I move that the bill be now read a second time, and perhaps I should elaborate on the reasons why it should be read a second time.

First of all, I believe that virtually all members of the House, regardless of their differences in political persuasion, realize that the agricultural land in British Columbia is a limited and perhaps scarce resource. We're talking about agricultural land in the province -- 11,700,000 acres. That sounds like a lot, and actually it isn't. That land under the agricultural land reserve is only 5 percent of the land in British Columbia. If we were to divide this hall into 20 sectors, 19 sectors do not belong under the agricultural land reserve -- only one does. So we're looking at 5.05 percent, which I think is very important. It is essential to food production in the province. The farmers in all parts of the province, including the Okanagan, produce over 130 commodities to feed our population and for export.

The land they are farming -- and only this land -- preserves our ability to protect our own independent food supply. I think that is important. The agricultural land is preserved through the agricultural land act, commonly called the ALR. The ALC, the Agricultural Land Commission, actually is the steward of these agricultural lands. But on June 13, 1988, the outright use of agricultural land in the ALR for golf courses and golf course facilities was allowed by a previous government. The commission retained only the ability to set certain terms and conditions on this proposal. This outright use of agricultural lands for golf course developments did have a significant and negative impact on the agricultural community. I don't think there's any doubt about that at all. I see some dismay. Some of these lands were the finest lands in British Columbia. Many of them were class 1 and class 2 lands -- very important lands.

In November 1991, however, the regulatory provision allowing outright use was repealed. The golf course moratorium was placed -- B.C. regulation 308-91 -- on the 181 applications that the commission received for golf course development. They were already in process. In those three years and a few months, we had 181 applications on the books.

This bill confirms the framework for dealing with these proposals, which affected 20,700 acres. Now, 20,700 acres doesn't sound like much, but 640 acres is one square mile. So we're looking at over 30 square miles, much of this prime, very important farmland. The bill is consistent with the government's commitment to wise stewardship of resources -- in particular, my government's goal of ensuring the integrity of the agricultural land reserve to maintain fertile lands in perpetuity. I think that's a very important part of this bill.

In balancing agricultural interests against the interests of various applicants whose developments were stopped by the moratorium, we took a number of things into consideration. Certain proposals were exempted from the moratorium. Many of these were already completed; some were well on the way to completion. They were allowed to proceed. Certain proposals -- 60 of them -- were allowed to remain in the moratorium. Let's examine it. Out of those 60 proposals that were turned down, 57 of those -- 95 percent -- were in very sensitive areas. They were in areas where there was a great deal of pressure on the agricultural land reserve. They were in southern Vancouver Island, the Okanagan and the lower mainland.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, but that's 95 percent. The hallmark of a civilized society -- in answer to the member for Okanagan West -- is the preservation of their agricultural greenbelts. Any nation that looks down the road into the twenty-first century takes this into consideration, and we did take it into consideration.

This bill places terms and conditions on some of the proposals exempted from the moratorium to ensure that these projects are completed in a timely and efficient way through setting a deadline on completion -- and there has to be a deadline on completion -- and ensuring continuity of ownership of the land subject to the proposals. These conditions take effect April 6, 1992.

This bill -- and this is an important part of the bill -- also cancels the remaining applications still under the 

[ Page 1333 ]

moratorium, taking into account the interest of maintaining the agricultural lands which are affected.

The bill also provides that there will be no compensation to those claiming against the Crown for actions taken regarding applications subject to the moratorium. It also clarifies that these individuals may make a new application under the Agricultural Land Commission Act regarding any of the proposals subject to this bill. So if they are turned down, they can go back to the ALC and say: "Look, we have a good proposition." They're allowed to do that.

Finally, this bill ensures that the commission has full power to set the terms and conditions on any subjects that are proceeding and that local governments have full powers to manage developments under the Municipal Act.

These steps are necessary to minimize the negative impact of golf course development on the agricultural community and the resource of that community.

This is my government's fully considered, and I believe reasoned, solution for dealing with certain applications subject to the golf course moratorium. In preparing this bill I have balanced several factors, including legal and financial considerations and agricultural criteria, against the overall need for fairness. It does, however, reinstate the Agricultural Land Commission in its role of reviewing proposals pertaining to the agricultural land reserve.

R. Chisholm: Hon. Speaker, when this government was elected, it promised "a better way." Only 40 percent of the population supported the NDP and its better way.

We don't mind the principle of this bill so much. We're for the ALR and the ALC. We would like to see poor-grade land in fringe areas used for golf courses. There is absolutely no reason.... It's no good as agricultural land.

[11:45]

No matter how much fertilizer they added to their policy platform, it didn't grow. Maybe there was something wrong with the fertilizer. Could it be that those glorious 48 points were tainted? Let's look at point number one. Somebody -- and I think it was a Premier -- stated that the New Democrats are committed to open and balanced government that deals fairly -- and I emphasize the word "fairly" -- with ordinary men and women. This government was going to deal fairly, and it was going to be an open and balanced government. Is it an open and balanced government when the government schedules second reading debate barely 48 hours after the introduction of the bill? Are you dealing fairly with the men and women of British Columbia when you don't give them a chance to mail their input into the government or their opposition regarding this issue?

In case you've forgotten, in this House we do the people's business -- not 40 percent of the people's business, but all of the people's business. That means that we need input from the concerned public -- those this bill might or might not affect. Do you think 48 hours is enough time for the general public to respond? I might add that not everyone in this province has a fax machine. Therefore what does this tell us? Either this bill is very important and must be introduced and passed to avert crisis, or the government simply wanted to avoid due process and public input.

Perhaps the hon. members of the government, or the minister himself, could tell us what the emergency is. What crisis has precipitated the need to bring Bill 33 so quickly to second reading? The only crisis that exists in this province is the crisis management the NDP is practising to force its legislative agenda through this House. This isn't a game where the party with the most bills passed at the end of the session wins. Generally the public will lose in that game.

Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture and the government House Leader should join one of the legislative tours and learn what this House is supposed to represent. This is a democracy with due process; people are to be heard. What has been the public's response to the bill so far? They haven't had time to respond. How does the government expect to have feedback from the people on Bill 33? Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture was a bit too timid to hear what the people had to say.

This attitude of "Who cares about a process?" to "Full steam ahead with legislation" provides no comfort to the property-owners of British Columbia. You've got land, and this is what you're going to do with it. Case closed; no debate. This cannot be tolerated; this dictatorship must end. Remember the battle cry, "Not a dime without a debate"? That's exactly what's happening to the farmers and the property-owners here: not a dime and no debate. We support the ALR and the ALC, but we are opposed to the process by which you bring this bill to the floor of the House.

What we find of concern is that retroactively to November 18, 1991, there exists no compensation for property-owners. Here, as in other legislation sponsored by this government, the NDP have chosen to play judge and jury. Farmers, property-developers and property-owners who in good faith have followed every regulation set out by the ALC are now being told: "Tough luck." There were 181 applications on this bill. Where is the responsibility from this government to the people that it now pass...?

As I said, I agree with the government with setting rules on who's going to be allowed to pass and who's going to fail in these golf courses. But they have to be applied fairly. The people who lost under the old process should be compensated. At this point I'll quote from the hon. Minister of Labour. The Expropriation Land Act was intended to simplify procedures for expropriation and improve protection for citizens against unfair, uncompensated expropriation; this is basically what we're talking about.

"...if cabinet were to take that action and dispense with an inquiry for expropriation purposes, there ought to be a full report to the House at the next sitting, so that that report and the decision of cabinet could be debated in the open confines of the Legislature. Therefore, keeping in harmony with the Premier's commitment to open government....

"...there should be some business loss provision provided in the advance payment to allow people to enjoy some income from the property, or to recognize 

[ Page 1334 ]

the fact that people enjoyed some income from the property before it was expropriated.

"...People often do not know that they have a choice. They think that when the expropriating authority shows up, they've got no choice. Hence they just begin to deal with the matter of compensation."

This basically is expropriation, hon. Speaker. Those farmers and property-owners who were exempted and followed the laws of the province have had their rights taken away. Essentially, the government has expropriated the development rights that these people thought they had. What frightens most people in this province -- business people and private individuals alike -- is that there exists a terrible trend in the government's legislation package to expropriation without compensation -- not a dime.

The problem with Bill 33 lies not in the notion of the preservation of farmland; the problem lies in the fact that the government would deny due process to the people of British Columbia who have an opinion on this matter. The problem lies in the fact that the NDP would strip rights away from farmers and property-owners, and presumptuously judge that they are not entitled to judicial consideration for compensation.

This bill and the other NDP bills of expropriation without compensation smack of nothing less than contempt for the rights of the individual, the judicial system and the parliamentary process.

The people in the province of British Columbia are saying: "We were conned during the election." The people of British Columbia want an end to this NDP dictatorship. Ditch the dictatorship, and develop democracy. Let the people speak to this bill. Thank you, hon. Speaker.

H. De Jong moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. B. Barlee moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:53 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada