1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

6097 ]

CONTENTS

Oral Questions

Alleged cutbacks in homemaker service –– 6097

Mr. Lea

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Hall

Orders of the Day

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

Curtis)

On vote 86: minister's office –– 6099

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Leggatt

Mr. Lorimer

Mr. Ritchie

On vote 87: economics and policy division –– 6106

Mr. Stupich

On vote 88: Treasury Board staff –– 6106

Mr. Stupich

On vote 89: revenue division –– 6106

Mr. King

Mr. Levi

Mr. Stupich

On vote 90: office of the comptroller-general –– 6109

Mr. Stupich

On the amendment to vote 90 –– 6109

Mr. Lauk

On vote 91: treasury and administration division ––

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lauk

On vote 92: government agencies –– 6110

Mr. Stupich

On vote 93: Purchasing Commission –– 6110

Mr. Stupich

On vote 94: Provincial Capital Commission –– 6111

Mr. Barber

On vote 95: interest on the public debt –– 6116

Mr. Stupich

Hon. Mr. Chabot

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Barber

Mr. Cocke

On vote 96: contingencies (all ministries) –– 6117

Mr. Stupich

On vote 97: building occupancy charges –– 6117

Mr. Stupich

Mr. King

Second Reading of Bills

An Act Respecting Montreal Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company

of Canada (Bill PR401).

Mr. Ree –– 6119

West Kootenay Power and Light Company, Limited, Act, 1897, Amendment

Act, 1981 (Bill PR402).

Mr. Ree –– 6119

Motor Vehicle (All Terrain) Amendment Act, 1981 (Bill 7).

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6119

Mr. Nicolson –– 6120

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 6120

Tabling Documents

British Columbia Development Corporation consolidated financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 6120

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. RITCHIE: It's my pleasure to

welcome to the chamber members of the B.C. Central Credit Union. We

have with us Mr. Terry Sankey, the chairman; Mr. Del Taylor, first

vice-chairman; Mr. George Viereck, second vice-chairman; Mr. Eugene

Kaulius, a member of the executive; Mr. Peter Podovinikoff, chief

executive officer; Mr. Aj Gill, the chief financial officer; Mr. Harry

Buddle, the manager, services division; and Mr. Richard Thomas, the

executive assistant. Would the House please welcome these fine

gentlemen.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery

today we have representatives from the joint councils of the city of

Armstrong in the district of Spallumcheen. I would ask the House to

extend a warm welcome to His Worship Mayor Marvin Kirton of Armstrong

and His Worship Mayor Hans Blattner of the Spallumcheen municipality,

along with Alderman Carmen Anderson and Betty Atkinson of Armstrong,

and Fred Findlay and Dave McCourt of the district of Spallumcheen.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Kamloops.

[Applause.]

MR. RICHMOND: And I haven't even said anything yet.

MR. LAUK: Enjoy it while you can.

MR. RICHMOND: I assume this is the freebie.

the gallery today are several students from the FDA Elementary, a small

private school in Kamloops. They are accompanied by some of their

parents, and their teacher Ms. Ruth Fritz. I would like to ask the

House to make them welcome.

MR. HALL: In the precinct

today are 15 students from Ontario who are visiting Cunningham Simon

School in Surrey as part of an exchange program. They're all in

wheelchairs, Mr. Speaker, and they're visiting disabled students in

Surrey and are here for a full day. I hope that any members who leave

the chamber for some reason or another during the course of the day and

see any of the students from Ontario will stop and have a chat with

them, talk about British Columbia and all of the good things we have in

this province, and welcome them to our fair province today.

MR. KEMPF:

In the gallery with us this afternoon is one of those great

entrepreneurs from the north, Mr. Lloyd Gething. Lloyd is very active

in the mining industry and, in fact, is in the business of mining coal

in Telkwa in my constituency. I'd like the House to make him welcome.

MR. LAUK:

In the members' gallery today is a classmate of the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) and myself, the mayor

of the city of Cranbrook, His Worship Mayor Tyrone Colgur. Would the

House welcome him today.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Because

the first member for Vancouver Centre, myself and the mayor of

Cranbrook went through law school together, may I join in the welcome

and point out to members that the mayor of Cranbrook happens to be the

finest cooker of a steak in this province. I survived law school on his

cooking.

MR. BARNES: I'd like to have the House join

me in welcoming Reverend Ron Lindsay from the city of Vancouver and the

constituency of Vancouver Centre. I'd also like to welcome a group of

students from the Grandview Elementary School in Vancouver and their

teachers Lanny Young, Mavis Bredom and Elizabeth Blott. On behalf of

the first member for Vancouver Centre and myself, would the House wish

them welcome.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, saving

the best till the last, I'd like the House to welcome some very dear

friends of mine who have come all the way out here from Toronto: John

and Mary Cook and their daughters Debbie and Karen. I remember when I

used to carry these young girls around on my shoulder many years ago,

and now they are beautiful young ladies. I'd like the House to bid them

welcome.

Oral Questions

ALLEGED CUTBACKS IN HOMEMAKER SERVICE

MR. LEA:

My question is to the Minister of Health. In answer to questions

yesterday, the minister stated that volunteers and relatives of B.C.'s

ill and elderly will have to fill in some of the gaps caused by

cutbacks in homemaker services. The Prince Rupert homemakers service

has been told that cuts must take place at the personal-care level:

service to elderly people who are not able to shop for themselves or

keep themselves clean, in some instances; those who live alone and in

some cases have lost touch with society and their community. In the

words of the director of the Prince Rupert homemakers service: "We

provide services to many elderly people who live alone, who may have no

family. The very fact that we are providing services means that the

family is not there to help, in many cases." Has the minister decided

to reconsider his answer of yesterday, and assure the elderly people in

Prince Rupert who live alone that they will receive adequate care?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'm rather surprised that someone has responded to a statement made yesterday, unless it had been prepared in anticipation.

The

people responsible for delivering personal care take into consideration

the needs of the individual by way of assessment, as I said yesterday.

In some instances some of those services which are provided to the

individual may be deemed to be no longer required. The emphasis

certainly is placed upon the care of the individual. The member for

Prince Rupert cited several functions of a person who would be

assisting, and those identify an area of priority.

There are

approximately three and a half million hours of service to be provided

in the current year. Those people responsible for delivering those

services will, to the best of their ability, assess the needs of the

individual. There will be many cases where individuals will require

more hours of care than they are presently being provided. I would

expect that to occur. In other situations there will be the opportunity

for the

[ Page 6098 ]

assessor

to determine that perhaps fewer hours may be provided to an individual,

thereby providing the opportunity of serving a greater number of

people, albeit perhaps for a shorter period of time than they may

desire or than possibly someone feels they may require.

As I

said yesterday, approximately 22,000 people will be receiving this

level of care. We do not have the capacity at this time to provide all

the care that may be requested. We are attempting to provide the

highest level of care for the greatest number of people based upon the

assessment of the individual. We realize that we are going to fall

somewhat short of perfection.

MR. LEA: The Prince

Rupert homemaker service has been told to cut back almost 5,000 hours

this year — that's from 25,230 hours in 1980 to 20,818 hours in 1981.

I've been reliably informed that this means that unless those presently

receiving service die, no new clients will be admitted into the program.

Has

the minister now seen that it's his administrative decision that's

causing severe hardship? Has the minister decided to provide adequate

funds for the homemaker service now that all of this information is

coming in? It's not coming in from us. We are only the carriers. It's

coming in from the homemaker service and the people who direct that

service in the field.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I appreciate

the comment from the member for Prince Rupert that they are carrying

messages to the Legislative Assembly on behalf of others. We have

received similar communications from those people who are involved at

the agency level. This is where most of the information is being

obtained.

The people who are responsible for the

administration of the program have advised the agencies that they

should attempt a target level of so many hours. There is a difference

in the total hours which would be identified as target and that which

may have been provided last year within their specific responsibility.

As I mentioned previously, that is to provide some flexibility to

provide hours of service to new clients, rather than just sustaining

those clients at the present level, because there is going to be a

change in the mode of clientele. There will be some who will be

entering the program and receiving services. Others will be leaving the

program. But the level of hours will be approximately the same as the

previous year. The cost will be increased by 35 to 45 percent. That

occurs because of the change in the rates. The rate has increased by

approximately 35 percent. The hours will be about the same, but there

will be additional requests from perhaps 15 percent more clients. We

are attempting to maintain approximately the same level of service, but

the individual agencies who have the responsibility of handling the

caseload have been asked to consider aiming at a target, thereby

allowing us some flexibility in providing services for those new

clients who are coming on stream.

As I mentioned yesterday,

it is a good program providing good service to a large number of

people. But I emphasize it will never achieve the expectations of all.

I think we do have a responsibility to permit those people who are

responsible for delivering that service to have a degree of assessment

capability, determining where the priorities are.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. The Powell

River and Sunshine Coast homemakers have been told to cut back their

hours of service from 111,000 hours in 1980 to 93,000 hours in 1981, a

reduction of 18,000 hours a year. Has the minister decided to

intervene? Will you meet with the society with a view to increasing

those hours, or at least bringing them back up to the level of last

year, and reversing this heartless policy of your government and your

ministry so that these people will not end up in overcrowded

extended-care facilities — facilities that hardly exist in my riding

due to the policies of your government?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, we must delete the argumentative phases of questions; but a

section of the question is in order.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, the people responsible for administering the program, I

would presume, have been in contact with that organization. At least

I'm sure the organization has made such a request. It might save a

great deal of time if I had a chance to meet for a few minutes with the

person writing all the questions.

MR. LEA: We hear you don't even meet with the guy writing the answers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a credit to the commitment of the provincial

government, with respect to this particular program, that citizens in

the area mentioned by the member for Mackenzie will be receiving at

least 93,000 hours this year.

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: The Leader of the Opposition says it's much better than none. Going from the 1975 base of zero, yes, I agree with you.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. It is obvious to the Chair that when a

question with a certain degree of argumentation in it is allowed, it

distorts the purpose of question period. Let's have a question and an

answer. The Minister of Health has the floor.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

In response to the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead), and to the

question he asked, I categorically reject his statement that it is a

heartless program.

MR. GABELMANN: In Campbell River

the Homemakers Service has been cut back about 600 hours per month,

from over 2,200 to just over 1,600. I don't intend to ask the minister

the same question, because we'll get the same non-answer.

What

I do want to ask the minister is what he is going to do about the

situation that exists in that area; between September 1980 and February

1981 no long-term care assessor existed because of the cutbacks in the

health program. Assessments were done only by a social worker on an

urgent basis. That has meant there is a long list of people who have

not had an assessment for long-term care programs of any kind. They are

now faced with having to do a reassessment of those people who are on

long-term care programs in order to

[ Page 6099 ]

meet the cutbacks that have been imposed by the provincial government.

MR. SPEAKER: The question, please.

MR. GABELMANN:

What can the people in Campbell River who are running long-term care

programs on a voluntary basis through the Homemakers Service — many of

the people who work in this program are doing it on a voluntary basis,

as well as those who are paid — expect from the government, when they

don't even have the facilities to do the kinds of assessments that are

required, to meet the cutbacks that have been imposed?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I look forward to reading that question in the Blues, because it was

long and a bit convoluted. If I understand what the member was asking,

what he is recommending is that we further add to that layer of

bureaucracy that yesterday other members asked we remove. I'll have to

read it to find out precisely what you're asking.

MR. GABELMANN:

I have a supplementary question. I want the minister to answer to the

House how the people in the Campbell River area in the long-term care

assessment program are supposed to do an assessment of those people who

are in the in-home program now, in order that there can be services cut

back to meet the requirements, while they still have a backlog from

last year in the overall long-term care assessment program.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

If there is a lack of capacity in numbers of personnel required to

perform that function, then the way to resolve it would be to increase

that capacity. I presume that would mean assigning more people to the

task. I will inquire with the long-term care management to see if

that's possible.

MR. HALL: Greg Boorman, the

long-term health care administrator for Surrey and White Rock, has said

that the Health ministry has not kept pace with increased demands for

increased home service, and that the minister has provided his district

with roughly the same amount of money this year as last year and at the

same time expects more people to be served. We've been asking the

minister if he has decided to change his decision. He has replied "no,"

a number of times.

In view of Mr. Boorman's accusation that

the minister has reneged on earlier promises and that these cuts will

cause ripples throughout all the other health services, why has the

minister reneged on the promises he made to Mr. Greg Boorman?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Who?

MR. HALL: Mr. Greg Boorman, the long-term health care administrator for Surrey–White Rock.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

The second member for Surrey has a distinct advantage if he knows about

that which he speaks, because I don't know when that meeting took

place, what statements were made, or what it is you're speaking about

with reference to reneging. I'm sorry.

MR. HALL: A Social Credit Party member, Brian Hayes, who is also the

director of the Surrey and White Rock Community Homemaker Association, said

that he warned the minister last week that it would be political suicide to

cut back in-home health-care services to the elderly. Can the minister confirm

that Mr. Hayes gave him that warning?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

I possibly know Mr. Hayes, but I couldn't identify him in this room. I

did not meet with Mr. Hayes last week. Perhaps he's communicated in

some way. The member for Surrey seems to know all of this inside

information. I'm not sure who's providing it to you, but maybe I could

speak to that person later and find out what else he knows or thinks he

knows.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, I didn't

want to bring this up during question period, but during question

period I heard a clacking noise, which was disruptive to the question

period, emanating from either the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Hewitt) or the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) or from that

direction. It sounded like a looseleaf….

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON:

Somebody said it was a rubber band. Somebody said it was the Minister

of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Would the member please state his point of order.

MR. NICOLSON:

The point is that I'm surprised that if others did not know of this….

It seemed to start up when one of our members would get up and start

asking a question. It seems to have been a deliberate affront to the

House and to Your Honour. I would ask if His Honour would request from

that side, which was the source of the noise, to have that member have

the guts to stand up and apologize to this House.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order. please. Hon. members, I commend to the House the practice which

is first laid out for us in our standing orders: when a member stands

to speak, he shall not be interrupted.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 86: ministers office, $176,348.

MR. STUPICH:

For about two and a half hours yesterday afternoon we had quite a good

exchange, I thought, of fairly short comments and questions from this

side of the House and responses and answers from the Minister of

Finance, up until the last nine minutes. The Premier rose at nine

minutes to six and said that he had no intention of speaking in this

debate, and then went on for nine minutes to prove that he had no

intention of speaking in this debate.

Interjections.

[ Page 6100 ]

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'm just not able to get all of the comments, and I

suppose it's not necessary that I do. If they want to speak up, then

I'll try to respond. But it's not my estimates right now; it's the

Minister of Finance that we're supposed to be doing. I just don't know

whether I should be listening or trying to avoid them.

any case, yesterday the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) raised

a question. I thought it deserved an answer from the Minister of

Finance. I recall asking a question sometime last summer about what the

Minister of Finance intended to do, could do or might do about the

increasing rate of interest. At the time I think he said that the

Finance ministers were going to have a meeting with Bouey, the governor

of the Bank of Canada, and that this would certainly be discussed. I

know that the question of Bouey attending a meeting of first ministers

did come up, and there was concern that Bouey had not attended that

meeting. But it is my understanding that there was a meeting last

summer when the Ministers of Finance were going to meet with Bouey, and

although I believe I was assured in the House that the Minister of

Finance from B.C. was going to attend that meeting, he then did not

attend the meeting. I think it's passing strange that the Minister of

Finance from B.C. has not even met the B.C. representative on the board

of governors; I just think it's strange. I wonder whether either one is

avoiding the other, or whether it's something that they put on the back

burner until there is more time for it. Or does the Minister of Finance

for B.C. really believe that B.C. has no input to make other than

through the first ministers' conference? I would like some comment from

him as to his interest or lack of interest in this whole question.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the specific meeting of Ministers of Finance to which the

hon. member for Nanaimo referred occurred last year. The member is

correct in recalling that in debate or in answer to a question in this

House I indicated that I would be in attendance at that meeting. May I

say at the outset that I think it is important that Ministers of

Finance or provincial treasurers, as the case may be, across the

country should discuss the question of interest rates and the national

economy. On that particular occasion I confess, Mr. Chairman, to having

been unwell immediately in front of the conference. I wanted to go; I

said I would go, and I was unable to attend. There have been two

meetings of western Finance ministers in recent weeks, as the member

would know: the first in Victoria in May; and most recently in Edmonton

just one week ago. We obviously discussed the economy at that

particular point of time.

In addition, all ten provinces —

through the Ministries of Finance or treasury departments — will be in

Victoria later this month. The date is June 24, 25 and 26 for a meeting

of the ten provincial Ministers of Finance, and I think there is doubt

about the attendance of one minister. Clearly, the economy will be a

very major item on an agenda of about six agenda items. I would think

that the economy will be about the first. I don't think, Mr. Chairman,

it is correct to assume that I, as Minister of Finance for British

Columbia, am content to leave the question of the economy or the

question of high interest rates and the hardship which they work to the

first ministers, although the subject has been more fully and

accurately addressed in more detail at meetings of first ministers.

is correct that I have not met with the representative or the member of

the board of governors of the Bank of Canada who resides in British

Columbia. If the member opposite considers that to be an oversight,

then I will accept that criticism. I have not met with him; however, we

have had contact with the Bank of Canada and will continue to do so —

directly or indirectly. However, I think that in a number of instances

it is more appropriate for the premiers of the provinces, the first

ministers, to have contact with Governor Bouey. I believe that we can

have a more direct and effective contact with our federal counterparts

— when I say ours, I mean the provincial Ministers of Finance — with

the federal Minister of Finance, with the federal president of the

Treasury Board and others who have a financial responsibility at the

elected level in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I just have one brief question for the minister. Could

the minister advise the House whether he or his government has ever

requested the federal government that they be consulted surrounding the

appointment to the Bank of Canada? Have you ever requested to be

brought into the process so that you could have some input in terms of

the kind of person you wanted to sit on the Bank of Canada board? Would

you please answer that question?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, I believe that that has been the case. I would refer the

member to three documents. It's not appropriate to table these

documents, because they are public documents. One, admittedly, is some

four and a half years old; that is the B.C. position on the

constitution of Canada; secondly, the 1978 brief to the task force on

Canathan unity; and thirdly, among others, the presentation to the

first ministers' conference by the Premier of this province in very

late 1978. That also has to be seen in the context of the attempt of

the first ministers to meet with Governor Bouey at a time when there

was similar concern about interest rates and other aspects of the

Canadian economy. The history of that attempt is well known and, again,

is a matter of record. My answer to the member is that I believe I am

correct in saying that that point has been made in the past.

MR. LORIMER:

I would like to discuss with the minister three problems of a somewhat

local nature; two of these deal with the disabled rebate from the

gasoline tax about which we have been in communication for the last few

months. The matter was turned over to the eligibility committee, and

the request by the two constituents to whom I am referring was turned

down. In my opinion, under the regulations the

definitions of

"handicapped" are very narrow. They could probably be looked at by the

minister with the idea of making these regulations a little more

generous.

In the case of David Wray, he has very minimal use

of his legs; he has hand controls in his automobile; he has a fused

left knee, a plastic right knee, and walks slowly with his crutches. In

his case, I would suggest that any reasonable person would consider him

"handicapped," as referred to in the regulations, although he may not

fit completely within the

definitions set out. However, I suggest that

a generous examination of those

definitions would allow this person to

fit. He receives a Department of Veterans Affairs pension of 50

percent. He is unable to use buses. The only way he can move about is

with his vehicle. I would like the minister to take another look at

this particular case, along with the case of Geno Bianco, who was

injured in an industrial accident and receives compensation equivalent

to what a person would

[ Page 6101 ]

receive

if in fact his leg had been amputated below the knee. He had been

advised that he should go through with amputation procedures. The

matter has been discussed but Mr. Bianco — for cosmetic reasons, I

suppose — prefers to have his useless leg attached. If he went through

with this operation he would qualify for the exemption. But because he

hasn't gone through with the operation the eligibility committee has

said that he's out of luck. Now, if he wants his tax return, all he has

to do is have the operation and he would get it without question. It

seems like nonsense to me.

There's another case I would ask

the minister to look at. I want to say that the minister did reply

promptly to my letters dealing with these two cases; I have no

criticism of that. I only criticize the answer. I wrote to the minister

just a week ago about the third matter but I haven't had a reply. This

is in connection with the Social Service Tax Act and dealing with the

Pacific Vocational Institute, in which they buy equipment for training

purposes — motors and machinery to be stripped by the students, rebuilt

and so on. Under the regulations there are sales tax exemptions for

school purposes. It would seem to me that in this particular case the

equipment is being used solely for training purposes. The motors and so

on are not being operated on the roads or for any industrial or

commercial purpose. They are merely there for training the students how

to take a block apart, or whatever, and put it together again. When the

application was made by this institute, it was accepted by a Mr. R.C.

Sheridan, the inspection supervisor of the department, as a refundable

tax which could be refunded. That was in March of this year. In May

this decision was reversed by the same inspector. I would ask the

minister to take a close look at this one as well, because it would

seem to me that something that is being used for educational purposes,

and not for industrial, commercial or private purposes, would qualify

under the regulations as an exemption for school purposes. Maybe the

minister has an answer to that last question.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon has identified four

specific cases which are of concern to him, two of which I have dealt

with in reply in writing. The third is being looked at right now under

a separate heading or category — the question of sales tax charged on

items for educational purposes. I'll examine that one. I don't think

the member expected an answer today.

With respect to the

eligibility committee for the gasoline tax rebate for disabled persons,

first of all, I don't think there is any argument that an eligibility

committee is appropriate. No matter how carefully one draws legislation

or the regulations which flow from it, you cannot possibly foresee

every single case. There are going to be some instances where, in fact,

all the care in framing the material and the regulations has been

taken, but someone will be just beyond that point. I believe very much

in the use of eligibility committees not only in this context, but in a

number of contexts throughout government. There you can request a group

of men and women to focus their attention on a specific situation, and

you can give them terms of reference.

Incidentally, I don't

accept the suggestion that the terms of reference are narrow. I think

they are more broad than ever. We can argue the point as to whether

they should be even broader, but at least we give to an eligibility

committee, such as the one which functions in this case, the

opportunity to exercise some discretion. I would like to think that

they have been encouraged to exercise that discretion in the broader

sense rather than the narrower. In other words, if they have any doubt

at all, they should rule in favour of the individual who considers

himself or herself to be aggrieved.

What we will do is this:

as we have a little more experience with this, we shall review the

decisions made by the eligibility committee and determine if there is

in fact a pattern. In some instances, however, requests have come in

for the gasoline tax rebate from people who, in the view of the

eligibility committee — and, frankly, in my view — are simply not

entitled to it. They are not themselves disabled. They have some

responsibility with respect to assisting disabled persons. First of

all, I would like to see us address ourselves to those who are

disabled, who have a very genuine circumstance with respect to the

gasoline tax rebate. Then we can consider additional broadening if

possible and if financial circumstances permit.

I think that

answers the member's questions. I am pleased he does write to me as

these individual instances come to his attention. because then we can

examine them. But we should also examine them in the whole, and we

shall be doing so.

MR. LORIMER: I want to point out

that I have no objection to an eligibility committee. That could well

be the right way to go. I'm not talking about that matter.

seems to me that in the two particular cases I cited it is strictly the

person who is handicapped or disabled that is making application.

Secondly, my information is that both are getting refunds from the

federal tax rebate system. If they qualify under the federal

regulations set out federally, then I suggest to you that it might be a

wise thing to determine whether or not the regulations we have should

be brought into line with the federal ones, or at least some

consideration be given to determining whether or not the guidelines are

as they should be.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I'll reply very

briefly. No, I didn't want to suggest that the particular cases you had

drawn to my attention were from other than disabled persons, but I was

expanding in the response.

I don't think there is a

disagreement in terms of the eligibility committee activity; I think

it's a useful one. Previously the decision was made by the commissioner

of tax. He is supposed to be as tough as he possibly can; that is his

job. That's why we moved to the eligibility committee to permit a

second look. I thank the member.

We've had some limited

experience with the eligibility committee. I undertake — and it would

only be natural that we do so — that we review their decisions for or

against and that we review their experience in the course of the next

several months, towards the end of this year.

MR. RITCHIE:

I will be very brief. I have a matter which has become rather a severe

problem in my constituency. It concerns the application of sales tax to

a particular piece of farm equipment. I have on hand a number of

letters from some of my constituents complaining quite severely about

this thing. I have spoken to the minister in this regard, and there is

the possibility that there may be some relief next year.

However,

I wish to convey to the minister that the relief is required this year,

and the reason is very simple. The problem this could create for this

small distributor known as Fraser Valley Loader Sales Ltd. Is further

aggravated by the high interest rates of today. This operation could be

under very severe financial restraints if they are bound to not only

keep

[ Page 6102 ]

to the high interest rates required today…. In that particular

business, where you have to carry a fairly large inventory of expensive

equipment, this tax becomes intolerable.

I believe that our

minister should reconsider this decision on the basis that if there is

a possibility it could be changed next year then I would say the

possibility is with us now, and of course the effects of such a change

would be quite dramatic to this small businessman.

I know

that no matter where you go you're going to find this particular piece

of machinery known as the skid-steer loader. In this particular case

it's known as a Bobcat. It was originally designed by a turkey producer

because of its ability to operate in small quarters for cleaning

buildings. You will find this piece of equipment on many jobs other

than agricultural, just as you will find many tractors that were

designed many years ago being used in highway and industrial work. It

would be totally unfair to decide that this does not qualify simply

because someone who does not understand agriculture or agricultural

equipment decides that it's not a farm tractor.

I could go

on and on and talk about different types of self-powered farm equipment

that could be considered tractors but someone behind a desk who doesn't

understand it will tell me, as they have already done, that it's not a

tractor because it's not designed to pull. This machine is a tractor

and it's designed for a farm job. The fact that it's used in other

places should not cause this loss of tax benefit. I would say too that

it's very simple. It states that equipment such as farm implements,

farm machinery and farm tractors may be exempt. I would submit to the

minister that this would qualify under any of those categories, but

more importantly, if there is a possibility of it being changed next

year, for gosh sakes, do it this year and save the business of this

small businessman who cannot afford this sort of penalty on top of the

penalty he's having as a result of the federal high-interest-rate

policy.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I thank the member for

Central Fraser Valley, who has raised this question with me previously.

I'm pleased that he has raised it the debate on my estimates. I cannot

undertake for the member today that such a favourable decision would be

forthcoming this year. That is not to say that we shall not examine it

again, particularly in view of the fact that he has raised it in the

House. However, whether that decision can be made this year or not with

respect to a specific piece of equipment — Bobcat being a commercial

term; loaders being the more generic term — we do have to work on the

list of the exemptions of sales tax in several areas, not the least of

which is agricultural. That list could be altered quickly, but I think

we might make some mistakes. For that reason I wish to err on the

cautious side, take just a little longer and bring the list forward by

regulation for the next budget year. We may make some significant

changes or we may make relatively few changes. It's an old list and it

deals with a number of implements — I don't think they would fall under

the heading of equipment anymore — which I am informed in my own

constituency are simply not only no longer used on a farm but no longer

seen on a farm. However there may be some instances that while these

are not used in a modern mechanized farm — say in the Fraser Valley,

the Saanich Peninsula or the Okanagan — they may still be used in some

smaller family farms in more remote and rural areas of the province. We

require care in altering that list which has been in place for a good

number of years.

Having said that generally, the specific

point which the member has raised deserves very serious attention. I

cannot promise a decision this year. I do promise a very careful

review. I trust the member will find that acceptable.

MR. RITCHIE:

At this moment I'm not calling for a change in the list. I suggest that

it would be wrong to do so, because it requires a lot of attention,

considering the fact that we have such silly things on there such as

hen specs and turkey saddles. What I am saying to the minister is that

this machine does qualify under the categories of farm equipment, farm

tractor or farm machinery. I have letters from a number of people who

purchased this piece of equipment who are quite prepared to sign a

document stating that in fact this is used solely for agricultural

purposes. That should be enough. At this moment my major concern is not

the change or the revision of the list, nor can we wait until next

year. I'm asking now that this be looked at again, and a favourable

decision be made in order to help this small businessman who I'm sure

would be under tremendous pressure if he were forced to pay this very

healthy penalty as a result of this misinterpretation — in my opinion —

of what should or shouldn't qualify.

MR. STUPICH:

There is a question I raised a couple of times yesterday, and the

minister missed it, perhaps by design. I don't know. If that's the

case, I'll move on to something else. But I'll try it once more and see

if I do get a response. I was referring to the background papers, page

49, table 2: estimate of the implicit subsidy received by B.C.

consumers of natural gas, 1981-82. This table shows that the implicit

subsidy runs somewhere between $59 million and $424 million depending

on the calculation. I asked the minister if he had some rationalization

of this. He did go on at some length, during the course of his remarks

in response to another question, to say that he believes in the

user-pay principle. Certainly there are occasions when that is not

appropriate at all. In the case of most human services, the one who is

using the services is the one who is least able to pay. In this

instance, I don't think that can be the answer. I wonder if the

minister has any rationalization as to why the taxpayers generally

should be subsidizing these natural gas consumers this way. Does he has

any plans for doing anything about it, or is there some reason for

maintaining this subsidy?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr.

Chairman, I'm sorry if I did not respond to that specific point

yesterday. I think I did brush past it or touch on it. The question is

essentially before the British Columbia Utilities Commission at this

point, and then will be before government as a whole, not just the

Ministry of Finance.

In table 2 on page 49 of the background

papers, as I indicated yesterday, we are attempting to identify all tax

expenditures and all aspects of provincial finances. That is not to say

that the Ministry of Finance accepts or agrees with all of them, but

rather this should be seen as a background and working paper. Again, in

line with my determination that the budget itself and the material

which is filed with members of this House on budget day and subsequent

days is as complete and as full a record as it can possibly be — full

disclosure of a variety of programs and costs which exist within the

structure of government in British Columbia — I intend to continue to

pursue that particular course of action.

[ Page 6103 ]

With

respect, I don't think it's a matter of whether or not I agree with the

implicit subsidy. It's a question of my insisting that that kind of

information should be shown in a document called background papers.

Frankly, I feel that the point could be more effectively canvassed with

the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr.

McClelland), inasmuch as it relates to policy.

The member

for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) is not in his seat at the

moment, but he made the point with respect to a specific piece of

equipment. I attempted to point out that we are examining the full

list, in concert with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, as the

committee would expect us to do, obviously. I commit to the member — I

see he has returned — that I shall examine this most seriously with the

officials in my ministry. I think he knows that the matter has been

tested in court. I will have to have a report quite soon as to exactly

what the position of the Ministry of Finance might be or should be as

result of that decision.

I commit to review this year. I cannot commit to accede to his request this year; I'm sorry that I cannot do that.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to interject a cautionary note. I would just

suggest to the minister that the more exemptions he allows, the more

pressure he will get for more exemptions. My own approach to this would

be rather to improve the farm income assurance program so that it would

not be necessary to add to the list of exemptions for agricultural

purposes. I'd rather get away from the list completely. However, that's

his problem, not mine.

I'd like to refer to a statement on

page 35 of the budget speech: "Responsible budgeting requires that

government expenditure stays within our ability to provide services

without borrowing." The minister needn't look that up. What he should

look up is page 25 of the background papers. To some degree the

government has been able to maintain services without borrowing by

creating additional Crown corporations that do borrow. So it has been

shifted from one pocket to the other, if you like. On page 25 there is

a six-year projection showing what is going to be borrowed under

various headings. But we can't determine from the breakdown of the

headings just how much is borrowing that previously would have been

included in budgetary expenditures.

For example, included

under item one, education and health, is British Columbia Educational

Institutions Capital Financing Authority. That item used to be included

in expenditures under estimates in the Department of Education; the

capital amount that was spent on universities and colleges used to be

included there. This is a new financing authority. I'd like to know —

in the years in this table — how much of the figure shown under the

title "education and health" may be attributed to the British Columbia

Educational Institutions Capital Financing Authority.

In the

same way, under item two, urban development, there are three new

authorities: Urban Transit Authority, British Columbia Place and

Transpo '86. These are all new institutions. The total figures in that

second line are all items that are new under this administration, and

would all have been included under budgetary expenditures in previous

administration. Therefore, in saying that they're getting along without

borrowing, by producing this table the minister is admitting that these

would have represented government over-expenditures, further revenue or

whatever. B.C. Hydro is not a new one. But under item 3 — other Crown

corporations — is British Columbia Buildings Corporation. The capital

expenditures for the old Department of Public Works were included under

budgetary expenditures.

There are three other Crown

corporations under this heading. BCDC has been around for some time.

B.C. Rail has been around for a long time. But BCBC is a new

corporation. I ask the same question. How much of the borrowing in the

years shown here may be attributed to the new Crown corporation?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

the minister doesn't have all that information now, I'd like him to say

to me that if I put the question on the order paper, he'll answer it.

I'd like him to say that he'll also answer the question I put on it

about how much cash he has on hand at the end of March. If he'll give

me his assurance that he'll answer those questions, then I'll be quite

prepared to put them on the order paper.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I made notes yesterday when the member opposite was inquiring with

respect to questions on the order paper. If I may say so, I think I've

answered a number of questions. I owe the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall), who is in the House but not in his seat, an answer to a

question. That one has been on the order paper for quite some time. I

concede that point. There are five other questions on the order paper

remaining unanswered. The last three carry the numbers 49, 50 and 52.

In other words, they've not been on the order paper for very long.

Yes,

if the member for Nanaimo chooses to put those questions on the order

paper, I will answer them at the earliest possible opportunity. He

refers to the other one with respect to our cash situation at the end

of March. That question can be answered quite quickly.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Quite quickly. A matter of days. Okay?

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry. I didn't intend to smile in derision or

anything like that. I accept the minister's response that he will

answer. I'm quite confident that he will. Mind you, I'll remember if he

doesn't and I'll remind him on another occasion.

On page 6

of the budget speech it says: "When the economy needed selective

stimulus, an extra $353 million was appropriated for new or enhanced

programs." I'd like the minister to comment on some of these new and

enhanced programs, and the amount they put into the economy.

page 65 and page 66 there is a list of the new and enhanced programs

under the heading "Special Purpose Funds." One of these new programs

was the Barkerville Historic Park Development Fund, out of which was

spent $0.2 million. Others were the B.C. Place Development Fund, out of

which $1.7 million was spent; the Downtown Revitalization Fund, out of

which zero was spent, the Energy Development Fund, out of which $0.6

million was spent; the Forest and Range Resource Fund, out of which $27

million was spent; the Fraser River Crossing Construction Fund, out of

which $10 million was spent; the Lower Mainland Stadium Fund, out of

which S1.3 million was spent; the Northeast Coal Development Fund, out

of which $6.5 million was spent — I'm curious as to just how that was

spent, but that's not my

[ Page 6104 ]

question

at the moment — and the Provincial Computerization of Libraries Fund,

out of which $1 million was spent. That's total expenditures of $47.4

million.

I'm wondering how the minister rationalizes the

actual expenditures of $47.4 million with his budget statement to the

effect that an extra $353 million was put into the economy.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I will answer that question in just a moment. In my last

response I neglected to point out that under Education and Health — the

member dealt with this under the heading of borrowing — it is in the

post-secondary area where, some three years ago, we introduced that as

new. There's been tremendous growth in the borrowing requirements for

post-secondary. The member shakes his head, as though he's doubtful. I

said post-secondary.

AN HON. MEMBER: Two universities — isn't that post-secondary?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

That would fall under the heading, but that's not the full list, as the

member would know. So tremendous growth necessitated that activity.

With

respect to the special purpose funds and the utilization of those

funds, in every instance which the member for Nanaimo has read, and in

every instance which is shown on the last pages of the budget in the

appendices, those funds are to be utilized in the manner described and

prescribed. However, I think the committee should realize that a

significant amount of lead time is required before some of these

projects can actually get underway. I think it's safe to say that

generally speaking in the first year, after a decision has been taken

with respect to a particular development, something in the order of

only 5 or 10 percent of the amount would be spent on planning and

start-up design, or whatever it may be. In spite of best efforts, and

in spite of the enthusiasm of ministers who are anxious to see a

particular project proceed, with the odd exception it takes a

considerable length of time for us to achieve start-up. I would again

point out that this is a forecast of transactions and balances for the

year ending next March 31. There could be a variation….

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, table F1 is identified, Mr. Member.

MR. STUPICH: I'm looking at the figure under March 31, 1981.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I see the first column. However, in some instances, in the other

columns which deal with 1981-1982, we will see some progress, more in

one or two than in others, for the reason which I've indicated. The

money is there and is to be utilized as soon as it is practicable to do

so. I would think that there would be a significant change in some of

the fund listings in the course of this fiscal year ending next March

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I don't quarrel with

anything the minister said. But he did say in the budget speech that

when the economy needed selective stimulus — and he's talking about the

year 1980 — an extra $353 million was appropriated for new or enhanced

programs. It didn't really stimulate the economy in 1980 to set aside

in various pockets $353 million and spend only $47 million of that. The

only stimulus to the economy was $47 million, not $353 million — that's

my point. The rest is still in the bank. It's one of the questions

waiting on the order paper. The minister will answer that question now,

and we'll find out that the amount sitting in the bank at March 31,

1981, will be in excess of $1.2 billion. But we'll wait for the actual

answer.

I have one direction I want to pursue under the

minister's salary, and this is the last one. Perhaps the minister will

be relieved to hear that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: You're enjoying it? Well, so am I. It's a very good exchange, I think, and it's the way the estimates should go.

any case, yesterday the minister went to some lengths to assure us, and

"categorically and absolutely" denied that the government is trying to

hoard money for any purpose, whether for northeast coal or for the next

election or whatever. He was very firm on that. He has absolutely no

intention of creating a surplus, or having a fortuitous surplus occur

in the year 1981-1982. I expect to be able to remind the minister about

that next year. But at this time I would like him to pursue his

categorical denial just a little further.

Looking at the

budget again, on page 60 — the natural resource revenue — I ask: is the

minister really telling us that his estimates for 1982 are going to be

as low as they're printed on this table? The revised estimates for 1981

for minerals, which includes petroleum and natural gas as well as

revenues from other minerals…. In spite of all the glowing reports as

to how well mining is doing in the province at this point in time,

especially up until May 14 — we were told how well mining is doing —

yet the minister shows that he expects to collect $14.3 million less in

the year ended March 31, 1982, than he expects to collect, according to

his revised figures, for the year ending March 31, 1981. He expects his

total from mineral revenue will be not much more than 60 percent of his

revised estimate for the year ended just two months ago. Is he really

telling us now that he believes that to be the case? Or does he now

admit that revenues will be higher, but that unfortunately expenditures

will also be higher and the net effect will be no surplus?

want to hear from him now, and I want to hear him tell us whether he

expects these revenue figures to be anywhere close to what the actual

figures will be.

Under logging tax, his revised estimates

for the year ended March 31, 1981 — revised fairly recently, I would

expect; probably in February, just about five months ago — are $45.5

million, but his forecast for the following year is $17 million,

something like 35 percent. Is it really that bad?

Timber

sales. Revised estimates are $341 million, but the estimate for the

year we're in right now is $190 million. Is it really that low? That's

roughly 55 percent.

Other lands and forests revenue is

pretty well the same. In total, the revised estimates for the year

ended March 31, 1981, for these two sections in this general fund

revenue by source are $978 million, almost $1 billion. But in the year

we're actually in, having gone two and a half months through this year,

the total is only $624 million. I know these things happen and that

things change, but is the minister telling us today, in light of what

he said yesterday, that he expects his

[ Page 6105 ]

revenues

to be very close to these figures, or is he saying that other

expenditures are going to increase and take up the slack so that he'll

end the year with a break-even position?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I'm going to refer to quarterly reporting, and I trust that no members

of the committee will groan, because I won't take very long in making

that reference. The fact is that I think the introduction of quarterly

reporting by my predecessor Minister of Finance in '76 is an excellent

step. It means that the people of British Columbia and those who are

sent here as their elected representatives don't have to wait for a

12-month period to elapse to find out how we're doing.

The

first quarterly report will be available towards the latter part of

July, as the quarter ends on June 30. It usually takes something in

excess of three weeks for that report to be out. We are examining the

revised forecasts now in preparation for the first quarter.

Obviously

we're still in that first quarter. I remain somewhat pessimistic in

terms of revenues. I don't think the pessimism which was reflected in

the budget…. Nothing has altered to change that pessimism in terms of

provincial revenues and the revenue-expenditure squeeze. There are

ministers in this government right now who will tell you that I am

continuing to express concern about the expenditure side of government,

because of what we see not happening on the revenue side. This is the

contradiction we face in British Columbia. Having decided that we would

not go into a deficit in this budget year, we planned for a balanced

budget. That was canvassed very thoroughly in the budget debate, and I

won't bore the committee by repeating those principles. Nonetheless,

the province has prospered, but provincial revenues versus expenditures

have been placed in very serious difficulty. They wouldn't be if we had

simply accepted the easy way out and headed for a deficit.

U.S.

housing starts have a significant impact, and other Ministers of

Finance have taken their place in this chamber in similar debates in

the past and pointed that out. The committee does not need a lecture

from me on the importance of housing starts in the United States. In

terms of the forest industry, we based our figures on 1.4 million

starts annualized in the U.S. The latest information, again annualized,

suggests that it's down to about 1.2 million. Those figures have to be

accepted in the context of a healthy peak period which saw two million

housing starts in the United States in a 12-month period. That's a very

significant loss of revenue to the province, and this, coupled with a

slight drop in the price of minerals — not dramatic, but a slight drop,

which is again well known to the committee — plus the natural gas

problem, all suggest to me that we approach the budget document and the

numbers in the budget with a very realistic attitude.

So I

trust I've answered the member for Nanaimo's question. In terms of

provincial revenues and expenditures we have yet to see reason for

enthusiastic optimism — or optimistic enthusiasm, whichever you prefer.

If it changes, the people of British Columbia will hear of it very

quickly through our formal reporting and through other statements which

I would be obliged to make from time to time.

With respect

to how 1980-81 ended up, Mr. Chairman, we hope to release the

preliminary final report for 1980-81 at about the end of July, along

with the first-quarter report for this year.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to hear that we can look forward to an

interim report. We didn't get one at all last year until we got the Public Accounts . It used to be the practice to issue interim reports, and I'm pleased that this will be revived.

light of the minister's concern about expenditures and about the

pressure in trying to balance the budget, I wonder if he could tell me

why it's necessary to increase his support staff by 50 percent — from

four up to six?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member, Mr.

Chairman, is referring to my own staff? Well, I actually have fewer

individuals in my office now than I did as Provincial Secretary, and

there was that change-over period which occurred in late 1979. I

believe that it is important for my office to function very effectively

and, yes, it has increased. In 1980-81 it showed a staff of five and

now it shows a staff of seven. I think it's important to deal not only

with the percentage increase but also with the number increase, but I

have fewer people in my office than I did when I was Minister of

Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services.

MR. STUPICH:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think if I were the Provincial Secretary I would

be arguing that the Provincial Secretary has a lot more need for

support staff than the Minister of Finance. The support staff is going

from four to six, not from five to seven — because the minister himself

is one of the five and one of the seven. So his support staff is

increased by 50 percent. However, having in mind again what the

minister said about how tough things are this year and the concerns

that had been raised by many members on this side of the House about

the way in which long-term care has been starved, I'm going to repeat

the argument that has been raised by many of my colleagues and made by

others, and that is that it is the wrong time to be increasing such

things as travel expense and office expense. I therefore move that vote

86, the minister's office, be reduced by $10,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 24

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D ' Arc),

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

[ Page 6106 ]

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

Vote 86 approved.

On vote 87: economics and policy division, $1,429,563.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I've heard no explanation from the minister. Nothing has

come out to justify an increase in travel expense of about 35 percent.

Office expenses have increased threefold. Office furniture and

equipment have increased two and half times. I therefore move that vote

87 be reduced by $53,887.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Vote 87 approved.

On vote 88: Treasury Board staff, $1,891,402.

MR. STUPICH:

The minister is to be complimented. He's cutting down on the

bureaucracy. The number of staff members is going from 40 down to 39.

In spite of that, office furniture and expenditures are almost

doubling. Of course the item for government propaganda is going up by

almost 50 percent. That amount of $9,850 would provide, let's say,600

hours of long-term care. I can't move that motion, but I can move that

this vote be reduced by the sum of $9, 50.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion appears to be in order.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Passarell

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Vote 88 approved.

On vote 89: revenue division, $18,718,431.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of matters that have come to my

attention that I want to raise with the minister with respect to the

provincial sales tax, and the minister may have some advance warning on

two. One is with respect to motorcycles not being included in reduction

of sales tax based on fuel consumption. It's a small point, but it is

felt by bikers that they're being discriminated against vis-à-vis

automobiles. I see no reason why that policy of encouraging gas or fuel

conservation should not be applied across the board, and I would

appreciate the minister's comment on that.

The other

question relates to churches in the community. They now have to pay the

6 percent tax for the first time. It's classed as an institution

building, etc., and they now have to pay 6 percent tax on fuel oil. Of

course, this makes a considerable difference to church organizations at

the community level which mainly exist on voluntary contributions, and

in some parts of the province this weighs very heavily, depending on

the climatic conditions. In the lower mainland it's not a major factor;

in the northern part of the province, where there are long and

extremely cold winters, this is an additional burden on churches, and

it's inequitable in the sense that it doesn't apply evenly across the

province. Now the same can be said for domestic consumers, but it

always has been held in the past that churches were a little bit

different in terms of their contribution to the community and to

society generally, and the fact that they are largely funded and

operated by volunteers' donations in the community. So I would

appreciate the minister's response to the proposition of removing that

6 percent sales tax on fuel oil for churches.

There was one

other point I wanted to raise too, and it escapes me at the moment. I

think I raised the question of the classification of farmland with the

minister before. The Ministry of Finance has something to do with it

when the land is classed as residential rather than farmland. That's

based on a formula of production. I raised this last year with the

Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), as well as with the

Minister of Finance, I believe. Once again I say to the minister that

while it's true that senior citizens or handicapped persons can defer

their property taxes until such time as they're deceased and the estate

is probated, many senior citizens do not wish to do that, particularly

those who had been close to the land and hold some rather large

acreage. What I advocated on their behalf is that where farm produc-

[ Page 6107 ]

tion

is reduced because of old age or because of a handicap, the

classification of residential be forgiven for those two categories: for

handicapped people and toward driving farmland into use. The Ministry

of Finance has a role in this, and I would appreciate a response from

the minister as to whether or not he has had any discussions perhaps

with his colleagues in cabinet to give this proposition any further

consideration.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with

respect to the questions raised by the member under vote 89 —

motorcycles first. As a former rider and one who would like to return

to the sport in a very quiet way at some point….

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, and a very small lightweight machine.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member called me a yahoo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not like the Satan's Angels. A Yamaha.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, a Yamaha.

Mr.

Chairman, this is under the category of exemptions. We have added

bicycles to the exemptions this year after representations were made in

this House and outside. We have the sales tax differential on

automobiles, to which the member has referred. I think I can only say

that we'll look at it. Your colleague the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) spoke about exemptions in the agricultural industry just a few

minutes ago and pointed out a way he thought we should proceed rather

than have exemptions. There are varying points of view. Some

motorcycles are probably not fuel efficient. That one I think would

fall under the heading of the kind of thing that we review continually.

Last year — my first full year as Minister of Finance — we kept a file

on a variety of suggestions which were made by members and the people

we serve. We pulled that list together towards the end of October, into

November, and we look at it very carefully.

Sales tax on

fuel oil consumed by other than residential properties was a

significant move with respect to the exemption for residential

purposes. I would have to look for confirmation. I think that that

would apply to the residence on the church property, because that is in

fact a residence — the manse, the rectory or whatever it may be called.

I'd have to check that particular point. With respect to places of

worship generally, I hear what the member has said. I can't commit at

this point. Again, it would have to be reviewed in the context of next

year. I will say to the member that I have had some correspondence on

this particular point. We would have to examine that.

I have

pretty well the same answer with respect to the farmland residence —

the place of residence on land which is officially categorized as a

farm. I will undertake to review that. I could be mistaken. I don't

think the member raised that in my estimates last year. I recall that

it was raised in the discussion of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Hewitt), and I don't deny the responsibility that we have within

the Ministry of Finance. I'll undertake to review that as well.

MR. KING: I thank the minister for his undertakings to have a look at those areas that I have mentioned.

The

other thing that has come to my attention — quite frankly, I wasn't

aware of it until today when one of the visitors from the Armstrong

area who is also a car dealer in that municipality brought it to my

attention — is that they are now allowed a flat rate for the

administration of the sales tax collection: $85 a year, He points out

that they have contributed some $20,000 already in sales tax, and yet

they are restricted to an $85 ceiling in recovering their costs for

this service. This seems highly arbitrary to me. It seems like a double

standard. In the votes that we have moved reductions on, the government

is justifying increases by saying: "Inflation is going on. The costs of

administration are going up every year, and therefore we need some

latitude." But here they're not prepared to extend the same criteria

and the same standard to the business community. This is a small town

and a small dealership, and to restrict them to $85 seems to I me to be

punitive and a double standard. Surely if the government's costs are

going up, as is reflected in the budget, then at least they should

provide some kind of an escalation; certainly the costs of labour and

accounting are going up for the small business community too. I would

appreciate the minister having a look at that one, because it seems

highly arbitrary and unfair to me.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I

think this particular point may be somewhat misunderstood, not

necessarily by the member but by the business community. First of all I

think we've introduced an element of equity in the commission paid on

the collection of sales tax which has not existed previously, because

while we have imposed a maximum for some retailers, we have

significantly increased the commission paid to the very small

businesses and those which are put to an administrative expense in

collecting the tax — small ticket items particularly, where a lot of

information has to be collected and reported on. We have done what has

existed in other provinces in the majority. It's not something very

new. While the money is collected in trust for the public of British

Columbia, a fact that cannot be denied is that the business concern

involved has the use of that money until the reporting and transmission

date has arrived. I don't think that should be overlooked.

Yes,

there was a change in commission structure. It was alluded to at the

time of budget. and I think that what we have done is in the interests

of equity. I'm not surprised that members on both sides of the House

have received complaints; I've received a number of complaints myself.

The firms which collect the sales tax hold it for a minimum of 30 days.

We've spoken in these estimates about high interest rates. We don't

collect the interest; we simply collect the money which has been

collected in trust. I think it has to be seen in that perspective. I

appreciate that there will continue to be concerns about it.

MR. KING:

Just to comment very briefly, I would disagree with the minister on

that point. It seems to me that it's not equity when one says it's a

flat rate but we're providing benefit to the very small business

enterprise. Perhaps the very small business enterprise does not have

the volume turnover or the volume of sales that would justify the

supply, accounting and remittance of perhaps $50,000 or $100,000 in

sales tax revenue to the government. I suggest to the minister that the

cost of accounting and administration is commensurate with the amount

of revenue that is dedicated to the province. I suggest it would be

more equitable to phase it

[ Page 6108 ]

the basis of the amount of tax owed rather than a flat ceiling for all

concerned, because that's not reflected in their accounting costs in

that fashion.

MR. LEVI: The question I have does not

relate to the Systems Corporation. On Saturday an individual came into

my office and handed me an envelope which was a general mail-out from

the Social Credit Party soliciting something ' He said to me: "I don't

know how they got my address." He then asked me whether it was possible

that because he was in business and was making and returning Social

Service Tax Act money that that list might have been made available. He

specifically asked me: "Is that list made available to anybody to do

mail-outs?" That's why I'm asking the minister, because in the past we

have had situations where government lists have been made available to

people. I said: "In the minister's estimates I'll specifically ask." Is

the social service tax mailing list, with which you are constantly

communicating with people in business, made available to anybody other

than your department?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Bearing in

mind the importance of being entirely accurate in this House, I cannot

say absolutely no way, but I can come as close as possible to that.

Certainly I would be astonished and extremely angry if I thought that

lists of individuals and firms such as those who must report to us were

put to any use other than that for which they are intended. I feel very

comfortable in telling the member that I cannot concede that that would

be the case, and if it were, some heads would roll — and I say that

very seriously. We are in an era now — and this has nothing to do with

my vote — where it seems that lists of names can be obtained from a

variety of sources. I just want to be very sure that they are not

obtained from any area within the Ministry of Finance. I can't

contemplate that that would be the case now or has been the case. I

would take it most seriously, perhaps even more seriously than the

member who has raised the point.

MR. LEVI: Well, he

was doing real good until the very last statement. This individual saw

it as a serious matter, and I treat it as a serious matter. That's all.

You don't have to come in with a chippy last remark. It's

inappropriate, especially coming from you — you're such a nice guy.

You've covered yourself very well; you're not sure.

I said

to this individual: "Why do you raise the social service tax?" He said:

"Because of the way the address is laid out." I asked him to bring me

in one of the…. He hasn't done that, because I had to leave on Sunday

morning; so I didn't see it. He raised a very legitimate question. The

other thing he is now going to have to pursue is who has got his list.

I know that Industry and Small Business Development has a list that

they mail out. He's not on that list; I asked him. This is a very

legitimate inquiry from a very concerned citizen.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to suggest that the member wasn't serious

in raising it. I was attempting to say that I would view it, as

minister, even more seriously than he has in bringing it to my

attention. Occasionally we lose contact in exchange. If it has

happened, I would be extremely angry. I doubt very, very much…. In fact

my officials have indicated there is no way. I can't say with absolute

certainty that it hasn't happened. I would be extremely angry if I knew

that it had.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, when we were

discussing Bill 13, and specifically

section 26, I told the minister

that I would ask him under his estimates what the effect is on revenue

of striking out $50 and changing it to $75, with respect to the

homeowner grant. I just thought I'd give him some time to look that up.

I'm

going to be brief, but I do want to make a couple of comments. I was

hoping that the Premier would be here for a short word on the Social

Service Tax Act. We certainly can't hold this minister responsible. He

was not the one who said the sales tax rate would never be increased,

but his predecessor did. The Premier, during the height of an election

campaign, assured the electors that if they voted Social Credit the

social service tax would not be increased. But, as I say, that's not

this particular minister.

[Mr. Levi in the chair.)

The Corporation Capital Tax Act, again I say, is not a tax on income; it's a tax on debt. It should be done away with.

MR. KEMPF: Who brought in that legislation?

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I hear the parrot saying the same thing as he has said

with respect to this discussion for several years. It's apparently the

only remark he can think to make with respect to this presentation. I

admit that an NDP administration brought this in. I have no apologies

to make for that.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH:

I didn't say anything on the subject at the time. What I'm saying right

now is that I think it is a tax on debt, not a tax on income, and it's

inappropriate. We should do away with it completely. That's my

position; that's the position of the NDP.

The parrot from

Omineca keeps saying: "Who brought it in?" I can only say to him that

the government now in office certainly hasn't hesitated to tamper with

other legislation that the NDP brought in, in particular the Land

Commission Act. They've tampered with all kinds of legislation. They

made some changes here; they increased the exemptions. But they haven't

done away with it.

I think I'll let it go at that. I think the minister is going to answer the question that I asked about Bill 13.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

The member for Nanaimo raised a point in debate on Bill 13. We have the

information. First of all, some 50,000 homeowners now pay the minimum

tax in British Columbia on their residential property. The cost to

those 50,000, as a result of the increase — that's the best way to

express it — is an additional $1 million. It is relatively

insignificant. I indicated at the time that it just seemed appropriate

that a $50 minimum per year for property tax on one's own home should

be increased. I would think that governments in the future will raise

it again.

I think those are the two numbers the member

wanted: 50,000 pay it and the additional cost to them or the additional

revenue to government, whichever way you wish, is $1 million.

MR. STUPICH:

I could almost hear the minister saying, "What's another million?" but

I didn't. He stopped short of that. I won't accuse him of that.

[ Page 6109 ]

just have one more remark with respect to vote 89, revenue division.

Once again it's the remark I made earlier. With as much pressure as

there is on government revenue and as much pressure as the minister is

under to increase expenditures in many areas, we find that travel

expense, under the revenue division, has gone up almost 100 percent,

office expense has gone up by $43,845 and office furniture has gone up

by $19,000, which is a 50 percent increase. The total of the figures

I've mentioned add up to $275,700, which would provide approximately

1,400 hours of long-term care. I therefore move that vote 89, revenue

division, be reduced by $275,700.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order.

(Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Vote 89 approved.

On vote 90: office of the comptroller-general, $6,014,700.

MR. STUPICH:

This will not take very long but on this vote I do want to say that the

staff is going from 201 up to 204. That's a very nominal increase in

the number of bodies. Yet we find the travel expenses almost doubling —

an increase of $108,000. Office expense is going up 50 percent by

$92,500. Office furniture for these three extra people is going to cost

an extra $92,000. These figures added together would provide some 1,500

hours of long-term care. I therefore move that vote 90, the office of

the comptroller-general, be reduced by $292,360.

On the amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that the opposition wishes to move a variety

of motions, to cut where they think cuts should occur. I must point out

that this one corrects what I consider and the members opposite know

well — to have been an intolerable situation in working conditions for

staff in the comptroller-general's office.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I'm speaking of staff, Mr. Member. You can interject or you can speak,

obviously. But members know that very close to this building we have

had individuals who have worked in intolerable conditions which I was

not prepared to see continue — windowless rooms, poorly circulating

air, absolutely foul conditions. That's why you see office furniture up

in this vote, and increased expenditures. The members who are

interjecting now know the kind of. conditions that these people worked

under for a number of years, resulting in a very severe turnover rate.

That turnover rate led to less efficient government. If they want to go

on the record voting against better conditions for public servants then

that's fine. Let the record show it.

MR. LAUK: Mr.

Chairman, the minister, by getting up and defending against this

amendment has admitted by his silence on the other amendments in his

own ministry that the other amendments at least had the kind of merit

that should have encouraged the back bench of the Social Credit party

to vote for them. I think it's skeptical and cynical for the minister

to stand up and defend this one vote and say it is justified. By saying

this one is justified, he is saying that the other estimates we were

disputing were unjustified. We've heard this old saw before. To say you

need $90,000 for office furniture and equipment is utter nonsense. We

know it and the public knows it. They're being overtaxed to provide

stuffed chairs and extravagant surroundings for the minister. That's

what they're doing. We only remind you that there were $69 million

worth of spending cuts proposed by this opposition so far. This is the

first time a minister has stood up to defend against an amendment to

reduce the expenditure. That's true. Why didn't you get up and defend

yours?

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, nobody was listening.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK:

If that's the best the government can offer a junior minister to defend

a few votes…. My colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich)

has pointed out that these spending cuts could represent the kind of

money that would be required to keep homemaker service in this

province. There is $69 million being thrown away on government

propaganda, expensive office furniture and travel. We know one minister

that commutes back and forth to the mainland for lunch. They are an

extravagant, profligate government who have turned their backs on

ordinary people and people who need homemaker service in the province

of British Columbia.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

[ Page 6110 ]

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Vote 90 approved.

On vote 91: treasury and administration division, $19,355,921.

MR. STUPICH:

I'm particularly interested in his vote, having heard the minister's

explanation with respect to the office of the comptroller-general. As

the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) pointed out, if

that was a special circumstance, what about all the others?

Looking

at this one we see travel expense going from $25,700 up to $416,000 —

that's an 18-fold increase. Professional and special services are up by

$114,000; data systems up by $1,874,000; office expense from $77,200 up

to $604,000 — eight times. Office furniture is up from $25,660 to

$182,000; propaganda up by $67,000; materials and supplies up by

$64,000; rentals $50,000; acquisition, machinery and equipment

$200,000. The total is $3,470,912 — approximately 173,000 hours of

long-term care.

I therefore move that vote 91, treasury and administration division, be reduced by $3,470,912.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment.

MR. LAUK:

Yesterday the Premier made certain comments about the profligate

Liberal federal government. Surely on this vote all members will be

sobered enough to took carefully at the waste and extravagance of the

government opposite. The Premier of this province, who has the

unmitigated gall to stand in this chamber and condemn the federal

government — rightly so — for their profligate waste, today sits

quietly signing letters while we're desperately trying to cut back on

these extravagant estimates on behalf of the taxpayer. Let the record

show that, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I act on my own in this House. I don't know what you do, Mr. Member.

The member for Nanaimo has read off a number of figures. I would refer the

committee to the total of vote 91 and to the 1980-81 figure — the last fiscal

year and this fiscal year — bearing in mind that there are increases in recoveries,

and they will see that there is already a reduction on this vote of some significant

amount of money. I interjected when he was making his presentation, asking for

the total. We have a total last year of $22,012,000. We have a total this

year of $19,355,000. The efficiency has already been built in, as it has in

vote after vote presented to this Committee of Supply.

MR. STUPICH:

As the minister pointed out, the net is lowered, but the gross figure

is $13 million higher before including this item of recovery from

investments. The minister is spending a great deal more in this

department. The amendment says that he is spending $3,470,912 more than

he should be at this time when his need is so great.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Brummet

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

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

Vote 91 approved.

On vote 92: government agencies: $10,315,580.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, government agencies: travel expenses are up by $149,000,

office expenses by $135,000 and office furniture by $68,000. If I had

it in my power, I would move that the figures be increased even more. I

think I can speak for everyone in the House when I say they're doing a

terrific job. I have no intention of moving an amendment for this vote.

Vote 92 approved.

On vote 93: Purchasing Commission, $2,243,696.

MR. STUPICH:

I don't feel quite the same way about the Purchasing Commission. I note

again: travel expense is up $7,500 and professional and special

services — a new item — is $35,000 more than nothing. That's

substantial. Office expense is up by $3,000 and materials and supplies

by $4,000 — a total increase of $49,500. That is approximately 2,500

hours of long-term care. I therefore move that vote 93, the Purchasing

Commission, be reduced by $49,500.

[ Page 6111 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, I wonder whether you had satisfied yourself that

the bells were working correctly. I notice that the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has not been here for several votes. It has

been the practice in this House sometimes that we've allowed a little

extra time. But perhaps the rumour is correct that he's been asked to a

return dinner at the Empress with a group of seven New Zealanders.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a valid point of order, hon. member.

MR. NICOLSON:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, not only is it not valid, but it's a

contemptuous point of order to the Chair and to the House. I think it

should be dealt with seriously — maybe outside of the House — and if

it's repeated, then you should take action in the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, if every contemptuous or illegal point of order were

dealt with by the Chair, the chamber at times would be empty.

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 28

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Brummet

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

Vote 93 approved.

On vote 94: Provincial Capital Commission, $803,546.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, are the meetings of the Provincial Capital Commission open to the public?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, no, they are not at this time.

MR. BARBER:

The government appointed Michael Young as chairman of the Capital

Commission on December 30, 1980. Mr. Young, of course, was the defeated

Social Credit candidate in the last provincial election, so it was an

appointment made by a government that said it wouldn't appoint partisan

persons to fill high government posts. Mr. Young is also a former

alderman and a former mayor, and he is currently a lawyer in Victoria.

It is a matter of public record that he was one of two defeated Social

Credit candidates in Victoria in the last provincial election.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

However,

Mr. Young, whom I personally like and respect even though he's a

Socred, has not managed to get this minister to keep a commitment that

this minister, I gather, made a year ago. Mr. Chairman, I want to read

into the record two letters and ask why this minister has refused to

honour what I understand was a commitment to open up the meetings of

the Capital Commission to the public of Victoria and of the province of

British Columbia as a whole. On June 17, 1980, I wrote to the then

chairman of the Provincial Capital Commission, Ev Brown, and asked that

the meetings be opened to the public. The letter itself is brief and

said as follows:

"I'm advised that on your

agenda for the meeting of June 24, 1980, there will be put a proposal

to open your meetings to the public."

This proposal, parenthetically, was initiated by the city of Victoria.

write respectfully to urge you to approve such a motion. The reasons

for this are self-evident and sound: public confidence in the

commission would only be enhanced by an open-door policy. Such a policy

would win the unanimous support of the official opposition in the

Legislative Assembly.

"Some advice has

apparently been offered that the commission requires the consent of the

minister in order to open its meetings. Such 'advice' is clearly

incorrect. My office has carefully reviewed the Capital Commission Act,

RSBC, 1979; there is no statutory requirement whatever to seek the

minister's permission to open your meetings ; in fact the law is silent

on this question. The matter is clearly discretionary. I urge you to

take the initiative, open your meetings and thereby take the entire

population of greater Victoria into your confidence as you continue

your work on their behalf. Sincerely…."

I signed it myself.

I got a reply to that letter of June 17 on July 2 from Mr. Giles, who

was then the acting chairman of the commission. He was and is the chief

executive officer. What did he say? He said as follows:

"Dear Mr. Barber:

"On

behalf of the chairman, who is presently absent on vacation, this will

acknowledge and thank you for your letter of June 17, 1980. The

commission has reviewed this matter in a very positive manner, and the

general tenor of the discussion was thoughtful. Certainly all members

are well aware of the implications of change in the work of the

commission. A subcommittee of the commission has been formed as a

conclusion to the discussion on this matter and has been requested to

present all of the implications for consideration by the commission at

its next meeting. This will allow exploration of the options which

obviously extend from a simple retention of the status quo to a

complete opening, primarily in order that a decision may be reached on

those items which require in-camera treatment and how those may be

dealt with.

[ Page 6112 ]

"Be assured that your comments will be given full consideration. Thank you for writing.

It's

my information, Mr. Chairman, that the majority of the members of the

Provincial Capital Commission wish to open their meetings to the

public. It is my information that those same members wish to hold in

camera those few questions dealing with personnel matters and land

transactions. I don't object to that at all. It is reasonable and

proper that those aspects of the commission's agenda be kept private.

However, there is no excuse for what I am advised is the political

interference of this minister in ordering the commission to continue

dealing in secret, to continue holding its meetings in private and to

continue refusing to take the people of Victoria into its confidence.

If it were otherwise, the minister would have ordered otherwise, and

the meetings would be open today. He is in charge, after all. The fact

that the meetings remain closed is a reflection of this minister's

closed-door policy. If he had an open-door policy, the meetings would

be open. There is no other logical way to explain the position that the

Capital Commission finds itself in.

Let me reiterate that I

agree that those matters concerned with personnel and land transactions

should be held in camera. There is no dispute on that. But the minister

should know that one of the reasons his predecessor Mr. Bawlf got into

so much trouble with the Capital Commission, with Pan-Pacific and with

the ridiculous squirrelly schemes that were dreamed up in the first

go-round on the Victoria convention centre is because of Social

Credit's traditional obsession with secretiveness. I'm aware that the

minister called a meeting of the new board of directors — yet to be

announced — of the Victoria convention centre. I believe it was held on

May 20. I want the minister to tell us who was at that meeting. I want

him to tell us who he intends to announce as his appointees to the

board of management for the Victoria convention centre.

want to tell the minister that although he may think he holds these

meetings in private, eventually — and usually quite quickly — they are

known to us. The minister is not — may I put it charitably — well

advised to continue in the footsteps of his misguided predecessor who

got into such hot water that the whole board of Pan Pacific had to

resign. The president had to resign, the organization was discredited

and the whole project was delayed by six months. I urge the minister to

revoke the order that I am advised he gave to the Capital Commission —

that its meetings may not be opened to the public, period. I observe to

the committee that if the minister's policy were an open-door policy,

the commission's policy would be an open-door policy too. The

commission remains closed because the minister refuses to have it

opened. It's as simple as that. He runs the show. Mr. Giles and the

members of the commission are under no illusions about who's in charge

politically. The minister is. I don't object to that, because someone

has to be accountable to this House. But I hope the minister isn't

going to stand up now and pretend and try to deny that he has no say in

whether or not its meetings are open. He does have a say. He runs the

show. He writes the budget, hires the staff, appoints the members and

he's in charge. I hope he doesn't try and persuade this committee that

he's not in charge of the policy which says whether or not the meetings

are open to the public. That's just not believable. We're well aware

that the minister is in charge of the whole show. We think part of that

show should be open to the public.

On June 17 of last year I

asked that the meetings be opened to the public and received what I

took to be a very favourable initial response from the acting chairman.

I will repeat: "The commission has reviewed this matter in a very

positive manner," he said to me in his letter of July 2. What's

happened between July 2 and this year, Mr. Chairman? Have the meetings

been opened? No. Have the people of Victoria learned who's going to be

in charge of the new convention centre? No. They've learned just now —

because I've now disclosed it in public for the first time — that the

minister called a meeting of persons. I gather there were 9, 10 or 11

of them there on May 20 or thereabouts. He asked them whether or not

they'd be prepared to sit on the board of management of the proposed

Victoria convention centre — once again operating behind closed doors,

not learning the lesson of why his predecessor, Mr. Bawlf, was so

heavily criticized for his mishandling of this. Sam Bawlf got defeated,

in part, for that reason. The secretiveness helped defeat him, because

the people of Victoria resent it. They reject it, and they reject a

government that tries to impose it.

The Victoria convention

centre is to be administered in part by the Capital Commission. The

Victoria convention centre is a good and necessary thing. We supported

it two years in a row by a unanimous, recorded vote in this House. I

support it strongly. But as one of two MLAs for Victoria — my

colleague, the other member, very strongly supports this position — I

urge you to open up the meetings, let people attend and find out what

the Capital Commission is doing. If you've got nothing to hide, you've

got nothing to be afraid of. If you've got nothing to hide from the

public, you've got no reason to keep the public out. If you do have

something to hide, I think we'll inevitably find out about it. We found

out about the conflict of interest at Pan-Pacific. The president had to

resign; he did a dumb thing. I hope we don't have to find out something

similar because of the obsession with secretiveness of Social Credit.

Why

wasn't the meeting of May 20 open to the public? Why haven't you told

us that you invited some people to sit on the board of management and

you held a little meeting? Why didn't you tell us that? What's the

matter? What's the big interest in being secret about that? What have

you got to gain from refusing to tell the people of Victoria about

these things? The only thing you've got to gain is votes for the NDP,

because every time you do this stuff the people of Victoria reject you

more and more.

A year ago I put a private member's bill on

the order paper. After today's debate I will put the same bill back on

the order paper. It's an amendment to the Capital Commission Act.

Although I will not debate the bill, I will inform the minister of its

contents — that's legitimate. I am telling him that that particular

bill has been widely supported by the political leadership in Victoria.

The particular bill which I've put forward calls simply and clearly for

public tender for any contest of public bid in excess of $5,000. It

calls for open meetings. It calls for disclosure. That's all there is

to it. It's a simple principle, and there's nothing wrong with it. It's

an ancient principle, and there's nothing wrong with that either.

Why

won't you open up the Capital Commission? You've had a year to realize

what went wrong a year ago when the Pan-Pacific situation blew up in

your faces, you lost face and the whole project was delayed

unnecessarily by at least six months because of Social Credit bungling

and this squirrelly scheme that they had worked out with this group of

businessmen in Pan-Pacific. The businessmen were perfectly sincere, I

have no doubt. They were perfectly earnest in what they were trying to

do, I have no doubt. They made mistakes; they

[ Page 6113 ]

paid

for them. The president resigned, and the society fell apart. Does the

government have to pay for the same mistakes again? And, finally, do

the people of Victoria have to pay?

Why hasn't the

commission been opened up? Why isn't it open today? If the government's

got nothing to hide, they've got nothing to be afraid of. If the

meetings were open, the people of Victoria would have a lot more

respect for the work of its commission and our commission. So I call on

the minister to defend his policy of refusing to open the meetings to

the public. If he says it's not his policy, then I call on him to

reverse the policy and open the meetings today to the people of British

Columbia.

Secondly, I ask the minister to tell us who was at

the meeting of May 20 or thereabouts. What are their qualifications,

and how many of them have accepted his proposed naming of them to the

board of management of the Victoria convention centre?

Thirdly,

I ask the minister to be willing to open the meetings of the board of

management of the convention centre, as well, from the beginning. This

too is an important principle which the people of Victoria, I believe,

insist upon. I think it's one of the reasons Social Credit did so badly

in 1979. It's one of the reasons they continue to do so badly in

Victoria, where the people have a conservative and honourable tradition

of demanding public access to public documents and public places, and

the public forum that should be theirs. That includes the Capital

Commission.

I've waited for a year and said nothing until

today in this estimate for the minister to announce an enlightened,

open door policy for the Capital Commission. I haven't said a word

since then. I've been waiting and waiting and waiting for the minister

to recognize the errors that his predecessor made, and to correct them.

If he does, he'll get credit and praise for it. If he doesn't, he will

continue to be discredited, as he is increasingly discredited by those

who recognize the standard Socred pattern of doing everything possible

behind closed doors, until the very last minute when they spring it on

an uninformed and unsuspecting public. It's just not good enough. You

blew it before with Pan-Pacific, Mr. Minister. Don't blow it again this

time.

HON. MR. CURTIS: This debate will go on as long

as the members opposite wish. I will refrain from responding to some of

the hyperbole we have just heard with respect to vote 94. I did not set

up Pan-Pacific; The member knows that. PanPacific was in place when the

responsibility for the Provincial Capital Commission shifted to me. I

think the way in which the Pan-Pacific Society was finally found to be

inappropriate was inevitable, and I say that quite frankly.

I were now to receive a specific request from the Provincial Capital

Commission for my view with respect to open meetings, the response

would be as I gave it last time. If I were to receive a specific

request now or my opinion was sought…. The member is correct on one

point: it is not within my power to insist that the meetings be open or

closed. If I were asked for the opinion, indicating that the majority

of that commission wished to meet in open, then fair enough. I have no

great concern about that. I have not received such a request in recent

months. I think my opinion was canvassed last year prior to the

retirement of Mr. Brown, and I believe I discussed the matter with Mr.

Giles at that time and it was agreed it would be deferred until a new

chairman was in position.

In his opening remarks the member

for Victoria has, of course, cast an unfortunate shadow on a very fine

British Columbian and Victorian of some note, Mr. Michael Young. Yes,

he was a candidate for the Social Credit Party in Victoria, and there

is nothing to be ashamed of in that respect. However. In developing his

theme the member neglected to point out that he was an alderman of the

city of Victoria for a number of years and mayor for a number of years.

MR. BARBER: I said both. Were you listening?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to debate with this member. I

listened quietly, without interjection, and now I hear interjections.

Mr.

Young has also shown a very strong interest in heritage matters in

British Columbia and serves on the Heritage Advisory Board. I make no

apology at all to this House or the people of Victoria for the

appointment of Michael Young as chairman of the Provincial Capital

Commission.

It should also be observed that we have another

new member, Dr. Stewart, who was unanimously agreed upon by the mayors

of the three Saanich Peninsula municipalities — Central Saanich, Sidney

and North Saanich — to give us further representation. I think that is

an important step forward.

There was not one reference at

the May 20 meeting to the possibility of individuals present at the

meeting serving on the board of management.

MR. BARBER: Were they not invited for that purpose'?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

It cannot be clearer than that. There was not one reference at that

meeting, or in inviting people to attend that meeting, that this would

lead to an appointment of one, or some, or all of them to a "board of

management" of the Victoria conference centre. In the event that we

proceed with the project and that we establish an advisory committee or

board of management — whatever phrase one uses — then it may well be

that some of those who attended that meeting would be welcome to serve

on the board of management, along with others who were not at the

meeting. The purpose of the meeting was expressed in a letter which I

sent to the individuals who attended, and that was to bring in people

who had not previously been involved with the conference centre.

Another person who was present, and who remained silent throughout the

evening, was the Deputy Minister of Finance. I don't intend to ask him

to serve on the board of management.

The description of a

meeting in secret is really attaching an importance to the meeting

which it does not deserve. I turned to a number of people in the

community, inviting them to come at my request. At that time the

proposal for the convention centre was discussed and outlined by the

chief executive officer of the commission and by the architect for the

project. Questions were asked by some. One or two others did not ask

any questions. Opinions were expressed at the end of the evening, and I

thanked them very much for attending. It was very useful because those

who came had not been involved in any way, to the best of my

recollection and knowledge. A board of management, should it be

established, would include people, some of whom were at that

[ Page 6114 ]

meeting if they choose to accept, and some of whom have never been involved with the conference centre at all.

Again,

it is unfortunate that the member embarks on an attack, because the

strength of his argument is lost in that kind of attack. I do not

insist that the Provincial Capital Commission continue to meet "in

secret." If the commission writes and says they've thought about it

again and they want to meet in open, then so be it. I would agree with

that.

MR. BARBER: The minister has a remarkable view

of political leadership. Apparently his idea of serving the public

interest and serving the public's right to the information which

belongs to it is to allow a commission, whose members he appoints,

whose chairman ran for his party in the last provincial election and

can be presumed to hold the same political philosophy — whatever that

might be — of the minister….

MR. KEMPF: It sure isn't socialism.

MR. BARBER: Fair enough, it's not socialism; I don't suppose

it's nazism either. So what? What are you talking about? The point is that

this minister has a very bizarre and primitive notion of political leadership.

If he were willing, he would see the public interest in his own — shall we say

— advising of the Capital Commission that they should open their doors to the

people and that way earn the respect of the people. But the minister is content

to allow a board which he appoints, which is subservient to the interests of

this administration, to continue — he says — to do its own business.

was informed otherwise. I was advised that the members of the Capital

Commission wanted to open it and were refused permission to do so on

the pretext that they couldn't do so without the consent of the

minister. The minister says that's not so and I take his word for it.

In turn, I take him up on his word and ask him today to write to Mr.

Young and tell him that it is your opinion that the public interest

would be served by opening the meetings of the Capital Commission to

the public. Tell him further that that I the unanimous opinion of the

whole Legislature, because I speak for our guys and they speak for the

same policy. That policy is public access to public agencies — pure and

simple. If you don't say that to the Capital Commission, which is your

creation and your servant, then you cannot turn around and tell us

you're exercising any kind of leadership at all. That's not leadership.

That's neglect. It's abandonment of your responsibility to open it up

to every aspect of public scrutiny and debate.

The minister

tells us that the meeting of May 20 was not couched in such language,

when invitations were issued, that the individuals who received them

thought they were to be appointed to the commission. I am informed

otherwise.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: The

minister says I'm wrong. I take his word for that, too, and I ask him

to answer my other question. Who, by name, apart from Mr. Bell, was at

the meeting? Who was at the meeting? What were the names of the

individuals who were invited to attend the meeting to discuss the

future of the convention centre in Victoria, some of whom may serve on

the board in the future? Is there any reason to keep that a secret? I

ask the minister again, Mr. Chairman. Who was at the meeting?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, within the course of the next few days I will contact

each person who attended the meeting and ask if they would object to my

providing their names to the first member for Victoria, and that's an

undertaking. I did not invite them to a public meeting; I invited them

to an informal meeting. A chairman was not elected. I told him the

Deputy Minister of Finance was in attendance, but he did not

participate. The bulk of the meeting involved the chairman of the

Capital Commission, the chief executive officer, and the architect for

the project, Mr. Merrick. I feel that rather than my listing names in

Committee of Supply — and I would remind the member that's where we are

— I will contact each individual, other than those I mentioned. They

were there in an official capacity, and I feel I would have no problem

identifying them. If the individuals who were present have no objection

to my releasing their names, I will do so as quickly as possible to the

first member for Victoria.

MR. BARBER: I can't imagine why they would have an objection, Mr. Chairman.

received another letter from an engineering firm in Victoria concerned

about the way in which the work attached to the construction of the

proposed convention centre was allocated.

I've never been

satisfied with the answers I've received from the government. I've

pursued it in a couple of different ways and I'll pursue it now. The

letter was received by me on January 23, 1980. It was dated January 21,

1980. We've been looking at this for some time as well. It says:

"Re: Victoria Trade Centre.

would like to thank you for telephoning me the other evening,

suggesting methods of protesting what I consider to be an unjust

appointment of design consultants on the above project.

"Our

firm" — Spratt and Associates Electrical Engineers Ltd., 2659 Douglas

Street — "was invited to attend an interview for consultant selection

with Mr. Giles, a Mr. Brown and the architect, Mr. Paul Merrick. Mr.

Merrick was apparently appointed, without competition, by the former

Minister of Deregulation, Mr. Bawlf. Several architectural consultants

in Victoria I have talked to feel that this is such an important

project for Victoria and for Victoria architectural firms that their

firms should have had the opportunity to compete and be selected as

designers for the facility."

Mr. Spratt, who has his diploma in engineering, continues:

"Several

of these architects have also told me that they were quite surprised at

the selection of consultants — electrical, mechanical and structural —

since they felt that some of the consultants were, in their opinion,

not capable of the type and quality of work required.

do not know if your staff can do anything to affect the design team for

this project. However, the old-boy, former government employee

connection that is evident to me in this project must be eliminated in

future projects, and I hope that you and your office could and would be

influential to stop it. If you require any further information…

Yours sincerely,

E.C. Spratt, REng.

Spratt and Associates

Electrical Engineers Ltd., Victoria."

[ Page 6115 ]

Mr.

Chairman, this is a reputable firm, and those are serious complaints.

This is a reputable gentleman, and those are serious criticisms. Once

again, we see that Social Credit has embarked on a scheme where they

did not go to tender, where the meetings were not open to the public so

that there was any information provided when it should have been, and

where one architect alone — in this case an acquaintance of the former

minister — was given the job and there was no competition.

want to ask the minister if he's prepared to reverse that policy. I

want to ask the minister if he approves of the former policy which saw

the design for this most important public building being given to Mr.

Merrick without public bid, tender or competition of any kind

whatsoever.

I'm not questioning Mr. Merrick's professional

qualifications. I'm not competent to. Mr. Spratt makes comments that

I'm not competent to make; I simply read them into the record. I don't

know whether or not it's true that these people are more or less able

to do the job. I do know that there's something wrong with a policy

that results in a letter like this. I do know that there's something

wrong with a government that has such a policy.

My questions

to the minister are two-fold. First of all, do you approve, Mr.

Minister, of the policy that saw Mr. Merrick appointed without public

bid, tender or competition of any sort? Secondly, if you do not and you

take into account the criticisms by the architectural and engineering

firms of Victoria, with which I'm told you are familiar, are you

prepared to announce today a reversal of that policy and a new policy

which opens these aspects of the construction enterprise to public

tender, bid and competition?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Before I respond, I wonder if the first member for Victoria would give me the date of the letter again, if in fact he did.

MR. BARBER: I did before. I'll do it again. It was written on January 21, 1980, and it was received by me on January 23, 1980.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I'm not sure that I'm aware of that letter, but I will certainly search

the files. Mr. Spratt has made some comments with respect to the

competence, it would seem, of the architect. I wonder if he raised this

through his professional association. I have no knowledge. The member

opposite who's raised the point indicates similarly that he has no

knowledge. It would seem to me that that's one way in which the matter

could be brought to the attention of the commission.

I think there was a competition for the electrical. I'm going from memory.

his question, the member has asked me to do what I was earlier accused

of doing. I would be guided in terms of competition by the Provincial

Capital Commission. I will certainly share with them the member's

remarks as recorded in Hansard

and will ask them if they share his concerns. Then I would be very much

guided by their view of the way in which the project should proceed, if

in fact it does proceed.

MR. BARBER: If the convention centre does in fact proceed?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Yes, if in fact it does proceed — it's tough with interjections. We

have recently received a request from the commission to proceed to a

tender call. That matter is before me now. I'm simply saying that if we

do proceed and if we authorize the calling of tenders, then obviously

the competition for the construction of the facility will be carried

out in the traditional way. I don't think we can have it both ways. I

don't direct the commission. I respond to what the commission wishes.

The member has said that it's my commission, as if I established it.

It's been here through three governments. As a matter of fact that

member served on it. Clearly if construction is to take place with the

Victoria convention centre, that will be by competition.

MR. BARBER:

I'm quite startled by the minister saying "if the construction is to

proceed." It's been my understanding that it was on the basis of a bill

passed unanimously and an appropriation endorsed unanimously in this

Legislature that construction of the Victoria convention centre was

going to proceed, period. The minister has now said twice "if

construction proceeds." Is the minister advising that the government is

reconsidering its commitment to the Victoria convention centre? I don't

understand why you've said twice "if construction proceeds." Obviously

it has to; otherwise we have no centre.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I'm very cautious in debate. I think I have to be. I have to be

responsible in debate. We are going through the process of very careful

analysis of a project such as this. I think it's going to proceed, Mr.

Member. I feel quite comfortable that it is. It isn't before the

government no