1985 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 33rd 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)

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1985

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7061 ]

CONTENTS

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

Introduction and first reading –– 7061

Oral Questions

Employment. Mr. Skelly –– 7061

Tabling Documents –– 7063

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

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 7063

Division –– 7065

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

Mr. Stupich

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Howard

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Blencoe

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

Committee stage –– 7070

Mr. Rose

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Howard

Hon. Mr. Nielsen

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

Third reading

Coquihalla Highway Construction Acceleration Act (Bill 2). Hon. A. Fraser.

Committee stage –– 7075

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Skelly

Mr. MacWilliam

Mr. Cocke

Third reading

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

Committee stage –– 7079

Mr. Cocke

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

Mr. Howard –– 7081

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 7081

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

Mrs. Wallace –– 7082

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7083

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

Second reading

Mr. Macdonald –– 7083

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7084

Appendix –– 7085

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 1985

The House met at 2:04 p.m.

HON. MR. ROGERS: Braving the weather today — that is, the

local weather in Victoria — and visiting us are a number of students

from the grade 11 social studies class at Sir Winston Churchill

Secondary School in Vancouver. I would like all the members in the

House to welcome them and show them our best behaviour. That's the best

you could do.

Mr. Speaker, just to follow up, I know that it was a day trip to

Victoria, and I know we all wish them a successful re-entry into the

lower mainland this evening, because there's some difficulty with that.

MR. REID: Also some dedicated people from sunny Surrey have

journeyed across into this stormy weather in Victoria. It's with

pleasure that I introduce from Parks and Recreation of Surrey one of

the hardest-working people I've had the opportunity to work for for the

last few years, Mr. Bob Vaughan. Also with him is Mr. Wolf Renner.

Would the House make them welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Also braving the weather today we have, I

see, in the gallery today two gentlemen: the chairman of the UBCM, Mr.

Dan Cumming; and with Dan, Richard Taylor, who has taken over from Jeff

McKelvey as the executive director of the UBCM. Would the House please

welcome these gentlemen.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Also in your gallery this afternoon are two

gentleman from Surrey. Incidentally, the sun is shining in Surrey; we

don't have this snow over there. I'd like the House to welcome Ted

Clarke and Mike Cook, who are members of our Parks and Recreation

Commission.

Introduction of Bills

CAPITAL COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

Hon. Mr. Curtis presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Capital Commission Amendment Act, 1985.

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

To make a few remarks with respect to the bill, it contains minor

amendments. I think members of the House will be reassured of that

point. It authorizes an increase by one of the membership of the

commission, to more accurately reflect population in the greater

Victoria area. It also responds to several matters which have been

raised by commission members over time, seeking a change in legislation.

Bill 71 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

EMPLOYMENT

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Premier. Contrary to the

Premier's recent glowing statements, Statistics Canada reports there

are now 70,000 fewer people working in British Columbia than there were

in July 1981, 110,000 more people unemployed in this province, and tens

of thousands more people on welfare than there were back in 1981. Has

the Premier developed a plan to present to this session of the

Legislature to deal with the employment and poverty crisis in this

province?

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

Interjections.

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

MR. SKELLY: I'm against everything you've done to create that

amount of unemployment and that amount of poverty in the province of

British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, in the last several weeks a number of plants have

announced that they're shutting down in the province of B.C.: Dominion

Glass, 300 jobs lost; Westar, laying off an additional 191 people;

Eurocan, 105; an elevator in Prince Rupert, 275; MacMillan Bloedel, 90

jobs lost; Seaspan in Victoria, 80 jobs lost; Duncan, 500 jobs lost;

and 500 apprentice training cuts.

Does the Premier have any plan to deal with the number of plants

that are shutting down and the number of jobs that are being lost?

Clearly his current plan is not working in this province. We have a

session of the Legislature. Has the Premier a plan to submit to this

session of the Legislature so that we can get those people back to work?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it's too bad the Leader of the

Opposition is once again being selective, because he could have, in the

same

preamble to his questions, announced a number of new plants that

are opening, new jobs that are developing through many communities in

this province that are a result of the municipal-provincial partnership

and are a result of the tax cuts and are a result of the critical

industries...

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...commission, which continues to work on

industries. It was a commission that the Leader of the Opposition

laughed at, and yet the steelworkers' union in this province is proud

of that legislation. Their workers are back at work today because

they've been part of the partnership. That is why they no longer have

confidence in the New Democratic Party and whatever leadership is being

exhibited. That is why the partnership program and tax cuts. Work is

going on with the municipalities in partnership, the federal-provincial

agreements under ERDA are assisting small businesses to expand and new

businesses to locate. We've had a number of businesses

[ Page 7062 ]

announced. I've been present at the sod-turning in

Kamloops for the Armco-Stelco steel ball plant. The Leader of the

Opposition doesn't care about Kamloops. He doesn't care about the

interior, and we all know he doesn't care about the north.

I want to tell him that the workers at Brenda Mines are glad to be

back at work because of legislation and as part of our economic renewal

package. It has provided not only new jobs in many areas but restored

jobs in mines and in the forest industry. The workers at Vic Ply are

glad not only to be working but to be owners of their own facility.

That's a plan that is working. This plan will continue to work.

Yes, this province still has fewer employed than we did at the peak

before the international recession. The international recession hit the

resource industries not only of our province but of the world. It hit

them hard. It hit where demand and price are beyond the control not

only of provinces but countries. But we have reacted to it with the

only program in North America, the critical industries commission,

which gives special attention to those industries in forestry and

mining. We can do something about the problem. We can get workers and

management and government together, using our hydroelectricity as an

economic tool and lowering industrial rates to restore jobs and make

those firms competitive.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you it is working. It's being looked at

in a number of areas. This province went through a tough time, as did

all of the industrialized countries. We were hit hard, but we didn't

deny the recession. We took strong action. We had strong programs

because we took strong action. We are the only jurisdiction in this

country that was able to bring in major industrial incentives and tax

cuts at the same time as we contained our deficit. The deficit in

Manitoba continues to climb and grow to be one of the highest per

capita in this country.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair must

observe that the asking of open-ended questions can hardly do anything

but elicit an open-ended response. If we are to maintain the purpose of

question period, then it is the responsibility to ask brief questions,

and we will then have brief responses.

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

I have another specific question to the Premier. There were 12,000

jobs lost between the second quarter of 1981 and the second quarter of

1985 in forestry and mining in British Columbia. There were 42,000 jobs

lost in manufacturing in the same period in British Columbia. There

were 26,000 jobs lost in construction during the same period in British

Columbia. There were 17,000 jobs lost in transportation, utilities and

communication in the same period in British Columbia. What plan does

the Premier have to present to this session of the Legislature to deal

with these job losses that are continuing to take place in the

province? Or will the Premier admit that he has no effective plans at

all?

[2:15]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the member again invites a

response, because the plan is working. He uses as his time-frame the

peak of employment in 1981, prior to the recession. I have to tell the

Leader of the Opposition that the economic indicators in this province

have been going up for the last number of months. We're in the second

year of positive economic growth. New jobs are being created. The

labour force has been increasing these last two years from the depths

it reached in the height of the recession. I agree; there was a

recession. It's nice that the opposition now recognizes that an

international recession did hit us, and it needed a government with

guts and courage in order to face it, which we did.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier. The

unemployment rate in Manitoba is 6.5 percent; Saskatchewan, 6.9

percent; Ontario, 7.1 percent; Alberta, 8.5 percent; British Columbia,

13.5 percent — second only to Newfoundland. The statistics are showing

that people are moving away from British Columbia and back to those

areas where employment is being generated. Will the Premier tell this

session of the Legislature, and present to this Legislature, a plan to

resolve the unemployment crisis and the poverty crisis in British

Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the province has a plan that

is working. I don't know where the Leader of the Opposition has always

been, but I know that every time this government has placed before this

Legislature, or before the people of B.C., an initiative that creates

employment and broadens the economic activity — whether it's the

northern transportation system, job development, the critical

industries commission or other — they not only oppose it, but they

oppose such plans as yet undertaken, such as a Vancouver Island gas

pipeline. The Leader of the Opposition opposed the construction of Site

C Dam, and do you know what he said? Why, he said he opposed it because

it was just a few temporary jobs for construction workers. What he has

said is that he is against construction workers and that their jobs are

not important to him. If he wants to take issue with the reports of his

statement and attack the media, then let the Leader of the Opposition

attack the media. But I want to tell you that we are out to help the

construction workers; we want them to build dams; we want them to build

new plants and new secondary industry. I want to tell you that as much

as you have opposed Expo....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I hear a very high-pitched scream from the

member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam), who perhaps wasn't here

when we had the opposition at that time criticizing Expo, saying we

shouldn't be proceeding with it, and saying it was taking money from

other services that were needed for people, even though they knew it

was being financed off-budget by Expo and Lotto 6-49, and did not

compete. It is only lately that they are jumping onto the bandwagon,

clinging by their fingernails, and saying: "Oh, we were never against

Expo." It was just a few months ago, up in the great Cariboo with the

Minister of Highways and Transportation (Hon. A. Fraser), the most

popular political figure in the interior of British Columbia, that we

had an Expo meeting picketed by people who were against Expo, and do

you know who was carrying the picket sign?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who?

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

[ Page 7063 ]

thing, the member for Vancouver East has a

different energy policy from his leader, and it's not surprising that

every individual NDP member in this province — those that are left —

make up their own version of what the NDP thinks at any given moment on

any given day.

MR. SKELLY: His dad could do it a lot better than he could,

but his father could also create jobs a lot better than he could; and

that's part of the problem in this province: the son doesn't meet the

measure of the father.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that in this Legislature the NDP voted in favour

— because our position was misrepresented by the Premier — of the critical industries

commissioner. But at the same time we ask this Premier: why is it that of families

going into poverty between 1981 and 1984 in Canada, 1 percent were in Manitoba,

25 percent nationally and 65 percent in the province of British Columbia? And

you can't resolve that problem by circuses. You can't resolve that problem

by critical industries commissioners who patch leaky boats and restore a few

jobs. We need a plan in this province. I ask the Premier to table in the Legislature

during this session his plan to put those 70,000 people back to work; his plan

to deal with the problem of 110,000 people on unemployment insurance, and his

plan to deal with the growing poverty crisis in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, could the Leader of the

Opposition just clarify for me which circus he says we don't need?

You're calling Expo a circus? Mr. Speaker, there again — every time

he's in trouble something slips out that he doesn't want to say. Every

time he's in trouble he says something and then spends two months

trying to clarify it. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition will

continue on a month-to-month basis, from now until 1986 and 1987 and

1988, talking about the change in the statistics of employment and

growth in this province. I want him to continue to ask, month after

month, day after day, as our economy improves and as people go back to

work, and the visible proof of our plans takes place and is evident to

the people of British Columbia.... Today the Leader of the Opposition

has committed himself to this course, to continually bring up and

compare, month to month, day after day, how much we have progressed on

a regular basis. I tell him I will welcome his doing this month after

month. At some time in the future the Leader of the Opposition will

probably want to cross the floor and join this party himself. But I

want to tell him that we don't want him.

I was pleased to hear that the NDP retroactively recognizes the

great contribution of my father, the late W.A.C. Bennett, to this

province. He did build a province — with some opposition from the NDP.

But I've got to tell you that part of his success was that he had

strong, dynamic opposition leaders, and when I get one, we'll do even

better.

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

MR. HOWARD: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know

full well that I am not at liberty to call the Premier a liar — and I

am not....

MR. SPEAKER: Even by the very mention of the word you cross

the bounds of good taste and parliamentary decorum. I would ask the

member to retract and start again.

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

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, although we may

from time to time dispute remarks made by one another, we cannot gain

the floor on a point of order to further the argument. Notwithstanding

the member's concern, this is hardly the forum or the method by which

to rebut the remarks. I would commend that to the member.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD: He's not willing to stand here and listen to it.

If you would prefer, I'd be glad to discuss it with the Premier

outside, and then I can tell him what I think of him.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before recognizing the House

Leader I would advise members that because of the inclement weather the

library may not be able to provide the usual full service later today,

and we should expect some reasonable lessening of the service tomorrow

as well.

Orders of the Day

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

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, in closing debate, I would

like to respond to a few points made by some of the members of the

opposition with respect to Bill 62. I'd like to start by responding to

the last speaker, the Leader of the Opposition. But before doing so,

I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that all of

those who spoke on the opposition side skirted entirely the bill

itself, which is a sign that indeed they see no problem, nor do they

have any argument, with this legislation. They all skirted around

things that had nothing to do directly with the bill itself.

In any case, responding first of all to the Leader of the

Opposition, he talked about the process. Obviously he was not at all in

touch with the process or how this bill was developed, nor did he make

any inquiries ahead of time. But just for his benefit, Mr. Speaker, I'd

like to point out that the process of this bill was a very open one.

Whenever it was first decided that we would proceed with some further

amendments to the land-use

section of the Municipal Act...that we would

appoint a committee from outside of the ministry that was made up of

representation of the municipalities, regional districts and the

private organizations that are affected by this legislation. I believe

I have a copy of the groups that were in there, but working from

memory, we had representation from the Planning Institute, the

development industry and the house-builders. In any case, the bill was

put together from those deliberations and first introduced in this

House in July, giving for a number of months all municipalities and

regional districts, and any others who were interested a chance to

study the bill and come forward with any proposals that they may have

for amendments.

[ Page 7064 ]

[2:30]

The bill then went to the UBCM, where I stood before all of the

regional directors of the province to answer all their questions, and

also before the representation of the municipalities. A number of

meetings were held at that same convention, where we listened to some

comments and proposals in respect of amendments to the bill. So the

bill was very well formulated; the process was very open, and the

amendments that were put forward were thoroughly discussed with UBCM

later. I believe all of those proposals were adopted without changing

the intent of the bill.

He also made some mention of my practice of listening to the public

in respect of any bylaws that may come for my approval. I would like

the member of the opposition and his colleagues to know that I will

continue to ask questions and invite observations on any bylaw that

comes to me for approval. But under no circumstances will I delegate

that authority to anyone else; never have and never will. All bylaws

that require my approval will get my approval if acceptable, and my

approval only. But I am not at all about to change my method of asking

questions of those outside with respect to any bylaw that comes to my

attention.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was somewhat critical

about the time that it took to develop some legislation that would

allow for temporary zoning. I was surprised at that, but then on the

other hand he did get up to speak on Bill 62, and since there was

nothing in there that he could criticize constructively or otherwise,

he had to choose something else. It was somewhat personally

disappointing to me, however, realizing that I did give him the

opportunity of a meeting, and we did discuss in all good faith the need

for this temporary legislation, and I assured him it would be going

forward at the quickest moment. However, I excuse him for being so

picky on such a little item, because there was really nothing else that

he could stand and talk about with respect to the bill.

He also had some criticism about input to the amendments. Little

does he know that the amendments originated with the people who will be

working with this legislation. So how can he truly stand up and

criticize the input into amendments when indeed the input came from the

municipalities and regional districts themselves?

Then, of course, we get into dealing with the comments of my critic,

the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who started out by

saying: "We thank you for the legislation. However," he's saying, "we

are losing regional planning. We need to create more planning because

when you create more planning you create more jobs." Well, let that

member clearly know that under no circumstances will I permit the

development of unnecessary planning that is going to place a very heavy

financial burden on the taxpayer of this province. The member thinks we

should be funding an institute that he thinks we should just keep on

planning. I want that member to know, Mr. Speaker, that the regional

plan is gone, and it is gone to stay. There will be no centralized

planning in this province as you people see it. No more dictatorial

decisions from a central office, no more veto decisions by central

boards over the land-use decisions of local municipalities. That is

gone, and I hope gone forever in this province. That member should....

Interjection.

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

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I'd like that member to know that indeed

the regional plan as we see it is working in a voluntary way. Under the

system now, any plan that is done is made available to immediate

neighbouring municipalities or areas so that they too can review those

plans and highlight anything that may be detrimental to their planning,

or where they can foresee a problem arise as that plan is laid out.

Under no circumstances will we get back to your dictatorial...back to

your central control over municipalities of this province.

Municipalities are entitled to make their own land-use decisions

without being ruled by a central office in some other part of the

province. That is gone, and gone forever.

We will continue, Mr. Speaker, to do planning, but planning that is

necessary in order to keep our communities growing in an orderly

fashion, to create the sort of life environment that we want for our

people. It won't be directed to support a group of people who want to

plan for the sake of planning, who would be motivated by those on the

other side of the House who believe that the only way you can control

people is through their land. So your idea of control through the

regional plan, my friend, is gone forever.

He also mentioned, Mr. Speaker, the terrible thing that we did with

the Islands Trust. That member should know that today the Islands Trust

is functioning very well, thank you. Things that are healthy for all of

the islands are developing along the way. As I've said many times in

this chamber, the Islands Trust is doing a good job, and will continue

to do a good job. Our policy is to protect those islands, and we will

continue to do so; and we're doing it in a manner that is without the

socialist influence of those people who believe they should use this as

a vehicle to forward their own desires. The Islands Trust is

functioning today in a very orderly, responsible manner. Things are

working very well, thank you.

Then he goes on to talk again on the parameters of the legislation —

which he has no argument with — and about the need for an

infrastructure program. Oh, yes, here he is, jumping on the bandwagon

of Mayor Mike Harcourt, who headed up a committee that, along with the

federation of municipalities, decided there was a need in this country

for a multi-billion-dollar investment in infrastructure. I want that

member to know I disagreed with that program and that recommendation,

first of all because they ignored the small communities of this

province. In that study they ignored all of the small communities of

the interior and northern part of this province. When they come back

with a recommendation that recognizes all of the people of this

province and not just the big centres, then we can look at it.

That member forgets that this government has already got in place a

policy that provides revenue-sharing to all municipalities in this

province for the provision of services for infrastructure. That has

been going on for some years, and will continue. We have provinces that

haven't done that. For instance, Saskatchewan is in terrible need of

funding for infrastructure, only because the NDP government which ruled

that province for so many years allowed it to deteriorate — unlike

British Columbia, where funding has been made available on a regular

basis for those services. They need it.

[ Page

7065 ]

But this is not the time for us to be asking a federal government to

bail us out of problems that we have created ourselves, such as in

Saskatchewan, particularly a government that has already got a

tremendous job on its hands trying to reduce a deficit which they

inherited.

Mr. Speaker, this government will continue with its policy of

providing funding through revenue-sharing to put in the infrastructures

required in this province. As the economy of the province improves, the

amount of funding available will increase, and more and more services

will be provided. Under no circumstances will we endorse a program that

Harcourt is pushing in this province, one that ignores the small

communities of British Columbia. That is a policy that his party

supports, and he should be ashamed of it.

Mr. Speaker, he also talked about development permits. Yes, we dealt

with development permits. Development permits are here to stay. The

development permit process is a good process. But under no

circumstances would we allow the continuation of a system whereby a

developer could find himself unsure whether there was a development

permit or not. Nor would we tolerate the continuance of a system

whereby the developer could be running back and forth and never knowing

exactly what next would be expected of him under that development

permit system. The cost that this was creating in the industry was

passed through to the consumer — the people who have to buy or rent

those homes. That's a cost that they cannot bear. In spite of your

ignorance of that fact, that change is necessary. It's a healthy one,

and it's one that has been accepted by both the industry and the

municipalities involved. The development permit will stay, but there

will be some accountability, and there will be some opportunity for the

developer to know exactly what he's getting into before he starts

investing in a community.

He talked about the settlement plan. Oh, the terrible things that

we're going to be doing there! According to this member, we're going to

be taking the democratic right away from that one elected person in an

electoral area as to whether there should be a plan or not. Shame on

you! How disgusting that you should stand up and say that we should not

listen to the people of this province! I can assure you that this

government will listen to the people. Wherever the people say by a very

large majority that they don't wish to have that plan, then we're going

to recognize the wishes of the people and not some person who you think

should have that dictatorial power.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation is designed to streamline, to bring in

accountability, to cut the unnecessary costs through the elimination of

unnecessary regulation and red tape, so that we can see the industry

deliver homes to the people of this province at a cost that they can

afford, whether buying or renting. It's designed as people legislation

— not legislation for the legislators but legislation for the

legislated. Therefore it gives me a great deal of pleasure to move

second reading.

[2:45]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 26

Brummet

Rogers

Segarty

McClelland

Heinrich

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Reid

Ree

Strachan

Veitch

Reynolds

NAYS — 17

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Rose

MacWilliam

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

Bill 62, Municipal Amendment Act, 1985, read a second time and

referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the

next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 45.

FINANCE STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1985

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

section 1.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had some discussion

about the treating of confidential documents. Perhaps we can get a

little more light on it today and less heat. In response to a question

from the Leader of the Opposition, who queried the fact that

considerable material was in the back of a truck for the period of a

week, the minister said that considerable material was not

confidential. What I'm wondering about is that portion that was

confidential. Can the minister assure us, for example, with respect to

section 1 dealing with the Corporation Capital Tax Act, that

corporation capital tax returns were not in that truck, sitting there

for a week, or does he have any information as to just exactly what

material was sitting in that truck for a week?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the

information which was offered by the Leader of the Opposition in

question period yesterday was not correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was false and erroneous.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

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

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps we would like to

have a little more information than that. I suppose we're talking about

the information the Leader of the Opposition offered with respect to

the fact that some of this material was in an open truck, unattended,

for a week. Is that the information that the minister is speaking about

when he says it's not correct?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I restate the answer that I

gave just a few moments ago. What we are dealing with in

section 1,

however, is that a public official who has custody or control over

taxpayer information or records is specifically disallowed from

disclosing any of the information or records, except in four restricted

circumstances. These circumstances are: for the administration of a

taxation statute; in court proceedings pursuant to an intergovernmental

agreement,

[ Page 7066 ]

about which we spoke yesterday; to share

information for tax administration purposes; and for statistical

comparison purposes by a government. We're speaking therefore in this

section in quite a narrow sense, and that is the confidential

withholding of information within a ministry — in this case, the

Ministry of Finance — should someone seek to obtain that information by

means of a visit or a letter or a telephone call.

MR. STUPICH: I don't think it's quite that simple. We are

talking about someone who does have custody of information; to that

point, I think we agree. But it would seem to me that this person has

responsibility to withhold information, not simply when that person is

being asked for information but also to make sure that such information

does not come into the hands of people who should not have it

inadvertently. Having custody, certainly in my mind, doesn't simply

mean that the person will say no to anyone who asks. It also includes

some responsibility for making sure that there is adequate custody of

that material. Now I ask again: can the minister tell us where he got

the information that reassures him that there was no confidential

information sitting in the back of that truck?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I indicated yesterday, and I indicate again

today, that insofar as I have been able to determine, the allegation

which was offered by the Leader of the Opposition with respect to

material sitting in "the back of an open truck for a week" — very close

to that — was not correct. I undertake for the member for Nanaimo and

for the House to verify that fact within the next day or two of the

House.

MR. STUPICH: We're making progress now, and that's really all

I wanted. The minister has admitted it was with reference to that

truck, and I'd like to ask another question on it. I think perhaps it

might not be in order; I'll try it out and see whether or not it is. If

the material in the back of that truck for a week was largely old

telephone books and blank computer paper, my question is how much it is

costing the Crown to store that kind of material per unit of garbage,

and how long that kind of garbage is kept in warehouses on which the

Crown is paying rent. I think maybe it's not appropriate under this

section; I'll try it at another time.

MRS. WALLACE: I've been reading the Blues, and I note that

the Minister of Finance told us yesterday in his statement that the

material that was stored in the warehouse.... "Some of it related to

corporate capital tax returns and working papers on various individual

corporate tax material...." Now this particular amendment has not yet

passed, and I note that it's repealing

section 28 of the existing act.

If I may just read in part subsection 28(1): "A person having the

custody or control of any return, form or other document or papers

filed under this act shall not communicate, or allow to be

communicated, to any person not legally entitled to information

obtained under the act, or allow any person not legally entitled to

inspect or have access to a return made under this act."

Now it seems to me that when this government and that minister allow

such an irresponsible handling of those confidential returns as to have

them, as the minister said, on the floor of a warehouse which could be

accessed by the company who had the contract, which obviously was

accessed by the people who hauled the papers out, which was accessed by

the owner of the warehouse.... I believe that contravenes that section,

and I think this minister has to make some kind of stronger review of

what has happened. I don't see how changing the act by this particular

amendment is going to do anything to prevent — in fact it weakens it —

that kind of thing from happening.

Now under the act, that should not have happened. Those papers

should not have been blowing in the wind on the floor of a warehouse,

and I'm not at all sure that by amending it.... In this new form it

certainly isn't going to prevent it from happening. In fact, it perhaps

weakens that, so there is less responsibility to ensure that those

papers aren't blowing in the wind for anyone who wishes to see them.

[3:00]

MR. HOWARD: The question of keeping records confidential

where that is a requirement by statute was abridged by this government

as announced by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Smith) yesterday. The

Attorney-General yesterday said that the government — when it came to

the question of dealing with someone who had control over information

and records and was obliged by statute not to disclose that

information, to keep it confidential — overrode that law, broke that

law, and pawed its way through confidential documents. The

Attorney-General said that yesterday with respect to confidentiality.

It violated a statute, in my view, which was much more stringent than

the proposed clause before us, because here some information can be

given out if it's for statistical purposes, etc., etc.

In the other act that was violated, the law that was broken as

announced yesterday, the requirement for confidentiality was much

tighter, much more precise. It was the confidentiality requirement

placed by this Legislature upon an employee and an officer of this

Legislature — not an officer of government, but of the Legislative

Assembly. When the Attorney-General told this Legislature yesterday

that his deputy had diligently searched the records of the ombudsman's

office, by what authority does he do that? The Attorney-General of the

province stands up and says: "Yes, my deputy went into the ombudsman's

office" or "the ombudsman sent the records over to our office so we

could look at them." However they got together, I don't know. But when

the Attorney-General said yesterday that his deputy had diligently

searched the records of the ombudsman, he overrode completely the

question of confidentiality and invaded the statutory requirements

surrounding the ombudsman and surrounding confidentiality and

privileged information there and opened up the whole question of

citizens in British Columbia having what they may or do perceive to be

legitimate complaints against the operation of government. Whether

they're found to be legitimate or correct is subject to examination

after they start the complaint. But citizens have the right to register

and lodge complaints on a completely privileged and confidential basis

with the ombudsman, who is an officer of this Legislature. And when the

Attorney-General, the chief law enforcement officer of this House,

stands up and says, "I, as the minister, said that my deputy diligently

searched those records," he is sanctioning a violation of the law about

confidentiality and privileged information that people have.

What's coming next? Is this a government that wants to search

through the records of the ombudsman, say, with respect to a public

servant who lodges a complaint with the ombudsman, overrides the

confidentiality and the privileged

[ Page

7067 ]

position to find out who it is that is lodging

complaints against the government and then fires them? Hound them out

of office? Act like fascists in other countries do with respect to

legitimate, honest rights of citizens of the province? Is that what

we're up to? I submit to you that with the attitude of that nature

exhibited and disclosed yesterday by the Attorney-General in this

House, with an attitude of that nature on the part of government, all

this business that a person who has custody or control of documents, et

cetera, shall keep them confidential, means absolutely nothing if the

government wants to move in and override that, and set itself above the

law, and make itself lord and master over human rights and establish

itself as judge, jury and prosecutor. Nothing more heinous, nothing

more insidious can take place when a government places itself above the

law.

The law in the Ombudsman Act says that a certain thing should take

place, namely confidentiality, and the Attorney-General then stands up

in this House and says: "We've put that to one side. We didn't pay any

attention to that. We diligently searched the records of the

ombudsman's office...." In another instance he calls it the ombudsman's

department, indicating that in his mind it's a department of

government. He indicates that it is the view of this government that

the ombudsman's office is a department of government, which it isn't.

It's an office of this Legislature established to protect the rights of

citizens. It means that we have a government that has no regard for the

law, if it suits its own sinister purpose to override that law. There

must be something sinister involved when the chief law enforcement

officer of the province will stand up and say: "Yes, we went into the

ombudsman's office and searched the records. We disregarded the

question of confidentiality." Now they either brushed the current

acting ombudsman to one side and said, "Get out of the way. We're going

to look at your documents," or they did it with his acquiescence, which

is worse still, because then the acting ombudsman is violating his oath

of office by permitting that to happen.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe it happened at night.

MR. HOWARD: It's not a question of when it happened; it did

happen. I take the word of the Attorney-General that it happened; he

said so standing in his place in this House yesterday. And his words

are there for all to see. It's law and what is upright and honourable

in terms of respect for the law. It either means something in this land

and this province to all of us here, or it doesn't mean something. The

government is indicating that so far as it is concerned, it has no

respect for the law. It will violate the law to suit its own scant

political purposes. It did it yesterday. The Attorney-General said that

he did.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with one

section of a bill which deals with the confidentiality of material

while it is in the hands of the Ministry of Finance. I only suggest to

the committee that it might be more appropriate for the debate which

the member for Skeena has embarked upon to raise that under estimates

or perhaps at some time under the Document Disposal Act. There is a

statute which deals with the disposal of documents.

This section, to continue the point of order, deals with material

while it is in the control of officials and individuals and employees

in the Ministry of Finance and ensures that while in the hands of the

Ministry of Finance those records cannot be accessed except under those

exceptions spelled out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To respond to that point of order, during this

line of questioning some latitude has been allowed the minister and the

member for Nanaimo, the member for Cowichan-Malahat and also the member

for Skeena. But clearly, hon. members,

section 1 does deal with the

Corporation Capital Tax Act. It is a bill of the Minister of Finance,

and it has to do with disclosing the information. I wonder if we could

maintain debate on the specific subject of

section 1. I'm sure the

member for Skeena can do this.

MR. HOWARD: What I was seeking to do, Mr. Chairman, on the

point of order, was to point out that yes,

section 1 of the bill says

that "a person who has custody of or control over information or

records under this Act shall not disclose the information or records to

any other person except...."And then it sets out four enumerated exceptions.

I am trying to point out, by referring to the attitude of this

government with respect to records in another office that has, by law,

a much more stringent requirement with respect to confidentiality, that

the government violated that by the admission of the Attorney-General.

If that is the case in one instance, as the Attorney-General said it

was, then what's the purpose of this? This is a meaningless piece of

garbage legislation.

If the government has the attitude that it has no respect for

confidentiality, for the rights of citizens in this province to have

their information kept as privileged information between the government

and those citizens, whether it is tax records or anything else.... If

it will in one instance ignore the force of the law with respect to

confidentiality to suit its own purpose, then it will likely do it in

another instance if the occasion arises. That was the comparison I was

trying to draw.

I think if you follow that kind of argument along, Mr. Chairman, you

will see that the point of order, I would submit, by the Minister of

Finance is not well founded at all. But I still make that case, that

it's a meaningless bit of huffery and puffery the Minister of Finance

in a very unctuous way put forward to say, "We respect confidentiality

of citizens' records in this land," when he knows very well, because

he's in the same cabinet as the Attorney-General is, that that

confidence question was violated, ripped apart either with or without

the acquiescence of the current ombudsman. Action of that nature is

obviously, I think, designed — because this is the second and third

attempt to do it — to destroy the office of the ombudsman because the

government doesn't want it around.

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

section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, but I just put forward that contention to

you, that a government that will break the law once will break it

again, and there's the government over there.

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

section which is

[ Page 7068 ]

quite specific dealing first of all with the

Corporation Capital Tax Act and that's all; secondly, dealing with the

Ministry of Finance. The operative verb there is "disclose," and that

is really the specifics of the

section before us.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in what the

minister said when he rose on the point of order, that this

section

deals only with documents — that the Minister of Finance only has

responsibility for the confidentiality of documents when they are under

the control of the Ministry of Finance.

My question for the minister is: does he still have responsibility

for documents once having disposed of them under contract and by sale?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that seeks a legal opinion

which I will not and cannot provide. I am not legally trained. I would

point out that there is another statute which deals with document

disposal, and there is indeed a process of signoff in all ministries.

It has existed for a good number of years. Finally the material is

signed off by the public accounts committee.

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

section of this bill.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister says that he can't give me an

answer because it would be a legal opinion. Why then, if he's not sure

whether he has jurisdiction, was he able to rush in and remove

documents that he had already sold? If he doesn't have control over

them, then why did he do it? Under what authority did he do that? If he

did have then, it's strange that if he knew that then, he doesn't know

it now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, again I'll state that this

section is quite specific, and it does say that disclosure is not

permitted, with four exceptions. That's specifically the gist of this

section, and I think we should confine our debate to that. As the

minister has indicated, there is another statute that governs what the

member has been questioning. If we could retain our remarks to

section

1 and its specifics, the committee would be well served.

[3:15]

MR. MacWILLIAM: Under

section 1, there is a portion of that

section which, of course, deals with confidentiality of the

information. It says very clearly: "A person who has custody of or

control over information or records under this act shall not disclose

the information or records to any other persons except" as is outlined

in the following conditions. I think it points very clearly to the

conditions described, ensuring the confidentiality of that material.

When the ministry takes on the responsibility and, in fact, the

moral obligation to ensure such confidentiality of information, the

ministry must assume responsibility to maintain that control over that

material until the material has in fact been destroyed. The minister

has said that there's a procedure for signoff, but surely any minister

who is responsible for ensuring confidentiality of information would

not be prone to sign off material if he didn't know that that material

was to be destroyed immediately, and that its confidentiality would be

ensured. If the minister is saying that he does sign off material

without knowing its whereabouts or knowing about the ultimate demise of

that material, then he's breaching this regulation of confidentiality.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member may then wish to bring forward a

motion at an appropriate time which could be dealt with. We are dealing

here with a key word, and that is "disclose." The member for Okanagan

North (Mr. MacWilliam) was not, perhaps, in the committee when I

answered earlier, but I recall clearly that yesterday when we were

dealing with this in second reading debate I indicated, in response to

the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — who is not in his seat at the

moment — that from time to time inquiries are made of individuals in

the Ministry of Finance regarding tax information which is not theirs.

That really is what this

section is about, in spite of the

excitement of yesterday. With the exceptions of those which are spelled

out clearly in the section, no one shall disclose information relative

to a number of tax statutes. We are seeking in this

section only to

make that far more precise, and also to ensure that when an inquiry

comes from whatever source — from a member of this House, a

professional, an individual, an aggrieved person or someone who would

like information from within the Ministry of Finance on tax matters —

with, again, the exceptions that are spelled out, that is not permitted

to happen. We are not, in the section, dealing with disposal of

documents. We are dealing with disclosure, sir.

MR. BLENCOE: The minister makes some good points about

disclosure, but I have some questions for him in terms of the whole

question of accidental disclosure and information that relates to

corporation capital tax information. I'm going to ask the minister how

he prevents accidental disclosure in terms of this material sitting in

government buildings, when it's completed or not used or not required

anymore. Could the minister tell us what mechanisms he has in place to

prevent accidental disclosure in government buildings? What is done

with this information? Where is it stored, particularly if it's highly

confidential? What mechanisms has he in place to prevent accidental

disclosure of sensitive material?

HON. MR. CURTIS: The question is somewhat hypothetical. The

section reads, "A public official who has custody of or control over

taxpayer information or records under this Act shall not disclose the

information or records," except in four restricted circumstances. These

circumstances are then spelled out.

MR. BLENCOE: Can the minister outline for us, or is the

minister not aware of, how accidental disclosure can happen in the

province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the second member for

Victoria, I respectfully suggest that that matter is not before the

committee in

section 1 of Bill 45. There were no questions asked of me

in question period. I welcome questions at the next opportunity on that

subject.

Section 1 approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, if you will look at our Orders of

the Day, there is an amendment standing in the name of the minister on

section 2. It's a common amendment

[ Page 7069 ]

that is in

section 2,

section 13,

section 16,

section 18 and

section 26. If it is your wish, we could pass the

amendments now at one time and then deal with the sections as amended

as they come. If it's not, then we'll just do them one at a time.

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

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One at a time.

section 2.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 2 as amended approved.

Sections 3 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 13 as amended approved.

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 16.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 16 as amended approved.

Section 17 approved.

section 18.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 18 as amended approved.

Sections 19 to 25 inclusive approved.

section 26.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

section 26.

Amendment approved.

Section 26 as amended approved.

section 4.

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

Shall the amendment to

section 4 pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved.

section 7.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

section 11.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 11 as amended approved.

section 20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to

section 20 pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 20 as amended approved.

section 23.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment to

section 23 pass?

Amendment approved.

Section 23 as amended approved.

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

[ Page 7070 ]

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

Amendment approved.

Section 28 as amended approved.

Section 29 approved.

Title approved.

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 45, Finance Statutes Amendment Act, 1985, reported complete

with amendments to be considered at the next sitting of the House after

today.

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

CAPITAL EXPENDITURES

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1985

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

section 1.

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

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

MR. ROSE: I've got it here. It gives the Crown permission to

borrow money if there is an emergency in the colleges and institutes. I

would agree that they should proceed with it right away, because

there's lots of emergencies in the colleges and institutes. These

colleges are underfunded to the extent that the classes are

overcrowded, courses have been cut, they've been abolished, fees have

been raised to the extent where the quality is suffering.

We don't hear from the colleges very often — at least we don't hear

from the college boards — because Bill 19 and Bill 20 of 1983 fixed it

up to the extent that all the board members were appointed: good,

loyal, silent, malleable Socreds. So while we've heard all the horror

stories from the school system because of the cutbacks, we've heard

very little from the colleges. So this is a perfect example where I

think the underfunded colleges need these emergency funds. I would urge

the minister to proceed with the borrowing for these funds.

We have in British Columbia the lowest participation rate in the

whole of Canada, except for Newfoundland, in terms of kids going on to

post-secondary education, and that is disgraceful. What is that going

to mean? Mountains of unemployed people lacking skill, and then when

the recovery does prevail, when we get rid of this government that

seeks mainly to do everything it can to create food banks and higher

unemployment, then we'll at least find at that point we have a

deskilled generation, a forgotten generation, a gone generation, to the

extent where the jobs that required skills that we refuse to give these

kids will be filled by young Canadians and Americans and foreigners

from other jurisdictions.

So I suggest that the minister should be given full speed ahead, all

kinds of encouragement to proceed with borrowing certain money for the

emergencies that our schools and colleges and universities are in right

now, instead of sitting passively by and diverting millions of dollars

out of federal revenue every year, out of the post-secondary system,

out of the high school system, if you're counting grade 12, and put it

back in there, because there is definitely an emergency existing. I

don't think British Columbians should tolerate that any longer.

So let them go ahead. I think he should do this. There is an

emergency. It's existing and growing, and I think that it's

unacceptable, and it's outrageous. So I wish him godspeed on this

amendment.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman,

section 1 simply ensures that

there is no retroactivity with respect to outstanding debt obligations.

The changes in the legislation, should it pass, do not affect any

outstanding, existing debt. It is simply to avoid retroactivity.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

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

section 2 speech he gave.

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

MS. BROWN: So

section 2 has to do with funding for colleges and institutes?

Now as you know, Mr. Chairman, part of the impact of the restraint

program on colleges and institutes has been that they have been forced

to eliminate a number of programs which were very important to women in

terms of dealing with getting out of the poverty cycle that they were

in, or upgrading, developing skills so that they could enter into the

job market at a higher level and be better able to take care of

themselves.

As a matter of fact, a number of women who were on income assistance

or on welfare, which is the old-fashioned word that we often use, use

the college system....

[3:30]

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, this bill

does not deal with programs in colleges and institutes. It deals with

capital expenditures and not programs.

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

[ Page 7071 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order made by the minister is

absolutely correct. This is a capital expenditures bill, and

section 2

deals with emergency capital expenditures and not with programs, which

would be another ministry.

MS. BROWN: What we find, though, is that with the emergency

in the college.... I don't know about the institutes as much, but

certainly in the colleges you can't separate them, because the

emergency in terms of funding impacts on everything in the college

area. If there is a piece of legislation which is going to release

funding for the colleges, then by all means we are going to support

that piece of legislation. Does the minister feel better about it

knowing that I am speaking in support of the amendment? You still don't

feel better about it.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Section 2 has two purposes. The first one is

designed to speed the approval process with respect to a physical

emergency in a plant, a building, a college or an institute. It

provides authority for the minister — in that case, the minister

responsible for colleges and institutes — to approve emergency

expenditures without getting the approval of the Minister of Finance.

That's the first part. That could be a damaged roof, a boiler — any

number of aspects of a physical structure — and it is designed to speed

up the approval back to the institute. It deals with capital, not with

operating matters.

That really is the extent of

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

MR. ROSE: The minister talked about broken water pipes and

leaky roofs and that sort of thing. Under this section, could the

Minister of Education theoretically agree that an emergency existed for

the lack of, say, adequate facilities, shelter? It's one thing to plug

a hole in a roof; it's quite another to say there is no roof but we

need one, there is no building, and proceed on that basis to authorize

a capital expenditure for the purposes of increased facilities of one

kind or another without reference to the Minister of Finance.

I guess my real question is, are there any limits to this, because

any money spent on capital.... If a college has an obligation to spend

certain kinds of funds, it has basically two ways in which to spend

them: on capital and on program. Money spent on capital may or may not

be used for program, but certainly if there is money spent under this

legislation on capital, there might theoretically be a little bit more

left over for program. We're starving the program side of it at the

moment. Even though the budget was frozen last year, there was still a

$12 million slush fund in the college budget. So the minister could

reward and punish at will, for good or bad service of one kind or

another. I wonder if the Minister of Finance could answer that query.

MR. HOWARD: That's a legal opinion.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can assist the

member in this respect. I think "emergency" is used in this

section in

the usual sense. On a number of occasions we have had to authorize,

through Treasury Board and the Ministry of Finance, the release of

emergency funds for a damaged roof, a fire, some structural difficulty.

Emergency in that sense — and I think that really is what is intended

by emergency here.

Sections 2 to 12 inclusive approved.

section 13.

MR. STUPICH: I get confused by these things, but as I read

section 13, it's a fairly significant amendment to

section 18 of the

act. It spells out the conditions under which payments may be made

without the authority of an appropriation. Money loaned as well as

expended without legislative appropriation is, I believe, the way this

section works. Is that the intent of the minister? Is that the way he

reads this

section — it's to enable him to loan as well as to spend

without appropriation by the Legislature?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Sections 13 through 20 are clarification

rather than a major change in policy, and

section 13 refers to

appropriation for money loaned under

section 36 — as we anticipate it

will be amended.

MR. STUPICH: Maybe it was that last pause. I might have

missed something there. Previously it has been expended money; now it's

money loaned. I think the minister said this will make more sense when

we get to

section 36.

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

MR. STUPICH: So when the minister says it's really nothing

more than clarification, is he saying that he had the authority before

to lend money without appropriation?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, it also takes us back, I

think, to the answers I gave in closing second reading debate

yesterday, with respect to a variety of approvals for capital projects

in progress. If the member for Nanaimo would care to look at

section 36

of the bill, I think he will see that which would occur in this

particular context.

Section 13 approved.

section 14.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'm probably going to get a

similar answer, but in this instance

section 36 currently requires that

the minister may invest in certain instruments, confined to what are

called safe investment items enumerated under the act. This expansion

allows the minister to make loans to anyone, provided the loans are

secured in some fashion, by the safe investment portfolio. So it's not

just simply investing in what are listed in safe investments; it's now

going beyond that, I think, to the point that if one of these safe

investment entities borrows the money and assures the minister that

it's okay, then he has.... It's a wider authority, it would seem to me,

to expend or loan the Crown's money.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Nanaimo.

There is a broadening here of the sources from which money may be

loaned. I agree essentially with the member's

interpretation of this

particular section. This empowers the Minister of Finance to lend money

from the consolidated revenue fund, trust funds and, subject to the

[ Page 7072 ]

bringing into force of

section 36(9), pooled

investment portfolios, providing such loans are secured by anything

authorized as an investment under 36. To expand on that, authorized

investments under

section 36 include government guaranteed securities,

short-term commercial paper — we do indeed have a short-term commercial

paper program, as the member knows — issued or guaranteed by a savings

institution, or certain secure commercial paper and investments allowed

under

section 15 of the Trustee Act. Therefore it is a broadening of

the source of funds for these purposes.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I agree we do have short-term

commercial paper that has not raised any new money for some years —

it's simply rolling it over every time there is a new one.

Section 14 approved.

section 15.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, this is similar to the previous

one in that it does away with the need for the issue and sale of

securities that the minister referred to, I think, in

section 14. But

beyond that it occurs to me that there is a requirement currently that

orders-in-council authorizing the borrowing of money from foreign

sources are required to include the Canadian equivalent. As I read the

change, we will no longer have that information made public, when money

is borrowed from foreign sources.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, the existing provision in the

act being amended requires the order-in-council which authorizes a

borrowing to state the maximum amount that may be borrowed in Canadian

dollar terms. The member is correct: the amendment eliminates the

requirement for the amount to be stated in Canadian dollars, because

should the borrowing be in a foreign currency, then a fluctuation in

the exchange rate could create a shortfall in the authorized amount.

This problem will not arise under this amendment, because the currency

of the authorization will be the same as the currency of the borrowing.

If we are authorized to borrow to a stated maximum amount, the currency

dealt with in the authorization will be the same as the currency stated

in the borrowing. This amendment is consistent with

section 45, Mr.

Chairman. So we're dealing with apples and apples in the reporting of a

borrowing, should there be one in a foreign currency.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, I appreciate the minister's explanation,

Mr. Chairman, but I wonder: will we then have somewhere in a report of

some kind — in an annual report perhaps — the information as to just

exactly how we stand debt-wise in terms of Canadian dollar apples? Will

that be included in the report of the financing authority, or...?

HON. MR. CURTIS: In Canadian apples, Mr. Chairman, yes....

I'm looking back through the comments that were made at the time of

second reading, where there is indeed the requirement for a report to

the Legislature of what has been borrowed and where.

[3:45]

MR. HOWARD: Just a thought of caution, I suppose, which may

not be needed. But we have found in the past that we've gotten

ourselves into difficulty in borrowings in foreign markets. I believe

it was the last budget presented by Mr. Wolfe when he was Minister of

Finance — the predecessor of the current holder of that office — who

mentioned in his budget how pleased he was that B.C. Hydro was able to

borrow in the U.S. market a certain amount of money at a certain

interest rate. As I recall it, the interest rate was comparable to what

we could have acquired in Canada, in any event; but there was gloating

about borrowing U.S. funds. As the exchange rate, over the years, has

moved in the direction to place the Canadian dollar at a discount to

the American dollar, we find that basically what might have been a

reasonable interest rate at one time has become an inordinately high

interest rate because we're paying that interest in more expensive

dollars. In other words, the rough calculation in my head would say

that if the bond had a coupon of 10 percent and the Canadian and U.S.

dollar were at par, now that there's a 25 percent discount we would be

paying an effective 12.5 percent interest rate, or paying more money

out; in other words, more Canadian dollars out to service that debt. So

a fluctuation of international currencies vis-a-vis the Canadian dollar

can put us in a very awkward position, and it can work the other way as

well. It can work both ways, admittedly. But it's a question of caution

on that.

The other thing that I'm terribly concerned about, if there's an

excessive move in the direction of borrowing foreign currencies, is

that while the borrowing may bring into the country — I'm talking about

balance of payments now — or into the province a stated amount of money

at a given time, that has to go back out again many times over,

depending on the coupon rate and the term of the borrowing. What does a

10 percent rate compounded, say, for...? Is it six or seven years? I

believe it equals the amount of the original capital. In other words,

you can double your money in six or seven years at 10 percent

compounded rate. So if we are paying out a coupon rate of 10 percent on

a borrowing that might be of a 20-year nature, we're paying that 10

percent out each and every year, forgetting any redemptions that may

come along in the meantime. So while money may come in that will assist

the balance of payments question, we've got to put that money back out

again — and that balances that fact — but we are losing on the balance

of payments side. We're running a deficit position every time we pay

interest to foreign countries; there's a disadvantage to British

Columbia on that one. So it's a matter of being, I would think,

extremely careful and cautious about going in the direction of

borrowing in foreign markets.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With respect to the

section before us, I

accept the member for Skeena's caution. We have not been borrowing in

foreign currencies for some time. Your colleague the member for Nanaimo

(Mr. Stupich) and I touched on that in second reading debate yesterday.

As a matter of policy, for so long as I have held the portfolio we've

not borrowed in other than Canadian or U.S. dollars. Now I hear what

the member says about U.S. dollars. But it is a matter of record that a

number of provinces, for reasons which they considered appropriate at

the time, have borrowed in Swiss francs, in yen, in sterling. It is not

in here.

I don't think that any government would want to be restricted from

the opportunity to borrow in foreign currency, but as a matter of

policy, insofar as I'm concerned, for capital purposes, which is this

bill, we're borrowing in Canadian dollars. There may come a time when

it is appropriate to

[ Page

7073 ]

again borrow in U.S. But I take the member's

caution; it's good advice; and it's advice which in fact has been

followed for a number of years by this government.

Section 15 approved.

section 16.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, again I say, with some caution,

everything I speak on in these sections.... As I read

section 16, it

gives the cabinet the authority to expand the definition of government

bodies — as to just exactly what a government body is — that can by

cabinet decision be added to the list, perhaps even deleted from the

list. I'm not sure whether they have in mind creating more government

bodies that will be borrowing instruments, or what. But it does seem to

give the cabinet that authority.

It concerns me a little more that it would seem to remove the

requirement that the rate of interest be made public — the form of the

This is all information that formerly was available to us, so that we

would know exactly where we stood, order-in-council by

order-in-council. It would seem now that that information just will not

be available until some later date when it's history rather than

current news.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, authorizations for loans to

government bodies are defined under existing statute. We're not trying

to broaden those. Government bodies or entities have to obtain them

individually, and this, as I attempted to explain yesterday in second

reading, is administratively impractical when a large number of

government bodies as defined under the Financial Administration Act —

such as school districts, but they could be colleges and institutes and

Crown corporations, including the smaller Crown corporations — are

going to share in an amount which is borrowed by the government to be —

I don't like the phrase, but the phrase in the business, as I

understand it, is "off-loaned" — passed on, if you want a better

phrase, to those particular institutions or Crown corporations. To

overcome this, the amendment would permit the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to authorize a loan not only to a

specific or named government body but also to a class of government

bodies. It will be after the fact, but the reporting as to the

disbursement of the money borrowed will be made available to this

Legislature and to the public. But it permits the pooling and then the

disbursement.

MR. STUPICH: I thank the minister, but he didn't respond to

the second part of the question, and that is that we will not have the

interest rates, the terms of the loans or repayment provisions and all

of that information with respect to that borrowing. Is that correct? We

may have it later on, as I say, when it's history rather than current

news.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the member feels that we are

deficient in that regard, I would certainly welcome a conversation with him

about it in order that we can more adequately and accurately disclose that information.

What would really occur here, though, is that if $75 million were borrowed for

capital purposes, $5 million would go to post-secondary education institutes,

$3 million might go to UBC....

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, that is usually disclosed at the time

— by press release, I admit. But to my almost certain knowledge it's

disclosed when the order-in-council deals with that particular

borrowing.

If the member has suggestions on ways in which we can elaborate upon

the terms, the borrowing and the rate and so on, I would be happy to

consider that. I recall sitting on that side a few years ago,

attempting to find out the country of origin of a borrowing, never mind

the rate. That member was not the Minister of Finance at the time, but

it matters not. We later learned. But there was apparently a

restriction upon the government of the day, in undertaking the

borrowing, not to disclose. So it wasn't an unwillingness on the part

of the government of the day, but it was one of the conditions of the

borrowing.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that indeed was the case. The

member may or may not be aware that the information as to the source

was offered to the Leader of the Opposition in confidence, which is the

way it had to be at the time. The offer was not accepted, but it was

offered by the then Minister of Finance.

But the minister has said that this is usually made available, and I

think he'd go even further and say it has always been made available in

the order-in-council when the borrowing was done. My concern is that

this changes it so that the minister will no longer be required to give

us that kind of information at the time, using the example he used,

that the $75 million is borrowed. We don't really care about the little

bits and pieces that make up the $75 million. What we want is some

assurance that when the $75 million is borrowed, wherever it goes after

that, we know all the terms of that $75 million borrowing.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I hear the member and invite

him.... If he wishes, we can discuss this. While this is essentially

designed for streamlining, no reporting or accountability functions are

abandoned by this amendment. Transactions are reported to the

Provincial Secretary, and full disclosure is provided to the Provincial

Secretary, then to public accounts. The member is speaking of the more

immediate reporting and I would be happy to review that with him.

Section 16 approved.

section 17.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it would appear to me as though

the cabinet may actually control borrowing by government bodies to the

extent that the government could announce that Nanaimo School District

is going to borrow x million dollars to build a new high school, even

before it had occurred to the Nanaimo School District to ask for that x

million dollar borrowing to build that high school. The government

apparently has the authority to announce this kind of borrowing on

behalf of government bodies in advance of the government bodies

themselves asking individually. I read it that way. I'm just wondering

and wanting clarification.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The provision, as it presently stands, is

not clear, and this is one of the amendments that I certainly believe

is quite important. The amendment would

[ Page 7074 ]

clarify that when borrowing from the Canada Pension

Plan, the government may borrow for the purpose of off-lending. It says

to the Canada Pension Plan, "Yes, we will take x millions this

particular month," without first having received a request for a loan

from a government body. That is the point. But that money then may go

to that government body. But it does not mean that we would suddenly

say: "Surprise, Nanaimo School Board" — to use your example — "you are

going to build a new school whether you want it or not." But we may

borrow that money — and reinvest it, indeed — knowing that there is

going to come a request from the Nanaimo School Board or a Crown

corporation.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

So it simply clarifies our accessing Canada Pension Plan money,

knowing that at some point in the relatively near term there will be a

request for a portion of that money.

Sections 17 through 32 inclusive approved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 33?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I was simply expressing the

not-too-silent wish that you might slow down a little in order that I

can follow the sections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine.

Sections 33 to 40 inclusive approved.

section 41.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On

section 41, I believe it has been

reviewed that the wording of the

section makes it somewhat difficult to

follow normal committee procedure with respect to the review of the

subsequent sections listed under the amendments. There are also on the

order paper some amendments to some of the sections which are contained

in the reference following "substituted."

Would it be possible for the committee to consider

section 41, but

in a slightly different manner than printed, but I don't think in

violation of the intent? That would be perhaps to deal with the

sections 214 to 223 in their repeal and substitution individually

rather than collectively.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In terms of the question, by all means. We have

done this before where we have complex subsections. That can be done

here quite easily.

[4:00]

MR. HOWARD: I was going to raise the same point not only with respect

to this particular bill before us but also with respect to another bill in which

there is a

section that encompasses dozens and dozens of other things. In addition

to the chamber agreeing that we proceed as outlined or advanced by the Minister

of Health, I think we might take it upon ourselves to express thoughts to legislative

counsel — is it legislative counsel that drafts these things? — that perhaps

it might be more appropriate to draft bills henceforth in a manner in which

they are segmented in a way that the Minister of Health has indicated. It would

make it much easier for members of the committee to be able to follow the proceedings,

particularly to deal with amendments. Maybe if we could incorporate that kind

of thought in what we're saying as well, and perhaps unofficially the Chair

might transmit that request or that information to legislative counsel and say

we'd prefer to have it the old-fashioned way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. I thank both the House Leaders for

their comments. We'll proceed in an orderly manner and discuss each

subject as it comes up. With respect to your comments, Mr. House Leader

for the opposition, I share that, particularly on the other bill that

you are referring to.

Now here we are. We have passed sections 39 to 40. In

section 41,

shall sections 214 to 223 be repealed? Shall that portion pass?

Repeal of sections 214 to 223 approved.

Proposed new

section 214 approved.

On proposed new

section 215.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 215 as amended approved.

Proposed new

section 216 approved.

On proposed new

section 217.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 217 as amended approved.

On proposed new

section 218.

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

Amendment approved.

Proposed new

section 218 as amended approved.

Sections 42 to 49 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 54, Capital Expenditures Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1985,

reported complete with amendments to be considered at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[ Page

7075 ]

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

MOTOR FUEL TAX ACT

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

Sections 1 to 70 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

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

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

COQUIHALLA HIGHWAY

CONSTRUCTION ACCELERATION ACT

(continued)

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

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

section 3.

MR. GABELMANN: I have a few questions for the minister. My

first question is: does he anticipate that $375 million will be

sufficient to complete construction from Hope to Kamloops?

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

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister whether

or not his ministry has made communications with either or both the

Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance with respect to securing

approval for additional expenditures beyond those anticipated before

later this year?

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

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

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

MR. GABELMANN: Has the ministry, or the minister, made any communications

with the Treasury Board and/or the Minister or Ministry of Finance with respect

to securing approval for anticipated expenditures beyond those already allocated

by either this Legislature or Treasury Board?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, if I understand the question,

you're referring to phase 1 and phase 2. We haven't made any additional

requests to them. First of all, I believe $281 million was provided for

in the current budget, in relation to phase 1 and phase 2. We don't

anticipate that it will require more, if that answers your question, in

the fiscal year 1985-86.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, if I understood the minister

correctly just now, he said that he anticipates that the budget

required for phase 1 and 2 in 1985-86 is $281 million — if I heard

correctly — and he confirms that, Mr. Chairman.

He said in the Legislature yesterday that $250 million to $260

million has already been spent on the Hope-Merritt section, and another

$7 million on the Merritt to Kamloops

section in preliminary work,

bringing the total to somewhere between $257 million and $267 million

already spent. The budget in 1985-86, according to the minister a

moment ago, is $281 million. Taking the lower figure, if my quick

arithmetic is correct, we're looking at $24 million remaining in this

fiscal year that's been budgeted for the continued construction between

now and March 31. Am I correct?

HON. A. FRASER: That's either spent or committed. In other

words, we award a contract and if the contractor hasn't completed, it

mightn't be actually spent but it's been either spent or committed by

contract.

[4:15]

MR. GABELMANN: I want to go through this slowly, just so we

don't get off track. Am I to understand from the minister's answer that

the $250 million to $260 million plus the $7 million that he talked

about yesterday in the House may not yet have been spent, but may

include money that is committed in contracts that are now let? Is that

my understanding?

HON. A. FRASER: Yes, I think you are correct there, sir; the

money mightn't be spent but it is committed by a legal contract with

various contractors, and of course they are at work.

MR. GABELMANN: Let me go back, then, to the question that I

didn't pursue earlier: that is, had any discussions been held between

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and Treasury Board, or the

Ministry of Finance, with respect to the need to secure at a later

date, by special warrant, some additional moneys, over $100 million

worth, in order to complete this phase, the Hope to Merritt phase, of

the Coquihalla Highway? Have any discussions been held between his

ministry and the Ministry of Finance or Treasury Board?

HON. A. FRASER: Well, there could well have been. I'm not

aware that.... We're getting a little confused here now, because we're

dealing with Treasury Board at the present time on matters for the new

fiscal year, but in this particular phase the figures that we're given

here seem to be that we'll be able to fall in line on this

section of

highway from Hope to Merritt and Merritt to Kamloops.

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

[ Page 7076 ]

very carefully before he tells me that there is no

communication by letter between his ministry and the Treasury Board

concerning the need for additional moneys to complete the Hope to

Kamloops — in effect — portion of this project.

Mr. Chairman, let me be more specific. Would the minister deny that

Treasury Board has given conditional approval for an expenditure

somewhat over $100 million beyond the original estimate for this

project?

HON. A. FRASER: To the

section of road from Hope to Merritt

and Merritt to Kamloops? No, I don't think that's correct. It might be

for other highway expenditure, but not on this section. The figures we

have there I believe to be correct, which we've dealt with here, for

this section.

MR. GABELMANN: So the minister is saying that the letter that

I am referring to, the approval that I am referring to — if it exists,

he would say.... I'm saying that he should tell us whether it does or

doesn't. But he's saying that if it exists, it exists for some other

purpose, some other activity of the Transportation and Highways

ministry, that it may be for some other road construction. Is it for

operating? Is it that you are taking money from other sections of the

ministry in order to pay for the overruns that are involved in this so

that you can keep this particular budget apparently within line? Just

what kind of juggling is going on? What is that approval related to

specifically?

HON. A. FRASER: It could well be if the letter exists for

additional funds, I think that your question under special warrant in

this fiscal year.... It could be for projects we've done other than

Hope to Merritt, Merritt to Kamloops, in the highways system generally.

MR. GABELMANN: Under

section 3 the government may borrow up

to $375 million for this project. Is the minister prepared to provide

the House, one way or another, or to provide to the opposition, the

precise numbers of dollars expended, contract by contract, to date on

the Coquihalla? Are all of those contracts and the dollar amounts, both

dollar amounts in the original contract and the excesses to those

amounts where they exist.... Is the minister prepared to give us, one

by one, a list of those dollars that have been contracted for, and also

a list including those dollars that have gone beyond the original

contracts, so that we can see whether it is $250 million or $260

million?

HON. A. FRASER: Work is still going on. I guess we have

figures probably up to the end of October, as an example, of contracts

completed, contracts awarded and contracts not completed.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, then if the figures are available up to

the end of October and clearly some of those contracts are still not completed

— many are completed — much of the work is completed and therefore there should

be an ability to give to us a list of the contracts, and beside each contract

the dollar amount of the contract and the amount extra if such an extra amount

was involved, up to the end of October. It may well be that on some of the latter

contracts we won't be able to know what the extras are, but we'll at

least know what the contract figure is. Can the minister provide us with a list

of those figures so that we can properly debate this section?

HON. A. FRASER: I suppose the figures are available, but I

say we can't give the figures if the work is still in progress, as an

example on about 15 bridges; I don't know how many millions the total

amounts to. The bridges are supposed to be finished, as an example, by

the end of November or in December, and of course we haven't got that

figure. But we have the original contracts that were awarded — the

figures.

MR. GABELMANN: Then, Mr. Chairman, may I ask him to give us

the list of the contracts that have been awarded and the amounts in

each case of the contract, and while he's doing that, to give us, in

those contracts that have been completed and all of the financial

dealings with the particular contractor that have been completed, the

extras that have been paid on those particular contracts. I'm not

concerned about the ones that are still continuing. Obviously we don't

know yet. We know what the contract figure is. So can't we have the

contract figure and those other figures that relate to the completed

contracts where there have been moneys expended beyond the contract

amount? Can we have that before we proceed?

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

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

MR. SKELLY: I'm still having some difficulty with statements

that the minister made yesterday, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday you'll recall

that the minister indicated that something like $260 million to $280

million had already been spent on this highway project.

AN HON. MEMBER: Estimated.

MR. SKELLY: I'm sorry; he estimated that that amount of money

had already been spent — that it had been authorized in the budget that

we passed earlier this year and that it was taken from consolidated

revenues.

If the minister has already spent this money and it was authorized

and paid out of consolidated revenue, my question is, why do we now

have to authorize the minister to borrow $375 million? Why do we not

authorize the minister under this bill to borrow the balance — the $110

million or so that he needs to complete the project, rather than giving

the minister carte blanche to borrow $375 million, which he clearly

does not need?

So can the minister tell me, was the money that he used on this

highway — the $260 million or so — borrowed? And if so, under what

authorization?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the money

was borrowed or not. It was supplied by the Treasury Board or the

government, and I'm not aware whether they had to borrow it or not. I

don't follow your question at all.

MR. SKELLY: But what we have to approve here today, Mr.

Chairman, is an authorization for the minister to borrow an additional

$375 million, and the minister said to us yesterday that he didn't need

it — that he'd already paid for a good part of this highway with the

money he got from consolidated

[ Page

7077 ]

revenue. So I'm wondering why we should be

approving the borrowing of an additional $375 million. Clearly it's not

going to be used to build the Coquihalla Highway. Obviously it's going

to be used for some other purpose. If that's the case, we really

shouldn't be approving it under this piece of legislation.

HON. A. FRASER: I'm not aware of the mechanics of that. As I

said yesterday, all this bill does is authorize the borrowing of $375

million. You're reading into that that they'll automatically borrow it,

and I'm not aware that that would happen. This authorizes it.

MR. SKELLY: Then why should we authorize you to borrow it?

That's my concern, Mr. Chairman. All he needs to finish the highway is

$110 million, roughly — correct? Because you've already spent $260

million to $280 million. All you need to complete the highway is $110

million. If so, why are you asking for authority to borrow $375

million? That doesn't make sense, and we shouldn't be giving you that

kind of carte blanche in this Legislature to borrow money on the

public's credit rating. We should be here acting responsibly; we should

be borrowing the minimum amount that's required to complete this

highway project. Instead, you're asking us to borrow $275 million more

than you need.

I think it would be the responsible thing, Mr. Chairman, for the

minister to come in with an amendment to this

section that empowers him

or the government to borrow what he needs to finish the highway

project. That way, this Legislature and that government can act

responsibly in this issue.

I'm calling on the minister to consider an amendment to this

section, so that he or the government only borrow on the credit rating

of the people of this province the amount that he requires to finish

this highway project.

HON. A. FRASER: On that subject, I think that's what the bill

says. We intend to spend $375 million on phase 1 and phase 2. This

would authorize the government to borrow that if required.

MR. SKELLY: I guess this is another area where the government

is asking us, on trust, to approve money after the fact. We're passing

legislation to authorize the government to build a highway that they've

almost finished. In addition, they want us to authorize the borrowing

of money that they've already spent. Somehow, Mr. Chairman, this can't

make much sense to you as a business person.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You want everything to stop.

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

MR. REID: You want everything to stop.

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

Everything has almost reached the point of completion, and when it's

finished I want it to stop, sure. But we've already paid for 90 percent

of this, or we've paid out $260 million. If we didn't have to borrow

that money, that's a good thing, because the province should be paying

its bills on a pay-as-you-go basis, right? Isn't that the Social Credit

philosophy? It's certainly our philosophy that you should be doing

things on a pay-as-you-go basis if you can do it. If you need to borrow

money for a project that's worthwhile, that creates construction jobs,

then by all means, borrow what you need.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this bill treats this Legislature

with a bit of contempt. It's asking us to authorize a highway

construction project that's almost complete, and it's asking us to

borrow money that the government doesn't need. I think that that's

treating the Legislature with contempt.

I have a question for the minister. A bridge collapsed on this highway project

— one of the bridge construction projects collapsed, it's my understanding.

What amount of money was lost, or what increase in costs resulted from that

bridge collapse? How much did it cost to repair the damage?

[4:30]

HON. A. FRASER: Dealing with the bridge collapse, the total

bridge didn't collapse. Some girders collapsed, and they were replaced,

it is my understanding, by the contractor at no cost to the provincial

government.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Mr. Chairman, I guess there's still a lot of

questioning in terms of how much has actually been spent and how much

has been allocated. I certainly agree with my colleagues that it seems

to be a rather fruitless endeavour of this Legislature, rather silly

indeed, to okay the loaning of $375 million when, in fact, that loan is

no longer necessary. I would like to ask the minister, just to confirm

it in my own mind, exactly how much money has actually been spent. You

might have gone over this earlier, and I apologize if I wasn't here to

hear it, but exactly how much has been spent and billed out? How much

remains committed to be spent?

Thirdly, in terms of dealing with these contracts, does the payout

of a contract await the completion of a project, or is there a payout

as the project...? For example, as it is 50 percent complete, is there

a 50 percent payout of that project, or does the ministry in fact wait

until the project is fully completed? Just how is the payout

schedule

arranged?

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, to the member for Okanagan

North, we'll use an arbitrary figure. First of all, all contracts are

awarded to low bidders. As an example, a low bidder gets a contract at

$10 million. He starts work, and we pay him on a progressive basis on

work accomplished every 30 days.

When I said yesterday that $260 million is probably spent, maybe I

should have said "committed." Maybe the figure actually paid out by the

government is $200 million. Most contractors are still at work until

they're completed. But we award the contracts and pay them every 30

days, and I am not aware of the status of all the contracts — where

they're at.

As an example, I believe that at the present time there are 18

bridges under construction and winding up probably in November or

December. Of course, that's why when I said we're committed by those

contracts to a total of $260 million, maybe on progress payment basis

in actual cash from the government they might have received $200

million.

Further, I believe the government holds back 10 percent on our

contracts after completion of the project for a period varying from six

to twelve months. We're talking about cash flow.

[ Page 7078 ]

MR. MacWILLIAM: So the minister is in fact confirming that

along with the 30-day payout

schedule that is applied towards work

contracted, certainly a minimum of $200 million has in fact been paid

out at this point, with the remainder of the work being allocated.

We're sitting here, and somehow the ministry has found $200 million

plus out of consolidated revenue or in various accounts — Lord knows

where it comes from — to actually pay out on the projects completed to

date.

At the same time, the minister comes to the House and requests us as

members of this House and as members responsible for controlling the

finances of this province to release $375 million to pay out on a

project that is already partially paid for.

I would like to reiterate the suggestion of the Leader of the

Opposition that perhaps the minister should be coming back with an

amendment to this bill requesting the approval of expenditures for that

portion of the cost that remains as yet unpaid for — I guess somewhere

around $150 million or something, but certainly not the $375 million.

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

MR. GABELMANN: I want to come back to the earlier discussion

that the minister and I were involved in. If you look at the quarterly

financial report effective September 30, and you look at the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways, you note that in the first six months

of the year, the ministry spent $250 million — spent, not allocated;

paid out — more than it did in the same period in 1984.

When you look at the ministry budget, the only significant item — I

shouldn't say the only significant one, there are others — but the

major item of expenditure that is different in 1985 than in 1984 is

this Coquihalla. Other projects are going on; we all know about them.

Many of them had been going on in 1984 as well.

We're looking at an expenditure of $250 million more spent by

September 30. The minister says that $260 million or so has been

committed as of today, November 21. I don't want to say to the minister

that he came to the House with the wrong figures yesterday, but I'm led

to that conclusion. That's why I am interested in having the minister,

before we conclude this debate on

section 3, give us the information

available in the ministry as to the dollar amount of the contracts that

have been let to date on phases 1 and 2; also, as I said before, in

those completed contracts, the extra number of dollars that have had to

be expended. Why can't we have a list of those just to see where we're

at on this project?

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

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

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Chairman, I didn't watch every minute, but

I didn't notice the minister send a note to his ministry to get those

figures for us. Will he do so?

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

MR. GABELMANN: I would therefore suggest that we cannot

continue this debate until we get those figures, and would move that

the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

Macdonald

Dailly

Cocke

Howard

Skelly

Stupich

Nicolson

Gabelmann

Williams

D'Arcy

Brown

Hanson

Rose

MacWilliam

Wallace

Mitchell

Blencoe

NAYS — 26

Brummet

Rogers

Segarty

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Pelton

Passarell

Michael

Johnston

Kempf

R. Fraser

Chabot

Nielsen

Gardom

Smith

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

A. Fraser

Schroeder

Reid

Strachan

Veitch

Reynolds

section 3.

[4:45]

MR. GABELMANN: Well, Mr. Chairman, it seems pretty obvious

that the Minister of Transportation and Highways is not prepared to

give this House any information from his ministry to substantiate the

claim that only $260 million or so has been expended to date. In fact,

considerably more money than that has been expended. The facts are that

phase 1 and phase 2 will not cost $375 million or thereabouts, but

approximately $500 million. Those are the facts that the minister is

not prepared to share with this House. He could prove me wrong simply

by coming in with the figures; we could extrapolate from that and know

approximately what kind of costs are involved.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The reason the government isn't going around this province waving

this bill as a great political act.... It was brought in in the first

place purely for politics, because we passed the appropriation in the

estimates earlier this year during the budget debate. The reason

they're not going around talking about this great bill and the

Coquihalla is because instead of $375 million, phases 1 and 2 are going

to cost approximately $500 million, and discussions have already been

held between the ministry and the Treasury Board to ensure that the

additional funds to cover that expenditure will be available. The

Treasury Board has assured the ministry that those moneys will indeed

be made available — a $500 million project, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SKELLY: That's a serious charge, Mr. Chairman. The

minister has indicated that the highway will cost $375 million, and a

member has charged that the highway will actually cost $500 million —

phases 1 and 2. Surely the minister should respond to a charge that the

project has overrun its budget by $130 million or so in this year alone.

[ Page 7079 ]

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

MR. MacWILLIAM: Well, to be at odds with my colleagues here,

I'd like to correct some figures. The minister has in fact told this

House just a few minutes ago that he has spent $200 million on the

project. He is also requesting from the House a sum of $375 million for

the completion of this project. Now unless the math has changed since I

was involved in the education field, if you add those two figures up,

that comes to $575 million. I believe my colleague here challenged the

minister that he was in fact expending $500 million. I would like to

challenge the minister and say that his figures in fact add up to a

total cost for the highway of almost $600 million — $575 million if you

simply add those figures up. That seems to be what we're dealing with

here, and I offer the minister an opportunity to reply and rebut those

figures.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that we

had this debate, the minister was answering, and everything was going

along fine. He was a little bit fuzzy and a little bit hazy. We had a

division. The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) came in here and

walked directly over to the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

Don't forget that the Minister of Finance is the president of the

Treasury Board. They had a nice little discussion, and ever since then

the Minister of Transportation and Highways has sat in his chair. I

suspect that what happened was that the Minister of Finance said:

"Look, don't embarrass us by answering any questions. Just sit there,

like I do." I'm talking about the way the Minister of Finance just sits

there, mumbles, and then that's the end of it.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we return to the section?

MR. COCKE: That's precisely where I am, Mr. Chairman. I'm on

section 3 of Bill 2, and I'm describing exactly what happened in this

House around

section 3 of Bill 2. If that minister can deny it, let him

stand up and deny it. I watched him have two separate conversations in

rapid order. He wasn't asking the Minister of Finance what he's having

for dinner tonight, nor was the Minister of Finance asking him what

he's going to have for dinner or where he's going in the snow. The fact

of the matter is they were discussing

section 3 of Bill 2. I surmise

that that discussion was pretty deep and pretty hot for a moment or

two. Can he answer the questions that are being put forward?

Interjections.

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

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

HON. A. FRASER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't know where to

start or stop, there are so many figures being batted around here. But

the figure that we're talking about in the bill is $375 million. I have

always said that phases 1 and 2, Hope to Merritt and Merritt to

Kamloops, would be built for that amount.

I have used a lot of estimated figures to try to satisfy the

members' questions. As an example, $260 million is what I think

contracts have been awarded for so far. Of that $260 million, I would

estimate and guesstimate $200 million has actually been paid out to the

end of October. The member for Okanagan North (Mr. MacWilliam) took as

an example the $200 million and added on $375 million. You know, I

don't know how he ever got that: I don't know what college he came

from, but it doesn't add up.

What I'm saying is that it is estimated at this stage that $375

million will look after phases 1 and 2. The expensive one is phase 1,

which is coming close to completion. We've hardly started, as I told

you yesterday, on phase 2. It breaks down, in rough estimates, at $250

million for phase 1 and $125 million for phase 2. If it goes over the

$250 million on phase 1, it's anticipated that the global figure would

still be $375 million for completion of phase 1 and phase 2. I want to

emphasize that that's the area from Hope to Merritt and Merritt to

Kamloops.

MR. MacWILLIAM: Again, if in fact the total cost of this

construction project is $375 million, which the minister has repeatedly

said, and if in fact we've already spent $200 million, which again the

minister has repeatedly said, then all that remains to be in cost

unaccounted for and unexpended is $175 million. I have to ask this

House why we are going into a debt load and servicing a debt by

approving a loan for $375 million when we only need $175 million?

That's $200 million in excess. Where are you going to use it? What are

you going to do with that $200 million? Is it going to be used on the

Coquihalla or is it going to be used paving your way to the next

election?

Interjections.

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

section 3 pass.

Sections 3 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

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

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

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1985

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

Sections 1 to 19 inclusive approved.

[ Page 7080 ]

section 20.

[5:00]

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

Amendment approved.

section 20 as amended.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to ask the minister

why it includes psychologists and optometrists as professionals who

must report to the superintendent. Did he think in terms of other

medical practitioners that might be expected to do something similar?

There are other practitioners that may be very useful, such as public

health nurses and others.

HON. A. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I don't think I answered the

member's question properly, but the amendment, as outlined in Bill 60,

expands the reporting requirement for registered psychologists and

optometrists. This is being put in here because there was a drafting

error in the original bill. I don't think that answers the member's

question, but that's what it's here for. We want to add these people;

they were left out in a drafting error.

Section 20 as amended approved.

Section 21 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Ree in the chair.

Bill 60, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1985, reported

complete with amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the

House after today.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I move we go to public bills

in the hands of private members. I call Bill M202,

An Act to Regulate

Smoking in Public Places, in the hands of the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace).

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

MR. HOWARD: Although I do have an argument that it should not be the

prerogative of the government House Leader to call this particular class of

bills, public bills in the hands of private members, but that's what our

rules say.... But once having done that, I want to submit, then, that standing

order 27(1) prevails, which says: "All items standing on the orders of

the day, other than government orders" — and that's where we are now

— "shall be taken up according to the precedence assigned to each on the

order paper." The precedence assigned to each does not start with Bill

M202; it starts with Bill M201. I submit that's the one that should be dealt

with, and should be dealt with as they appear on the order paper, pursuant to

standing order 27.

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

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to rise, Mr. Speaker, to move second

reading of Bill M201, intituled Forestry for the Future Act, which if

passed and it came into existence, would start us on the road of

creating thousands of jobs in the silvicultural segment of the industry

in British Columbia. That's the purpose of it: to create jobs in

forestry.

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

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I would agree quite readily

with the hon. member for Skeena's (Mr. Howard'

s) observation that it is

not the prerogative of the government House Leader, absolutely, to call

a bill in order. However, when the House Leader believes that there is

agreement between both sides of the House that this is the area in

which we are supposed to proceed, then it is the Government Leader's

prerogative to call that bill in such order. But it definitely is not

the prerogative of the House Leader of the opposition party to call

whatever bill he wishes to order.

So, Mr. Speaker, if there is no agreement, if I have been given the

wrong information on agreement to move to Bill M202, as I had selected,

then I would ask leave that we move to Bill M202.

MR. HOWARD: I have two things. First, I didn't exercise any

prerogative to call Bill M201; that just happened to be the first one

on the order paper. I was following the instruction of Mr. Speaker in

so doing.

The chief government Whip nods across the floor to me that there was

an agreement that they would be called and dealt with in a different

order than appears on the order paper. I have no knowledge of that, and

if I am in error, then of course I have.... But my Whip gives me

different information. My Whip says that there was no agreement, that

we were handed a piece of paper that said here they are — the list as

they are going to be called. In any event, Mr. Speaker, if there was an

agreement — which I am advised by our Whip did not exist — then it was

incumbent upon the people who made the agreement to stand up and ask

for an order of the House to that effect, and ask for leave of the

House to proceed to operate at variance with standing order 27.

Otherwise standing order 27 must prevail.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I agree completely, and I was

going to respond to the comment made by the government House Leader,

which is that the government has called private members' bills.

Standing order 27 says they shall be called in precedence.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thirdly — just before I call for that, if it

is your wish — the Chair has no knowledge of other arrangements that

might have been made. The member for Skeena has a further point of

order?

[ Page 7081 ]

MR. HOWARD: No, but I want to submit to you that it is

difficult for the government House Leader to rise on a point of order

and then move a motion to do something. He did not obtain the floor for

that purpose. I have the floor and have moved the motion for second

reading of M201 and was proceeding to debate it. I think that is the

prevailing situation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is correct. Please proceed.

FORESTRY FOR THE FUTURE ACT

MR. HOWARD: So if I could continue, Mr. Speaker, to talk

about the creation of jobs in the forest industry in this province

under the proposal in the Forestry for the Future Act, Bill M201....

That is its intention and that is its desire. It's advanced as the

alternative to the government's ineptitude in dealing with forest land

management in this province.

The forest and range resource analysis report that was given to this

chamber in the spring of this year by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) clearly showed that the government had been woefully

negligent in managing the forest land in this province. It clearly

showed by statistic and chart and graph after graph and word after word

from within the Ministry of Forests that we were falling behind

drastically every month, every week and every day in managing the

forests of this province, that we were squandering the timber assets of

this province, assets which are only ours to use and to hold now, and

to preserve as well for future generations — we were destroying that.

The purpose of this bill very simply is to establish on a long-term,

committed basis a fund that would tackle the whole range of

silvicultural activities and forest land management activities, to

ensure that the public money we invest now will bring returns now in

the form of jobs for people to deal with the denuded forest land, and

returns in the future by providing long-term, committed jobs in

forestry as well as right now, and that the investment we make now will

bring returns in the future in the form of an asset called timber,

which will have a value to it and employ people in its cutting and the

processing, and which will result in the generation of cash flow to the

provincial treasury. Invest now, and reap the benefits now as well as

later. That's what this bill is all about.

In 1980 when the Minister of Forests announced in this Legislature

for the first time a departure from the ordinary annual budgetary

constrictions that are placed upon