1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1982

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

7503 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Forest Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 42). Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 7504

Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 40). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 7504

Transpo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 45). Hon. Mr. Hyndman.

Introduction and first reading –– 7504

Oral Questions

Closure of Mackenzie hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 7504

Advertisement for posting in Tourism ministry. Mr. Hall –– 7504

Vancouver ward system. Mr. Macdonald –– 7505

Cost of reports on hospital systems. Mr. Cocke –– 7505

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 15). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

section 2 as amended –– 7506

Mr. Barber

Division

section 4 as amended –– 7507

Division

section 5 –– 7507

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Barber

section 6 –– 7509

Mr. Barber

Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act (Bill 32). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7511

Mr. Barber –– 7511

Mr. Howard –– 7513

Mr. Mussallem –– 7514

Mrs. Wallace –– 7514

Mr. Leggatt –– 7516

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7517

Division –– 7518

System Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 18). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7518

Mr. Levi –– 7519

Mr. Cocke –– 7521

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7521

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7522

Mr. Stupich –– 7522

Mr. Cocke –– 7523

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 21). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7523

Mr. Stupich –– 7523

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7523

Ministerial statement re closure of Mackenzie hospital.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7523

Mr. Cocke –– 7524

Appendix –– 7525

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to advise

members that there are a number of senior citizens from Port Alberni

touring the parliament buildings. They represent the Echo Sunshine Club

in Port Alberni. I would ask all members to make those people welcome.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Visiting the Legislature today and seated in the gallery is the newly

appointed Consul-General of France in Vancouver, Mr. Marcel Ollivier.

Seated with him is the cultural attaché, Mr. Luc Zeller. I would ask

the House to welcome them.

MR. BARBER: In the

buildings today are Mayor Jim Tonn, the president of the Union of

British Columbia Municipalities, and Mr. Jeff McKelvey, the executive

director of that same organization. We just spent half an hour meeting

with them in caucus. I was glad they were there, and I'm glad they're

here. I would ask the House to join us in welcoming them to the

buildings.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: We have very special

guests in the gallery today: Mr. Henri Dane and his wife Christina,

from Nanaimo. I'd like to make the House aware that Mr. Dane is

director of the food services school at Malaspina College and chairman

of the board of the Canadian Federation of Chefs de Cuisine. Perhaps

even more important than that, Chef Dane has just been elected as Chef

of the Year for Canada; the 800 delegates to the national convention of

the Federation of Chefs de Cuisine at the Empress last week elected him

the best in the country.

I'm sure we're very proud of Mr.

Dane and of all our chefs. I would like the House to know, Mr. Speaker,

that he has many accomplishments and has achieved these since he came

here from his native Holland 30 years ago. Last year he was a member of

the Canadian team which placed third at the Culinary Olympics in

Frankfurt, Germany. Chef Dane also holds two other gold medals from the

national competitions in Holland in 1981 and in Israel in 1978. The

Chef of the Year award is given to the chef who is judged to have made

the most achievements in international culinary competitions; secondly,

the most in contributions to the chefs' association; thirdly, the most

in contributions to culinary education.

We indeed have a

most distinguished British Columbian and Canadian in the gallery today

with his wife. I would ask all members of the House to honour his

profession and to extend a very warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will continue to encourage members to make their introductions brief.

MR. BARRETT:

Having met Chef Dane before, I want to echo the welcome, but he still

has not answered the question I asked him before: does he cook at home?

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Two groups of school children are visiting today from Vancouver South.

They are from Sexsmith elementary school and Churchill Secondary

School. Would the House please make the students welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are the winners of the 1982

Premier's Athletic Award. These international-calibre athletes have

earned distinguished honour for their world-class performances. They

are the young men and women who represent British Columbia and Canada

in competition around the world. I'm sure we can expect to see some

medal-winning performances from their ranks, particularly at the

upcoming 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. Their pursuit of excellence is

something we can all take a great deal of pride in. It gives me great

pleasure to introduce them at this time. First, some members of our

national basketball team: Kelly Dukeshire of Victoria, Howard Kelsey of

Vancouver, Mike Jackel of North Vancouver, and Gerald Kazanowski of

Nanaimo.

We also have with us Hugh Fisher, a canoeist from

Burnaby, and rowers Bruce Ford of Victoria — who, incidentally, is

great-grandson of former Premier T.D. Pattullo and Pat Walter of

Chilliwack.

We also have Robert Cheyne, a marksman from Port

Moody, and — a name we are all familiar with — Debbie Brill, a

well-known track and field athlete from Burnaby.

Some of the

athletes are currently involved in competition. Andrea Schreiner, a

rower from Victoria, is competing back east. Accepting her award today

is one of her rowing colleagues, Carla Pace. Tricia Smith, a rower from

Vancouver, is competing in Italy. Her dad, Marshall Smith, is here on

her behalf.

I would like to advise members that these

athletes achieve international prominence and rank for teams of the

fifth or fourth rank or better for individual. They receive a

scholarship to assist them in their training so that they can continue

to represent our country internationally and bring us credit. With that

they also undertake an obligation to train others, and because of their

fine example coaches and other young people in this province aspire to

achieve the same excellence in the field of athletics. The award for

each of the recipients in achieving this international recognition is

$2,500 each, and it has gone a long way to assist them in their

training to continue their international competition. The much greater

gift they give is the training given to others in this province.

MR. SPEAKER:

That introduction went beyond the bounds of introduction. I would

accept it as a ministerial statement, and a reply is in order.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, it wasn't a reply in this instance. I just want to say

that along with the two individuals who have been recognized this

afternoon, an even younger generation — a group of students from Rock

City Elementary School — are in the precincts. I would ask the House to

bid them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, this is

undoubtedly a day of greatness in the galleries, but Dewdney will not

be outdone. We have in the galleries today a group of very bright

students from Pitt Meadows Secondary School. Their leaders are John

Wong, Diane Maxwell, Val Appleton and Yvonne Tingey. I wish the House

to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I know all members of the House will be pleased to hear of a

significant announcement that is to be made by the Brummet family

today. Our member for North Peace River has the great honour of being

the grandfather of the first granddaughter in

[ Page 7504 ]

the Brummet family. She arrived early this morning and will take her place with three grandsons.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I left out one very important name in the introductions. It is someone

from Duncan, and I'll get heck for this when I get home because my wife

was born in Duncan — representing basketball, Ken Larson.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

42 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.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

40 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.

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

a bill intituled Transpo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill

45 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

CLOSURE OF MACKENZIE HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE:

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

little town in the interior of British Columbia called Mackenzie. It's

120 miles north of Prince George. Will the minister confirm that the

cutbacks of his budget have created a situation wherein the hospital in

Mackenzie has been shut down and the people of Mackenzie are at risk?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

No, I can't confirm that. No one has advised me that the hospital in

Mackenzie has been shut down, but I'll have someone look into it right

away.

MR. COCKE: I would ask the minister whether,

when he's checking whether or not the hospital has been shut down, he

can also look into the fact that because of the shutting down of the

hospital the people in Mackenzie will have to either fly, drive, or

something, 120 miles to Prince George. In the wintertime that can be a

very tough and hazardous journey for a sick person.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is to ask questions and not to bring information to the House.

ADVERTISEMENT FOR POSTING

IN TOURISM MINISTRY

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). In January this year the

minister advertised for a public information officer. Part of the job

description was to read through the Blues of Hansard to bring

to the attention of the director and the minister comments made in the

Legislative Assembly about the minister. Can the minister confirm that

she is unable to read the Hansard Blues herself?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HALL:

I'll try a supplementary. This is from the province of British

Columbia's Public Service Commission postings. The advertisement calls

for a public information officer for the Ministry of Tourism. Among the

tasks required is the one I read out. The minister has no reply for

that. A second task for that public information officer is to develop

camaraderie among employees in the department. In view of the

revolving-door policy of employees in the minister's own office, could

she tell us what qualifications the public information officer will

have to have for that particular task.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

A comment has just been made about the Good Show pin. In response, I

would advise the members of the opposition that the industry is

extremely distressed about the foolish and derogatory remarks that have

been made by them, including the member for Victoria, about the Good

Show pin. Forty thousand people have been nominated for that pin. It's

the first time in history that a government has ever paid any attention

and offered credit to those who work in the front lines of the industry

of tourism — ordinary people, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to

the member's question, I was out of the province at the time. There is

a regular procedure which involves the placing of advertisements for

personnel within the staff. This was brought to my attention when I

came back and I asked our deputy minister if he would look into the

matter. I couldn't reconcile myself with the sort of job description

that was in the paper, which had been placed by the staff. I received a

report to say it had been in error; in fact, the ad had been withdrawn

and the position redesigned and reclassified. The member is once again

— I'm sure not wilfully on his own, but on behalf of the NDP — trying

to beg the issues of the day in responsible debate and to wallow in

smear and innuendo. Mr. Speaker, I don't have a revolving-door policy

in my office; I have an open-door policy, and I would advise members of

this House that those I have had the privilege to work with in my

office, some of whom have been with me as a team for over five years,

have all, when they moved ahead, gone on to better jobs and better

careers.

[ Page 7505 ]

answer the member's question.... I rather enjoy the frivolous giggles

of the opposition. They, of course, when they were government, made no

commitment to improve the lot of anyone. On this side of the House,

particularly because I am speaking for myself as minister, my

commitment to people who come into employ with the government, either

through my personal office as minister or through government service,

is to do everything I can within my power to see that they have a

responsible training, an opportunity to expand their knowledge and an

opportunity to go on to better jobs.

Once again we see these

frivolous giggles of an irresponsible opposition who should be dealing

with the issues of the day and with the success of tourism in British

Columbia in creating jobs and capital investment, and what's more, in

creating opportunities for careers for people. I am proud to be part of

it.

MR. HALL: My question is for the Provincial Secretary. Would the Provincial Secretary ask of his Hansard

Blues reader if that person would now take the previous speech and

answer by the Minister of Tourism and deliver it to the chairman of the

Public Service Commission so that he would know the kind of smear and

innuendo the Public Service Commission is dealing in by placing this

single advertisement in the January 6 edition of "Postings"?

VANCOUVER WARD SYSTEM

MR. MACDONALD:

To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: for 100 years the city of

Vancouver council has come to the Legislature for amendments to its

charter in a hearing before the private bills committee. Who petitioned

the minister to change that 100-year-old tradition in the matter of the

ward system?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a matter that will be a committee report that is upcoming?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, the mayor and members of council of Vancouver are

certainly welcome to come and visit me and make representation on any

number of issues, as they did. I didn't deal just with their views with

respect to the ward system; there were a number of issues covered in my

response to them. I'm sure that they would much prefer to receive a

response than no answer at all. They were given fairly good detail with

respect to their questions.

MR. MACDONALD: Obviously

the council of Vancouver didn't ask for these changes that the minister

has announced he's going to make. Who did ask for them? Was it the NPA?

Was it some friends or some Socreds in Vancouver? Who wiped out the

council decision and the results of the referendum with these

legislative proposals? Who prompted the minister? Give us the names.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

The only Vancouver representatives who have visited my office in the

last several months are Mayor Mike Harcourt and Alderman Rankin. We

discussed a number of issues. Quite frankly, I have again a matter

before me now with respect to something I'm sure is urgent to the city

as well, to do with transit; and I was only advised yesterday that

though the matter was brought to my attention by Mayor Harcourt, it was

not the position of council. So I imagine a mayor may from time to time

bring matters to me which are simply his personal views or his own

initiative, and perhaps there's nothing wrong with it, Certainly they

don't always represent the views of council.

MR. MACDONALD:

The minister hasn't told us who has really petitioned for this change,

but I ask this question: now that the minister wants to approve the

wording of the referendum, the setting of the boundaries and so forth,

will he be appointing to carry out this "vandermander" former judge

Larry Eckardt?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, no

one has made any decision of that kind, but naturally if such a

decision had to be made I would hope it would be someone of that

stature. Again, the only recollection I have now with respect to where

the initiative might have come from was a letter from Mayor Mike

Harcourt.

I did not receive, as was suggested, a letter,

petition or delegation from members representing NPA or Social Credit.

Mind you, if they did wish to make representations, I would welcome

them every bit as much as the members of COPE, DERA or any other group

within Vancouver. There's no reason why we shouldn't receive their

representations and views on whatever matter it may be. This particular

one, however, as I can recall it, came by way of a letter from Mayor

Harcourt.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a

supplementary for the minister. Is the minister telling the House that

Mayor Harcourt of Vancouver asked for the 60 percent referendum prior

to the ward system, and that the minister should have a hand in setting

the ward boundaries? Is that what you're telling the House? Did Mayor

Harcourt ask you to make that announcement?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

No, I did not say that. I think the member certainly knows that Mayor

Harcourt would be quite satisfied with 50.09 percent, or whatever. He

would not be asking for 60 percent, because he has constantly been of

the view that anything beyond a simple majority is sufficient when it

comes to a matter of changing the governmental structure or the

constitution of a city.

Obviously, not everybody agrees with

him. If he comes to me seeking my support for that sort of stance, no,

I can't support it. I'm basically opposed to ward systems anyway,

because it means more and more government. You know very well that it

just means more cells, more government, more offices and more

secretaries. It just leads to a whole lot more government and

bureaucracy. That has been my position all along. However, I have made

some suggestions to the mayor and council, and if they wish to respond

to them, I'll be very pleased to receive their response or meet with

them once more at any time — or whatever suits them.

COST OF REPORTS ON HOSPITAL SYSTEMS

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question of the Minister of

Health. The joint funding study which was produced in part by outside

consultants, Ernst and Whinney, in October of 1979 and which cost the

province over a million dollars, has been shelved.

We now have before us the Hawkins report on hospital systems which, as you told us yesterday, has also been

[ Page 7506 ]

shelved.

What was the cost to the people of British Columbia for the Hawkins

report? They are blowing millions of dollars on private consultants in

this very important department.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would be pleased to look into whatever costs were associated with what the member refers to as the Hawkins report.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker, with leave.

Leave granted.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

The House in committee on Bill 15; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 2 as amended.

MR. BARBER:

I spent some time in committee this morning outlining detail by detail

and town by town all the consequences of this vicious attack on the

principle of revenue-sharing, incorporated in

section 2 of Bill 15. We

read into the record example upon example of those cases where local

governments will be made to suffer as the result of the punitive fiscal

policies of Social Credit.

Section 2, which we are discussing, is one

of the three principal sections of this bill.

I would like

now to read briefly into the record elements of a brief that was

presented to the caucuses of the Social Credit coalition and the New

Democratic Party — to Social Credit last week and to the New Democratic

Party this afternoon. In this brief, presented by Mayor Jim Tonn, the

president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, they discuss

the principle of revenue-sharing and lay forth an extremely heavy

critique: a powerful, documented and truthful analysis of the problems

with this bill and the consequences for local homeowners.

I would like to quote, if I may, from page 2:

"In

April of this year the government announced its fifth year of

revenue-sharing grants. For local government the announcement signalled

the end to revenue-sharing as we had come to know it. Two actions on

the part of the province have redefined the meaning of 'sharing' and

marked an end to the new era of provincial-municipal fiscal relations

that began with revenue-sharing....

"The

government has instituted a tradeoff. It will assume social assistance

costs in exchange for municipalities assuming the costs of the other

four programs. This tradeoff is inequitable for local government, is

without foundation and has been done without consultation with the

affected partner — local government."

The

brief goes on to say that the provincial government is going to benefit

from this so-called relief program in the amount of $28 million.

"The

immediate costs to local government of assuming sewerage assistance

debts are twice the savings in social assistance. The more

objectionable aspect of the tradeoff is that municipalities should not

be required to assume the financial commitment made by the province to

fund sewerage debt or the other three programs in the first place."

is perfectly clear that local government totally rejects this bill. It

is obvious to anyone who cares about local choice, local freedom and

local responsibility that this bill and, in particular, the

section we

are now debating is an offence against those traditions and principles.

This section, an operating feature of this bill, enjoys no support at

all from local government.

What is particularly offensive

about this

section is that the government did not have the guts to be

candid about its implications and did not have the political courage to

tell the truth about its outcome. This

section makes it quite clear

that local governments will now have to bear the costs of sewage and

underground transmission lines in a way that they never had to before.

Those costs were previously borne by the provincial government from

other revenue sources. They are now to be borne by the Revenue Sharing

Fund from those sources. As the UBCM put it in its first-class brief,

this is a tradeoff which results in a net loss to local government.

The

only beneficiary of this

section is the same as the only beneficiary of

the bill — it is Social Credit. It is the coalition that stands to

benefit when they reduce the costs for sewerage and underground

transmission lines which would otherwise be a direct charge against

their revenue. When Social Credit can reduce those revenue charges,

they then have more money to waste on government advertising, more

money to waste on massive subsidy schemes for megaprojects around

British Columbia, currently being debated. Because of this tradeoff,

local governments are losing tens of millions of dollars this year.

Because of this tradeoff that is benefiting Social Credit and its

megaprojects, local taxpayers will have to pay more; they have to make

up the loss that Social Credit has made for itself as gain. This bill

is a loser for local government, for the homeowner, for everyone except

the coalition Minister of Finance, who is able to rip off the

municipalities and the homeowner in order to have more money for these

scurrilous projects of government advertising and PR for which Social

Credit has become so notorious.

To reiterate, this bill and

this

section have virtually no support anywhere in local government. It

is deceitful, costly, inappropriate; above all it is inexcusable, given

the hypocritical performance, in the name of restraint, that Social

Credit has attempted to ask the people of British Columbia to accept.

The government of $37.50 bottles of wine and government vouchers in the

amount of 60 cents for a carton of milk for a cabinet minister has no

business telling local governments in this instance that they have to

bear additional expenditures, ones that were formerly borne by the

province and that should be currently borne by the province.

this

section makes clear, sewage treatment programs are vital to

competent land-use planning. It is in the provincial interest as well

to guarantee the fundamental human and natural resources of clean air

and clean water and usable land. When this government tries to tell us

they wish to bring more lots on the market, and then at the same time

turns around and cuts back financing for sewers, which must be obtained

in order to make those lots available in the first place, they are once

again demonstrating the astonishing incompetence of Social Credit.

[ Page 7507 ]

Section

2 quite clearly demonstrates that Social Credit is abandoning the

responsibility that the previous New Democrat administration accepted:

that is, to assist in the provision of housing by assisting in the

provision of sewerage.

HON. MR. FRASER: You didn't have any revenue-sharing.

MR. BARBER:

We had revenue-sharing, and we were the first to introduce it. We did

so on the principle of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. Ours

was the first government to introduce revenue-sharing; yours is the

first to start wiping it out. In 1974, natural gas revenue-sharing with

municipalities was the first revenue-sharing program; and it was

introduced by our administration.

One of the tragedies of

section 2 is that it will once again make affordable housing

unavailable to the people of British Columbia. When the provincial

government cuts back on its responsibility for providing assistance for

the construction of sewers and — of more than marginal importance —

underground transmission, and makes local government pay for it

instead, the practical result, because there's no more money at the

local government level, is that those sewers will not be built and that

housing will not be constructed.

This is a government of incompetence.

HON. MR. FRASER: Tell us about the reserve funds.

MR. BARBER:

We know what they have to do with their reserve funds. They're dipping

into them now to pay for essential services and essential construction,

which your ridiculous revenue-sharing amendment would otherwise deny

them. That's what they're doing with it, Mr. Minister; and they're

doing it in your own riding, as you should know full well.

This

objectionable

section will condemn the people of British Columbia to

higher local taxes. This objectionable

section will condemn future

homeowners to a longer wait and, when they finally do get to the head

of the line, they will discover housing is all the more expensive

because of the wait, the interest, the extra charges.

Let me

repeat the conundrum posed by this section: if the provincial

government totally abandons its responsibility for funding under the

sewerage facilities act, it means it can only be borne by the developer

or the local municipality, or by both in some combination. When that

happens, housing is more expensive, more delayed, more unavailable.

That

same government of incompetents opposite that cooked up the now

infamous Ministry of Deregulation — do you remember that one, Mr.

Chairman? — has cooked up this equally unworkable, unreasonable and

inappropriate section. No wonder the UBCM condemns it; no wonder

virtually every mayor and alderman in the province condemns it. The

fact that we condemn it is almost an afterthought; the real attack has

come from local government. For once the New Democratic Party has not

had to carry the criticism, put forward the analysis or advocate the

policy; local government has been doing it very powerfully for itself.

This

section is objectionable. This

section should be withdrawn, and we

oppose it as strongly as we are able to.

Section 2 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

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

Journals of the House.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved unanimously on a division.

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

section 5.

MRS. DAILLY:

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to go on record agreeing with what has

already been expressed by the other two Burnaby MLAs. We're completely

against this change listed here under

section 5, and then later in

section 6, which repeals the former granting of the moneys out of

special funds for sewers and for the transmission line. This is

enunciated in

section 6.

We're particularly unhappy with

this and with the way in which the minister has handled this bill. The

very fact that he allowed the municipal councils of British Columbia to

actually believe that they were going to get extra assistance from the

government this year when he announced the removal of the financing of

the Human Resources imposition, which formerly rested with the

councils.... I think that the manner in which the minister handled this

bodes very poorly for this government — a government that would have a

minister who would not speak absolutely straight to the members of the

councils of British Columbia. Whether they belong to the Social Credit

Party, the NDP or they're apolitical, by and large I think they have

all been absolutely stunned

[ Page 7508 ]

that

any minister would suggest that he was really giving some new financial

assistance to them on the one hand and on the other hand, as this

section points out, he is at the same time taking away financial

assistance which they had expected to continue to receive.

So,

Mr. Chairman, I simply want to go on record. I'm speaking on behalf of

the Burnaby council, my fellow colleagues from Burnaby and I'm sure

many other people in British Columbia who work very hard to serve the

people of their municipalities. We resent the way this minister has

handled this, and we are very much against this change.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, we've certainly been very candid from the outset about the

changes. If others interpreted these changes to be different from what

they actually were, that's unfortunate. Again, we've been very forward

with announcing the changes. As I mentioned as well — and certainly

this relates to

section 5 particularly — the changes in part are

impacting negatively on some of the communities. There's no question

about that. Hopefully next year it will be realized much more clearly

by all that with the welfare changes tying into what has been brought

into the program by way of

section 5, there certainly will be a

long-term benefit to municipalities.

I'm a little disturbed

by some of these figures that were quoted indicating that the costs to

municipalities were as per the figures given by the first member for

Victoria. They were based on some formula which he apparently had

contrived. The method one, as he called it, was an approach where he

said: "We can really only give credit for three-quarters of the welfare

benefits, because a portion of the year has already gone by, and

therefore the credit which might otherwise be granted in calculating

whatever the end result or the bottom line for the municipality can't

be taken into consideration for those first months." But he should

remember — and I point it out again to all members — that we work on a

fiscal year commencing April 1, while they, as everyone knows, work on

the calendar year. However, it doesn't change the benefit. Nor do we,

when we announce the changes, or the percentage increase or decrease,

do it on the basis of a calendar year; it's always on the basis of our

fiscal year. If you're attempting to remove by some formula the benefit

received by a municipality because of having removed the welfare charge

as it applies to the first three months, then you also have to give

credit for the additional revenue-sharing moneys received last year.

MR. BARBER:

On a point of order, we're now debating, I believe,

section 5, which is

the repeal of the Sewerage Assistance Act — that's all. It has nothing

whatever to do with welfare rates. It's interesting to hear what the

minister has to say but it should be under the right section. This

section has nothing to do with welfare rates. We just debated that and

we passed it unanimously.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a valid point, hon. minister. The minister continues on

section 5 specifically.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Section 5 is the

section to which the members of the opposition

attributed the increase in moneys for unconditional purposes and the

decrease in moneys available from revenue-sharing for conditional

purposes. So it certainly ties in, Mr. Chairman. Since the figures

given earlier by the first member for Victoria were based on these

changes, in particular the change proposed in

section 5, it's only

right that I now set the record straight. I pointed out that the

formula he had contrived really could not be applied in the simple way

he proposed, and it does relate to

section 5.

MR. BARBER: It's UBCM's formula.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Whether it's your formula, or whether in fact you sought some aid from UBCM, makes no difference; the formula is wrong.

The

figures with respect to the revenue-sharing as it affects

municipalities, because of the change proposed in

section 5.... I agree

there are municipalities that, because of this change, see some

considerable reduction. Others see some slight increase but there are

those who have some reduction, and that's well understood. That's

certainly not something I've attempted to hide in any way, shape or

form, and we've clearly pointed it out time and time again. The figures

given for the impact of this

section and others on the benefits

accruing to White Rock were totally wrong. The difference between what

White Rock will receive in 1982 as opposed to 1981 is $52,325, which is

about 5 percent less than last year. We also have the figures for

Golden, and Golden in fact sees an increase. Again, for Kimberley there

is a reduction, but it's a very slight reduction; it's considerably

less than 5 percent. Similarly for Stewart and for Mission. So the

figures given were not actual. They were simply figures given in

accordance with some formula contrived, as I say, by the first member

for Victoria.

I wish to point out as well that the moneys

necessary for sewerage assistance are so high partly because of

interest rates and partly because we've unfortunately lost the benefit

of the $25 million community assistance program, a federal program to

help the province which lasted only two years. That particular program

allowed us to reduce the cost of a project by 20 percent. Our

projections had indicated there would be a gradual reduction for the

cost of the sewerage assistance program starting last year, then again

this year and on from here. If interest rates are reduced, as we expect

they will be in time to come — hopefully soon — the benefit to the

municipalities will be considerable.

MR. BARBER: We

hope

section 5 does not pass. It repeals the Sewerage Assistance Act.

What that does is repeal the province's obligation to assure the proper

treatment of sewage, the proper disposal and transmission of sewage

and, with any luck, the improved quality of the water supply into which

that sewage would otherwise be dumped.

Social Credit's

record of environmental management is a disgrace. Everyone knows how

little the coalition cares about those issues. Fortunately, local

governments, because they are often much closer to the people — they

are elected every two years, as opposed to every four or five years for

us — are often much more sensitive to the issue of clean water and the

correct disposal of sewage. Local governments need provincial

assistance in order to manage that program effectively and affordably.

The minister cries that Ottawa has cut back on a program that the

province used to benefit from. We feel sorry for him, Mr. Chairman.

Maybe he now knows what it feels like when Victoria cuts back on

programs that local government used to benefit from. For him to turn

around and blame Ottawa for one of its cutbacks and at the same time,

in a cheeky way, attempt to avoid responsibility for cutbacks that

[ Page 7509 ]

this

coalition of opportunists imposes is to do something that's really

almost as ridiculous as the performance of the Minister of Tourism

(Hon. Mrs. Jordan) during question period today.

You cut

back hospitals and you try to avoid the blame. Ottawa cuts back on

programs for sewerage assistance and you try to blame Ottawa. As usual,

you're applying the coalition's double standard. Ottawa should not have

cut back on that program, because it is vital to the success of a

national program to upgrade the quality of the water systems in this

country. The quality of those water systems is vital to the success of

Canada's management of the water resources of our people. Ottawa should

not have cut back on that program. Let them cut back on government

advertising instead. For you to complain about an Ottawa cutback while

at the same time you try to rationalize Victoria cutbacks is to try to

do something that is simply ludicrous. You can't get away with it. The

UBCM won't let you get away with it, certainly the taxpayers won't, and

neither will we.

The Sewerage Assistance Act is an

appropriate provincial statute, which, in days past under enlightened

governments, was used to help local government guarantee and improve

the quality of their entire water system. Those days are gone now. Once

again the clock is being turned back by this coalition of opportunists

who will do anything to grab a buck from local government and waste it

on megaprojects and their vain attempts to get re-elected. This is an

attempt to turn back the clock, which is totally unacceptable to anyone

who even cares about the quality of life and the quality of the

environment in the twentieth century.

The minister is ready

to jump to his feet, and I know what he'll say. He'll say: "We're now

paying for these things out of revenue-sharing." Right? Bill nods and

smiles and waves his glasses. Of course he'll say that. That's his only

defence, but it's completely inadequate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The member has full knowledge that members names are not to be used in the House.

MR. BARBER:

I'm sorry. You're quite right. Excuse me. I appreciate the correction.

The minister fully intends to say: "We're now going to pay for these

things out of revenue sharing." The point is that, in anticipation of

his lame defence of his halt policy, they're reducing the Revenue

Sharing Fund and making local government pay for more things out of

that reduced fund. The practical consequence of that is that fewer

municipalities will be able to put in sewers, more housing will go

unbuilt, and that little which remains to be built will be built at

greater expense.

That's no defence. You're welcome to try to

make it, but no one will believe it. When you reduce the fund and

require the fund to pay for more services, the practical consequence is

that less will be done. To do less in the field of guaranteeing the

proper transmission and treatment of sewage is to do something that is

completely unacceptable. The quality of the water resource of this

province is important to us. It's important to local governments, and

the only way they can finance it is with your help. You are denying

that help by repealing the Sewerage Assistance Act, and you are

restricting that help by diminishing the size of the Revenue Sharing

Fund and requiring that fund to pay for more services.

There's

no other logical way to examine what you've done. You should not do it

that way. You should continue with the Sewerage Assistance Act,

continue with separate funding for it and continue with a program to

guarantee the quality of the water resource in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the member makes the point

under

section 5 that somehow this government will walk away from some

responsibility with respect to providing sewage treatment facilities,

and I just want to compare the record. In 1974-75, the last year of the

NDP in government, their welfare overrun alone was 20 times the amount

they spent on the whole of the sewage treatment program. The total

money they had allocated in 1974-75 was $5.6 million, compared with $50

million, which we allocated, and about $40 million last year. It has

consistently been these sorts of sums. We've had more major projects

initiated by this government with respect to sewage treatment and

facilities than what we've seen in the whole of 25 years. If the member

gets up there and attempts to say what could be done or what he or they

would do, I say look at the record and see what they did.

MR. BARBER:

We do look at the record, we do look at the bill, we do look at the

section, and we see what you propose to do. During our period in office

we met the requests that the local governments had for moneys available

for that fund.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't be ridiculous! How do you know? You were with Cool Aid.

MR. BARBER: What are you talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. If we address the Chair, allow members who are standing

to speak, and look at the

section we are debating, we tend to get

through the debate in a much more orderly and effective manner.

MR. BARBER: You were almost going to say " speedy," weren't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Close.

MR. BARBER:

To rapidly conclude debate on this objectionable section, you propose

to turn the clock back, wipe out the Sewerage Assistance Act and

require municipalities to do more with less, which, in the times of

Socred interest rate policies, is an impossible thing. You shouldn't

try to do it. You should withdraw this

section of the bill. If you do

so, we will give you leave to do so this very minute.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

MR. BARBER:

This

section repeals the Transmission Line (Underground) Act. This is

not as important, one should concede, as the repeal of the Sewerage

Assistance Act, but it is nonetheless important for those who care

about the visual quality of life, who care about urban planning in

subdivisions where underground transmission lines are an important

benefit to people who get to live there and where there is, in fact,

some small element of public safety at stake. Obviously when the lines

are underground they are safer than when they

[ Page 7510 ]

are above ground hanging from poles that can be knocked over by trucks; they can end up hurting people.

The

repeal of this act is, to some minor extent, a degradation of and a

danger to the public safety. We have the technology to put all

transmission lines underground. Many municipalities have been able to

do a great deal of this. They do so in the interest of public safety.

They do so to avoid the incidents of electrocution and burning that can

sometimes result when a power pole is knocked down and persons are hit

by a live wire. Admittedly it is not as major an issue as repealing the

Sewerage Assistance Act, but nonetheless there is a question of public

safety at stake here. I wonder if the minister has done any kind of

impact study at all on the practical consequences of wiping out the

Transmission Line (Underground) Act,

an act which was designed to

encourage and help municipalities to put high-voltage lines underground

where they are safer.

It is a question of public safety. It

is a question of avoiding damage to individuals and to public health.

It is admittedly a minor matter, but for the few people every year who

are not burned or electrocuted because the power pole did not fall down

on their heads because it had been put underground in the first place,

it is no small matter. I wonder if the minister could indicate if he

did any study of any sort. If so, will he table that study once we're

out of committee, to indicate the practical consequences on the issue

of public safety of abandoning a program to go underground with

high-voltage transmission lines?

MR. REE: I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. REE:

It is my pleasure this afternoon to ask the House to welcome a class of

grade 11 students from Handsworth Secondary School up on the mountain

of the North Shore. We have them under the guidance of their teachers,

Mr. Jim Adams and Mr. Stu McDonald. I would ask the House to give them

a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly do

not believe that we made sufficient use of undergrounding. Even though

the legislation has been on the books and even though annually there

has been a small amount allotted for the purpose of undergrounding —

and again this year, with the revenue sharing program, there is a sum

of $300,000 for undergrounding — it is definitely paltry compared to

what's required to do a proper job. I'm saddened by the fact that there

appears to be a real lack of interest on the part of the utility

companies, as well, to really become involved in this particular

process. I'm hoping that, perhaps, in working with UBCM, we can develop

a greater initiative that may see the coming about of a more aggressive

program towards undergrounding utility wires, especially, in our

communities.

MR. BARBER: While the minister feels

sorry about the fact that his policy has not succeeded, for some reason

he's decided to abandon the policy. The policy is embodied in the law.

The law is being repealed. It's in this act. I'm well aware that the

Minister of Municipal Affairs was not the author of the original bill —

we research these bills. But you are amending that law by wiping it out

altogether, through the

section we're now debating. That being the

case....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Put it into revenue-sharing.

MR. BARBER:

No, I understand it's in revenue-sharing. Contrary to the minister's

belief, I read these things really carefully. I spend a lot of time

doing that, and I read that this is now in the diminished pie called

revenue-sharing from which people will have to take smaller slices to

do more and more things.

The practical consequence of repealing this act is that you

repeal the primary instrument of public policy that would put

high-voltage transmission lines underground. You've now incorporated it

into a general statement of policy called revenue-sharing. The

practical result of that is that there will be less money for this

purpose, but the symbolic consequence is that you have abandoned the

only initiative, the principal means of negotiating with municipalities

through a separate statute. You've given it up. You're repealing it in

this section. I think that's a mistake. I agree that $300,000 a year is

much too little. The city of Victoria could spend ten times that amount

itself. There are a lot of other municipalities where old poles, where

dangerous intersections, where questions of public safety are really

explicit, and where those lines should dammed well be underground. It's

just not safe to have them. To repeat, Mr. Chairman, we have the

technology to put these lines underground, to keep them safe and make

them safer than they currently are in the air. We should use that

technology, we should keep that statute, and we should reinforce that

policy.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15, Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, reported complete with amendments.

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear objection, hon. members, so that will be next sitting.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 32.

[ Page 7511 ]

MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE RESTRAINT ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate that certainly all governmental bodies

and those involved in public affairs are required to take a very

responsible position now in times of restraint, and cooperate in making

our efforts work together for the benefit of all British Columbians. I

realize that municipalities and regional districts are being asked —

and being required — to limit their budget increases to 12 percent or

less. Fortunately, this does not appear to present too much of a

problem, and we have received some requests from regional districts —

we've received a great many, as a matter of fact — for exemptions or

exceptions, and these have been granted. About 40 municipalities have

applied for exceptions. Again, little if any difficulty has been

encountered with those.

A large number of the exceptions

were granted based on considerations such as…where a program or

function was only in effect for a short time in 1981, we've had to

grant an exception to provide for a full year's operation in 1982.

Similarly, staff positions that were either added late in 1981 or

vacant for a lengthy period in 1981 were excepted to provide normal

operating levels in 1982. Unavoidable or extraordinary 1982 expenditure

requirements — that is, snow removal and such — were allowed. There was

no difficulty with those.

Finally — and certainly this is

where many of the lower mainland requests especially came from — if

there was a civic strike during the early part of 1981 which reduced

expenditures, then we would obviously have to make some provision for

that reduction in the year 1982. That has been done.

Certainly,

as I said, there has been little difficulty encountered with most, if

not all, of the regional districts and municipalities, For the most

part there appears to be pretty solid support for the introduction of

this legislation. As a matter of fact, the UBCM has gone on record in

saying that they certainly have no difficulty with the principle of it,

and they found that most municipalities could certainly meet the

limitation. It was naturally subject to seeing how the inspector of

municipalities might receive the various exceptions requested. But

again, there has been no difficulty there, and they are, as I

mentioned, basically supportive of the initiative provided for in this

legislation.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading.

MR. BARBER:

I rise as the designated speaker for the official opposition, Mr.

Speaker. If you'd care to come back around twenty to six, I'd be happy

to see you then.

The practical effect of this bill is to put

local government into political receivership. This bill does for

municipal councils what the Education (Interim) Finance Act did for

school boards: it takes away their responsibility to set their own

budgets; it denies local freedom, local choice and local

responsibility. It puts them into political receivership in order that

the Minister of Municipal Affairs personally, as the czar of all the

municipalities, may make all the decisions for locally elected persons.

Everyone

believes in governmental restraint as far as wasteful, non-essential

and silly expenditures go. We believe in appropriate government

expenditures for health care and human services and for affordable

economic development. Local government is at least as responsible, if

not a lot more so, as the Social Credit government in setting its own

budgets — they're pretty good at doing that. By and large they are more

efficient than any provincial government and certainly far more so than

any national government we care to look at. Last year local government

did not have an overrun of $225 million, as did the Social Credit

government, Local government has not run up debts of $10 billion, as

Social Credit will have run up by the end of the next fiscal year.

Local government by and large is much more prudent and much more

responsible than the Social Credit government has ever been in managing

its economic affairs.

Local government may or may not choose

to meet a 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13 percent budget figure this year by way of

increase over last year. But you see, that's fundamentally up to them.

It is in the field of responsible government — not up to us. We don't

elect mayors and aldermen as MLAs; the people do as citizens. It is our

belief as New Democrats that local government should be strong, free

and responsible. New Democrats believe in decentralized authority,

decentralized government and local control. We believe, for instance,

that the Financial Control Act was a horrible attempt to impose the

provincial will on non-provincial agencies. We believe that when Social

Credit wiped out resource boards, that was a vicious attack on local

freedom and local choice. We believe that when Social Credit wiped out

the Alcohol and Drug Commission as it was constituted and replaced it

with public servants, that was a stupid attack on local participation

and on local design of alcohol treatment programs. We believe that when

Social Credit introduced Bill 42 under the tutelage of the member for

Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis), that was a disgraceful

attack on local initiative and local freedom.

We observe,

for instance, that this government has made a number of amendments to

the statutes that determine who shall participate on the boards of

directors of regional colleges, and that too has been a typical Socred

attack on local government, local freedom and local choice, When Social

Credit attempts to override local government and give farmland away to

its sleazy developer friends, this is a devastating attack on the

principle of local choice and local freedom in land use. We know what

they've done with the Lottery Fund. We certainly know what the land-use

act is all about and now we have this bill. The czar of all

municipalities, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm),

will have the personal power to set municipal budgets, to reset

municipal priorities and to do at the local level what he was not

elected to do by any local elector.

Social Credit is the

most heavy-handed, centralist administration this province has ever

seen, This bill represents the heavy hand of state centralism as Social

Credit has always imposed it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What about forced amalgamations, Charlie?

MR. BARBER: Yes, Hughie?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What about forced amalgamations?

MR. BARBER: What about them?

[ Page 7512 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Victoria is debating.

MR. BARBER:

Yes, but not debating the Minister of Finance; debating the bill. The

bill is an attempt to place local government into political

receivership, as I said before. It is an attempt to do so under the

guise of restraint. They are using the word "restraint" because their

pollsters — who are not paid for by the Social Credit Party but rather

by the taxpayer — told them that the word "restraint" is popular. The

word "restraint" may be popular but the program content most certainly

is not, because it is not restraint. It is, in fact, a kind of

political tyranny imposed by Social Credit over local government.

reiterate, New Democrats believe in local government, local

responsibility and local freedom. We do not believe that you are

justified in circumscribing, diminishing or undermining it through the

guise of a phony restraint program which applies to everyone except

members of the cabinet. Is there is a mayor in all of British Columbia

who takes out his constituents and guzzles down $37.50 bottles of wine?

Can they name even one mayor who does that? Is there is a mayor in all

of British Columbia who buys a 60-cent carton of milk and charges it to

the government by voucher and expects the taxpayer to pay for his

milk-guzzling habits as well as his wine-guzzling habits? If you are

going to point the finger at anyone, point it at yourselves first. You

don't need to point it at local governments through a bill like this.

If they believe in restraint, which they pretend to do but which they

do not practice, they would not have wasted $12,000 yesterday on a

disgraceful attempt to exploit that magnificent hockey team, the

Vancouver Canucks. You wasted $12,000 to exploit these splendid

athletes and you propose now to tell some other level of government

that they must exercise restraint. That is kind of sickening. The

hypocrisy and the stench of that hypocrisy sickens people in British

Columbia.

Last year this government was given an opportunity

by the official opposition to vote in favour of $82 million worth of

restraint. We proposed that they cut back government advertising, PR,

travel and office furniture. We gave them $82 million worth of

opportunities to demonstrate their sincerity last year. Before this

group asks or requires anyone else to exercise restraint, why don't

they start doing it themselves?

The minister who sponsored

this bill indicated such a lack of restraint last year that his

personal office budget was overrun by $25,000. Is there a mayor in

British Columbia whose personal office budget was overrun by

twenty-five grand last year? I don't think so.

There is

another principle. I am reminded of it by my colleague from Prince

Rupert. What if the federal government, with the new constitution and

aided and abetted by the Socred-Liberal coalition in British Columbia,

decided to impose a provincial expenditure restraint act? What if

Ottawa decided to do to you what you propose to do to those you

perceive to be under you? You would be screaming bloody murder and for

good reason because, you see, we at the provincial level are also

elected separately and independently, just like aldermen and mayors.

Ottawa should restrain its own absurd and unnecessary expenditures on

travel, PR and wine-guzzling. So should you, but until you've done it

first you're in no position to tell anyone else to do it. Until the

government of $37.50 bottles of wine cleans up its own act, how can you

presume to tell local government what they may and may not spend? If

they spend too much or too little, they will be thrown out by local

electors, and so it should be.

Why are you acting as the

czar of all the municipalities and presuming that you alone know best

how they may write their budgets? Of course we believe in restraining

unnecessary, foolish and political expenditures. Of course we believe

in that, and we gave you $82 million worth of cutbacks last year which

you rejected. We're going to give you more cutbacks this year, and

you'd be awfully stupid to reject them. But if you do, we will continue

to move around this great province and tell people about their

not-so-great government wasting incredibly great amounts of money to

promote themselves and their crackpot economic schemes for British

Columbia.

Until you clean up your act, you're in no position

to tell local government to clean up theirs. As it happens, their act

is a great deal cleaner than yours. They do not have $225 million

overruns, like Social Credit did last year. They do not have $10

billion worth of debt, like Social Credit will have next year. They do

not have mayors who overrun their personal office budgets by $25 000,

like the Minister of Municipal Affairs did last year. Local government

has exercised great restraint in the past, and they will continue to do

so in the future. In that regard, this bill is unnecessary. It is an

insult to local freedom, local choice and local government. They will

exercise appropriate restraint; they will not, I suspect, take out ads

exploiting the Vancouver Canucks, and they will not cook up local

departments of deregulation or compulsory heroin treatment programs

that are totally unworkable and that have to be shut down at great

expense. I have never seen the city of Vancouver try to convert the

SeaBus from a day vessel to a night vessel, and from a night vessel to

day vessel, like you did with the Marguerite , wasting $20 million in the process. Local government has never exercised those foolish policies; Social Credit has.

The

real wastrels in this province have always been Social Credit. They

spend money like a team of drunken sailors. They spend money like it

was going out of style, and considering the high interest rate policies

of this administration and their friends in Ottawa, it is going out of

style. You won't need wallets in the future, Mr. Speaker; you'll need

wheelbarrows. That's what Social Credit fiscal policy is all about.

You

have no business trying to tell local government to exercise restraint

when you are doing none of it yourselves. Your budgets for travel this

year are way up over last year, your budgets for advertising this year

are way up over last year, your overruns in the B.C. Systems

Corporation are way up over last year, and now you're asking for

authority to increase the borrowing limit to $60 million.

What

municipal government has ever asked its electors for borrowing

authority like you have? They have always shown restraint, they have

always been prudent, they have always been accountable, and much more

often than Social Credit. Until you guys clean up your act, you have no

business asking local government to do the same, especially when

they've already been doing it prudently, cautiously and conservatively

over the last many, many years in this province.

Mr.

Speaker, this bill is an insult calculated to exploit a narrow range of

public opinion, in order to benefit the government opposite. I don't

think it will succeed. The restraint program, phony and hypocritical as

it is, is falling apart already. We were treated yesterday to the

spectacle of the Premier himself, red-faced and arm-waving, telling us

that

[ Page 7513 ]

his

own program apparently isn't good enough now, and he's going to have to

introduce even tougher legislation, as he describes it.

Well,

that's absurd. Even before your bill is law, you're telling us it isn't

adequate. The Premier knows that the phony restraint program of Social

Credit, which restrains everyone except members of the cabinet and

their $37.50 bottles of wine, is not being believed by the people of

British Columbia. It's not going to be believed by local government

either. This bill is unnecessary and is an insult to local government,

and if you knew what you were doing, you'd withdraw it.

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Speaker, in the last few years we've seen within the province and

with this government a decided bent in the direction of legislating

greater and greater amounts of authority into the hands of the cabinet,

as distinct from it being in the hands of the Legislature. We see here,

in this particular bill and in other bills that have been dealt with

and are to be dealt with later in this session, a movement of authority

and control away from local governments and into the hands of the

cabinet. That did not take place accidentally. It is part of an overall

grand design and grand plan of this government to move to destroy and

make ineffective local governments. It is part of a grand plan to

restrict and interfere with democracy because it basically does not

believe in democracy.

The government can — and is moving to

— restrict its share of funds to local governments. But local

government — municipalities — raise revenue themselves by taxes upon

residences, property and land. Along with that taxing authority of the

local government there has to be the concomitant responsibility to the

people being taxed. This bill seeks to remove that responsibility and

to deny it to local governments, municipalities, regional districts and

the other municipal type of authorities set out in the

interpretation

section of the bill. It seeks to intrude upon one of the basic tenets

of our democracy: that is, that the government which is closest to

people is the government that is most responsive to people. Any

interference with that is just the Big Brother activity, the state

control activity that is in this particular bill.

I have had

the pleasure of seeing governments function at the federal and

provincial levels. While not having been an active participant in

municipal governments, nonetheless I do take

part in their electoral

activities and have watched them function as well. Municipal

governments are the most frugal, responsible and responsive to local

needs and local feelings of the three. They are the most conscious

about getting best value for dollars spent. This bill seeks to tell

those municipalities that no longer are they going to have that

particular responsibility which they have prosecuted so admirably over

the years.

There is a provision in the bill — in the

Minister of Municipal Affairs seeking to take the authority about

operating budgets of municipalities — that says he will have that

authority notwithstanding what it says in any other act, What that

means in uncomplicated layman's terms is that it really is of no

consequence to the minister what any other law of this Legislature

says; he is seeking to be the supreme god insofar as municipal

operating budgets are concerned.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's pretty high up. I thought czar was high enough.

MR. HOWARD:

The minister objects to the word god. That's up to him. He prefers the

word czar. Czar or commissar perhaps would be much more in keeping with

what he is seeking to obtain from this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to the bill, please.

MR. HOWARD:

I was precisely talking about the bill until the Minister of Municipal

Affairs attracted me to converse with him about his role as commissar

in charge of municipal operating budgets.

Not only that, but

the bill also makes a particular point of saying that any decision

which the minister makes, any exercise of his supreme power,

notwithstanding any other law that this Legislature passes, is

classified as a directive. It makes a point of saying that it is a

directive, not a regulation. The Regulation Act does not apply. If the

minister's exercise of this supreme power that he has were to be done

by way of a regulation, at least it would be open to public view. It

would be required to be published and open. This way it's secret. His

directive can come by way of a telephone call, by way of a letter, by

way of an order, or it could be transmitted by whatever nature — on

television, following the example of the Premier. Any type of supreme

authority of that nature that is classified as a directive but not as a

regulation and is done without any other act — notwithstanding the

provisions — wouldn't be classified as a type of authority similar to

that which one would expect in a fascist country or a communist

country. I wouldn't put it in that category at all. It strikes me that

it's more the type of authority that one would expect from a Liberal —

more the type of authority that one would expect from Prime Minister

Trudeau.

When I look at this piece of legislation — and I've

read various pieces of federal legislation as well — I tell you, Mr.

Speaker, Trudeau couldn't have done it any better. It's authoritarian.

It's a fellow-traveler type of law, anti-democratic and it impinges on

local government.

As a local government. municipalities will

now basically have a government in exile in the form of a commissar in

charge of Municipal Affairs. Is this Liberal-type legislation? Exactly!

And we've had the discussions in the House here the past few days about

the Liberal Party and how this crowd opposite, that passes itself off

as the government of this province, is basically Liberal-oriented. It's

basically very friendly with the Trudeaus. They counter that by saying:

"Oh, no, it isn't so." But just go down the list, Mr. Speaker, and see

for yourself. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is a Liberal.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is a

Liberal. Real powerhouses in the cabinet, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of

Universities, Science and Communications (HON. Mr. McGeer) is a

Liberal. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is a Liberal. The

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is not only a

Liberal, Mr. Speaker, but a Trudeau Liberal — the worst type of

Liberal. In 1968 the Minister of Municipal Affairs was a Liberal

candidate in Surrey–White Rock. Maybe he forgets that he did it. This

picture is a reproduction from the Surrey Leader .

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Table it.

MR. HOWARD: I'll send it over to you.

There they are on June 20, 1968 — there they are: two smiling faces peering into the bleak future. "Make your vote

[ Page 7514 ]

count,"

says one of them. That's this one. "This is our big chance," he says,

"to get into the mainstream. Vote Liberal. Vote Bill Vander Zalm."

Pierre is smiling. They have their arms around each other, embracing in

public. They're able to do that because of the change in the Criminal

Code. That's just one. Here's another one from the Surrey Leader

on June 13, 1968. That candidate, Bill Vander Zalm, has his hand on his

hip, a big smile, teeth gleaming and his arms are linked with Trudeau.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Send it over.

MR. HOWARD:

I'll send it over to you. Hold on. The minister wants me to send it

over to him only because he"s forgotten that he did this dastardly

deed. Do you know what he said?

MR. SPEAKER: Order,

please, hon. member. The authority suggests that the debate on the

stages of the bill particularly second reading, should be confined to

the bill and should not be extended to be criticism of administration,

and certainly not criticism of the personality himself. Perhaps the

member would take that into consideration as he's developing his speech.

MR. HOWARD:

It deals exactly with the bill, Mr. Speaker. Federal laws brought into

the House of Commons time after time by Prime Minister Trudeau had

those telling words in them: "notwithstanding any other act." That's

federal law. That's Liberal doctrine. That's what has prompted the

minister here to extol his virtuous relationship with Mr. Trudeau by

saying: "Now join the Trudeau team." There it, is. He's even got one

here, Mr. Speaker, on June 20, in which he has a little comment on the

bottom of this one: "I am ashamed of my Social Credit colleague in the

Surrey–White Rock riding." There was a Social Credit candidate in

Surrey–White Rock at that time. Our Bill says: "I'm ashamed of my

Social Credit colleague in the Surrey–White Rock riding." Well, I'll

bet his Social Credit colleague is sure ashamed of him now for having

sold out to the Liberal Party, having sold out to the Trudeau doctrine

of authoritarianism, having sold out to the Trudeau concept of

anti-democracy.

It's a shameful way to have to look upon a

piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but I think we can look at it in, no

other way. The bland, innocent comments of the minister, when he opened

the second reading of this bill, seeking to put people off by saying,

"Oh, well, there's nothing to it, it's just a gentle little piece of

legislation. I mean, there is only one page, and it's really the sort

of thing that we need to do," and so on.... I closed my eyes and heard

Prime Minister Trudeau speaking as I've heard him speak in the House of

Commons time after time. If there was ever a reason in the history of

this province to vote against a piece of legislation, that reason is

that it's Trudeau-type legislation. The minister should withdraw it,

admit his error and say that he made a mistake in 1968. Don't

perpetuate it by bringing this type of pro-fascist legislation into the

House. Shame on you, Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we refer to members of the House by their portfolio or by their constituency designation.

MR. HOWARD: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Shame on the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

It is an honour for me to stand here and support Bill 32. It was rather

a surprise for me to hear the hon. member for Victoria and other hon.

members in this chamber decry with some vehemence the fact that the

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) had the

audacity to buy wine for $37.50 a bottle. That they consider a big

deal. I sit here and just smile. I wonder which of us, when inviting a

guest to our home, does not get the best wine we can afford, does not

get the best meat we can buy.

AN HON. MEMBER: We pay for it ourselves.

MR. MUSSALLEM:

Well, we do, but so does this government. The same thing applies. I

think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, responsible for

the liquor outlets in the province, should be going first class. I

think it is fitting and proper that he should buy wine if he has guests

of this province, no matter where it is. I'm telling you that I'd do

the same thing. It is proper, fitting and correct.

What this

bill does, in my opinion — and I support it strongly — is to cover the

municipality and take from them the responsibility of going into debt

carelessly. It is not inconceivable. It has happened before that when

municipalities have got into serious trouble, and one case at hand was

the municipality of Burnaby. They were in such tremendous debt that it

was in receivership for I don't know how many years. At a time like

this I think the people are welcoming the opportunity to see a

government that is watching the municipalities to make sure they are

not getting into unnecessary debt. It's a time of restraint.

Municipalities are close to the people, and they are usually in a

position where they have to bend to the wishes of their electors.

They're in a position where sometimes they bend too much and spend too

much money; it happens, although they are quite responsible. The

minister and this government are finally responsible, and they must

stand clearly and say: "We are the responsible party. We recommend that

you do not go into debt." There is restraint, and this is merely a time

of restraint.

I can't understand how members of the

opposition would take this opportunity to say that we should not have

restraint. What are they talking about? It is a time when we do not

know the future; if we could see it we could go on as usual. What will

the future bring? Is the recession over? Are we on the way out of

trouble, or are we not? Some great economists tell us that it will be

six months before we're out of trouble. In six months we could be in

serious trouble in our municipalities and our businesses. It's not only

in the municipalities where we must be careful, it must also be in

business. I think that if I was to say anything to business, I would

like to say what I say to my own: "You have to survive in the next six

months." It may take longer. I hope it takes less time, but this is a

time of restraint. All this bill says is: "We are ultimately

responsible or your debts, and we are requesting that you do not step

over the threshold." I do approve of this bill and support it

wholeheartedly.

MRS. WALLACE: I was very interested

to hear the member for Dewdney, who has just taken his place, say that

this bill is relieving the municipalities of responsibility. It isn't

relieving them of responsibility; it's relieving them of authority.

They're still stuck with the responsibility of providing local

government. That member has it completely backwards, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7515 ]

It's

certainly interesting to listen to members of the other side who

support this bill. Had this bill been brought in a few years ago,

perhaps by a New Democratic government, and had the member for Omineca

been the mayor of Houston, I can't help but wonder what his reaction

would have been. I can just imagine the furor, the rhetoric in protest

against the taking away his responsibility as mayor of Houston. I

wonder what the Minister of Finance would have said if he had still

been the mayor of Saanich, and perhaps still the chairman of the

municipal financing authority, and he were faced with this bill.

Although there were no such bills before the House, when the Social

Credit government of that day and the Minister of Municipal Affairs,

Dan Campbell, would bring in legislation or his estimates for the year,

that particular mayor used to be very outspoken in his objection. Now

he is part of a government that is introducing legislation three, four,

five times worse than anything undertaken in that period of time, and

he supports it. It's a very strange thing to watch.

It's interesting to think what the minister responsible for this bill would have done had he still been mayor of Surrey.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'd have been very supportive. I would have said: "Good stuff."

MRS. WALLACE: I believe you would have been very upset, Mr. Minister.

The

interpretation

section of this bill talks about the various bodies that

are covered, and one of them is regional districts. The Minister of

Municipal Affairs, who is just leaving the House, has been known to

express a lot of negative feelings about regional districts, yet as the

czar who is now going to make the decisions about regional districts,

municipalities and water improvement districts, he will have that kind

of authority over those regional districts. He's going to tell regional

districts that they must restrain their expenditures, that they must

keep within a 12-percent increase. Yet he has, I'm sure, endorsed the

Minister of Finance's recommendation to increase the rate for rural

districts from 10 to 12 mills.

The Minister of Municipal

Affairs, in connection with this restraint bill, might be very

interested to know just how much he's going to make from the Cowichan

Valley Regional District as a result of that increase.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

On a point of order, in all kindness, I point out to the hon. member

who's speaking that there is another bill on this very subject, one

that is not yet before the House for second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: But it has been tabled and is on the order paper?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member take cognizance of the fact that there is a bill of that description on the order paper.

MRS. WALLACE:

Yes, I'm quite aware of that, Mr. Speaker. What I'm talking about are

the kind of increases that will accrue to the government in that

particular area, an average increase of 31 percent, while at the same

time this ministry is telling municipalities to keep their expenditures

within a 12 percent range. That's the kind of contradiction we see

constantly from this government, and that's the kind of evidence that

makes it so difficult to believe in this government's sincerity. It's

difficult to believe they really want restraint generally. They are

attempting to use their powers to force various agencies and groups of

people to restrain themselves, but at the same time this government is

prepared to accept a 31 percent increase from the rural areas of one

particular regional district.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Require it.

MRS. WALLACE: Absolutely — require it by legislation, as the Minister of Finance so kindly pointed out.

The

one particular reason that I rose in this debate was to ask the

minister to clarify a point I raised at another time in this House. At

the time I raised it the Premier was in the House, and he was shaking

his head very decidedly, indicating that I was wrong in what I was

saying. In order to get the record absolutely clear, I want to read

into the record a news release that appeared in our local paper on

March 30 relative to the Cowichan Community Centre. This relates to how

we calculate restraint on money-making ventures within a regional

district or a municipality.

"The provincial

government's restraint programs could signal the end of quality

entertainment and many of the programs at Cowichan Community Centre.

The community centre commission learned Thursday how the restraint

program will affect the centre. All expenditures must be within 12

percent of last year, and revenues cannot be used to balance

expenditures.

"They couldn't believe it, but

Friday the hard-line

interpretation which will likely cut all

money-making functions from the budget was verified by Municipal

Affairs officials. 'We thought they just didn't understand what we're

doing here, but apparently they do,' the chairman of the commission

advised the press. 'I can't believe this is what Premier Bennett had in

mind when he announced the restraints.'"

Apparently the Premier did not, by the way he was shaking his head when I raised this earlier.

"The

chairman said that he has no idea where this latest

interpretation

leaves the community centre commission. One of the hardest-hit

functions under the restraint program will be the community centre

theatre, which sponsors acts from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet to

Stringband. It will now be required, along with the rest of the

community centre, to budget by expenditures only. 'What that means,'

the chairman said, 'is that revenues generated by events at that centre

will no longer be included in the centre budget. It is insane, but that

is what the provincial government is insisting on.' He said he spent

most of the day at the community centre speaking with municipal

officials in an effort to have the restraints interpreted so the centre

could continue to offer a wide variety of events to the valley. The

final word came from inspector of municipalities Chris Woodward, who

told him in no uncertain terms that restraints take expenditures only

into account.

"One of the first things to go

will be a boxing commission which, ironically, the commission gave its

okay to only the night before. Boxing matches, which have proven

extremely lucrative for Nanaimo,

[ Page 7516 ]

would cost money to put on, even though the revenue generated

could be many times the original expenditure."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's a boxing match got to do with my restraint bill?

MRS. WALLACE:

Really, that is just what I am asking you, Mr. Minister. Because of

your restraint bill that community centre will not be able to include

the expenses for that boxing commission in their budget, regardless of

how much revenue that would return to that community centre. They can't

calculate revenue, according to one of your chief executives.

Can't

the minister consider the possibility of allowing the difference

between the expenditures and the revenues? If you consider the revenue,

your expenses will go up little or not at all; perhaps they will

decline because your revenues are growing. By this ridiculous

interpretation of this bill for money-making ventures that are owned

and operated by municipalities, you are putting a damper on any

activities in the area.

I have mentioned earlier about the

Canucks, where they have to have the Plexiglas. The government decision

is not to allow the expenditure of $5,000 for Plexiglas. They have

already purchased the Plexiglas and intend to install it this spring,

but we're not allowed to do that. That means that the Canucks will have

to find some other place for their fall training camp.

Many

of these things that we take for granted will no longer be there. It

affects anything that we could make a profit on. It will simply turn

that centre into a super rental agency. We'll be able to rent the rooms

and rent the equipment, but we won't be able to sponsor anything

ourselves to get the return and the revenue for the community.

That's

what this bill is doing — not just to Cowichan; it's affecting places

like Victoria and Vancouver as well. I would ask the minister to review

his stand on that particular aspect of this. Well, I would ask him to

review his stand on the whole thing, because it's utterly ridiculous to

take into his hands that kind of authority over locally elected

community govern ments that are put there by the people to serve the

needs of local people. I'm sure he won't do that; he's not going to

withdraw the bill. But I would ask him to look very carefully at his

interpretation of this restraint bill in respect to those money-making

community projects which are operated not just for the social and

sports betterment of the people who live there, but which also from an

economic point of view are turning dollars into the community. Through

this bill, that minister is stopping that kind of endeavour. I would

ask him to look very carefully at that, to review it, and at least

change that portion of the

interpretation to prevent that kind of

curtailment from happening.

MR. LEGGATT: I've always

found that the shortest pieces of legislation are the most dangerous.

We're looking at a one-page bill which has within it the seeds of

dictatorship. It is a bill in which the provincial level of government

has told democratically elected and responsible aldermen and mayors in

this province that we are going to limit their mandate, the one given

to them by the people of each of those municipalities.

I've

had the opportunity of being in political life for quite a long time,

I've had the opportunity of serving on school boards and on municipal

councils, serving in this Legislature and serving....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Political opportunism.

MR. LEGGATT:

Always with the same party, I might add, Mr. Speaker. So the political

opportunism that I hear the ex-Liberal suggest is, of course, pretty

difficult for the minister to substantiate. But I know he has that

cynical smile about the question of party loyalty. There's not much

that the minister has ever been really loyal to, except his own

personal political ambition.

I want to go back to the

purpose of the bill. I have served as a municipal politician, as a

school trustee, as an MLA and as a Member of Parliament for some seven

years.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Show-off!

MR. LEGGATT:

I'm very proud, actually, of being able to serve in those positions,

representing the same political party. There are not many who have been

able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, those politicians who are

closest to the people are the best politicians to spend your money;

they happen to be municipal politicians, elected by and responsible to

the people who elect them.

I'm very shocked that this

minister, who has municipal experience, who spent some years messing

around in the affairs of Surrey....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Messing?

MR. LEGGATT:

Messing up Surrey? In any event, he's had some local experience. I

assume that he has sat down and actually looked at a budget in Surrey.

I assume that Surrey had meetings where they scratched at each other to

try to figure out what they could and couldn't spend and worried and

worried about those expenditures.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I wrote the budget.

MR. LEGGATT:

That's right. The minister tells me he actually wrote the budget in

Surrey; I'm sure he did. I'm sure he had to try to write that budget

and then try to get it through a very tough council. Then he had to

have people sitting right next to him in the gallery criticizing,

asking for points of order. That's real democracy at the local level.

I'll

trust those people to spend my money any day before I'll trust the

minister to spend my money over here. There is no question whatsoever

that your money is more cautiously and responsibly spent at the local

level. It is the height of hypocrisy for this government, for this

minister, to tell duly elected, democratically responsible

representatives that they are no longer responsible to the people, that

they're responsible to the big czar of a centralizer over there. This

bill says: "You are-not responsible to the people who elected you. You

are just the handmaiden of the Social Credit government from this point

on."

I think the public is going to have to take a careful

look at this before the next municipal elections — whether, in fact,

they want to elect people who are merely the handmaidens of the

provincial government. In fact, they're going to look very seriously at

those who are independent of mind. This is the

[ Page 7517 ]

bill

to castrate local politicians. It not only does that, but the minister

and this government like to make a big thing of how they promote

efficiency throughout the various municipalities.

There's

no question what this bill will do. Those prudent municipalities who

have been very careful in using their taxing powers, who have been very

cautious in hoping that they would have a few projects for this year,

are about to be punished with this bill. They are about to be punished,

because they're getting the same limit as the ones who may have been a

little more generous with the taxpayers' money. Is this the kind of

even-handed administration…? This is stupid and irrational

legislation. It penalizes the thrifty and rewards, perhaps, those who

should have been a little tighter. I'll still trust those politicians

before I'll trust a provincial centralizer any day.

There is

now a philosophical difference between the New Democratic Party and

this present government that is getting wider and wider.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'm glad to see the member from way over there in the East Kootenays

agreeing that that philosophy is getting wider. The difference is that,

as you examine the legislation that's coming down — the restrictions on

school boards, the restrictions on municipalities, the legislation

which has come down this session to confiscate the power of school

boards to receive non-residential tax....

The confiscation

of that tax revenue is an enormous power grab on the part of this

government which reduces and weakens local government. It reduces the

power of local government to represent the people as they should, and

takes all the power into Victoria. The great state centralizers are at

it again.

Mr. Speaker, the difference between the government

and the New Democratic Party continues to be that we trust people. We

trust people to make responsible judgments at the local level, and this

government doesn't. They don't trust local people at all. They want to

hold their hands. They don't want to give them any responsibility at

all. I'll still trust my locally elected representative to spend my

local tax money any day before I'll put it in the hands of the wastrels

on the other side of the House — put it in the hands of people who

would, in the most cynical way, attempt to garner, through acts of

desperation, anything going.

The Vancouver Sun had

something to say about this government today that I think hits the nail

on the head. The editorial's called "The B.C. Spirit."

"The slick, full-page B.C. government advertisements supporting

the Vancouver Canucks reek of political opportunism by a party desperate to

catch some reflected glory by riding the hockey team's coat-tails. The newspaper

ads featuring a white towel, the adopted symbol of the team's march to the

Stanley Cup, and the Social Credit slogan 'That's the B.C. Spirit'

cost taxpayers $14,200."

That must be hard to take, you guys. It's

like having the hand that you've been feeding come back and bite you, right?

"The

stunt will not break the provincial budget, but it's an insult to the

many British Columbians who are being asked to exercise restraint as

the province struggles through one of the worst recessions in decades.

In normal times the political gimmick would be questionable, an

expensive indiscretion. But in the midst of the government's own

restraint program, when businesses, unions and public institutions are

being asked to make sacrifices, the ads display a lack of moral

leadership.

"Since the government invites

comparison with the Canucks, it would do better to emulate the self-discipline exhibited by the team's defence."

I can't add

much more to that editorial. It really does say it all about the

cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion, to ride on the coat-tails

of a magnificent group of athletes. Certainly, they are far more worthy

of support than this government — that goes without saying, Mr. Speaker.

hope "B.C. spirit" means that moral leadership is a part of that spirit.

If anyone has the B.C. spirit, it isn't this government. The rest of

the population may have some spirit. A lot of it has been taken away

from them, but the B.C. spirit has nothing to do with the Social Credit

government.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind all members that we are presently on Bill 32, the Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act.

MR. LEGGATT:

The other aspect of this bill that is particularly offensive is that

the bill doesn't say what the percentage of restraint is. This

12-percent figure is something that has come down as a directive, not

as a regulation, and not as something you can challenge. The directive

may change next week. It may go to 14 percent. This discretionary power

set forth under Bill 32 is one of the most serious erosions of the

normal democratic process that we've ever seen foisted on us in this

House.

We have duly-elected representatives who understand

their local communities far better than this government will ever

understand local communities, They are far more responsive to local

communities and far more able to understand what a community can and

cannot afford than this government is. I am against restraint if it

means that they are the people who are doing the restraining, because

they have demonstrated that they don't know anything about restraint.

They haven't demonstrated any leadership whatsoever in the field of

restraint. They've been throwing money around like drunken sailors and

now they're telling duly-elected local people to restrain their

spending. The lesson starts at home, with this government after they've

demonstrated some restraint. If they had accepted, for example, a

reasonable cut in their budget, like the S82 million the New Democratic

Party proposed to them a year ago to cut out the fat, waste, spending,

travelling and booze, then maybe this year they might have some

argument about restraint. But restraint is a matter of leadership and

the issue around this bill is a total lack of leadership from the

minister and his government. Therefore we will be opposing this

legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again it has been

pointed out by the opposition that somehow this would restrict the

authorities and powers of local government. One member said it would

put them into some sort of receivership. I would suggest that this will

not do anything of the sort. Instead it will obviously provide the

people within the municipalities with the knowledge that the taxes they

are required to pay will be restrained and limited by this legislation.

Municipalities

[ Page 7518 ]

and

regional districts as well will be participating in the attempts to try

to reduce the cost of government at all levels. To suggest, as one

member did, that we do not believe in giving local government freedom,

is certainly contrary to all the programs that we've initiated where

much, if not all, of the initiative is with local government. Unlike

the NDP, we have not forced amalgamation and such on municipalities; we

have instead allowed the people there to make their own decisions.

was suggested by one of the members that somehow this was a sellout to

our sleazy developer friends. I don't know how this could possibly fall

into the category where someone could make such a charge. Firstly, I

have lots of developer friends, but they're not sleazy. They are not

NDP, perhaps, but I can assure you they're not sleazy. That is probably

why. Developers will benefit from the legislation in the sense that all

people will benefit if we can help limit the tax increase that might be

imposed on the populace otherwise. If we can restrict or prevent those

tax increases through this legislation then obviously we have attained

what we set out to do.

I don't argue that local governments

are very responsible and certainly I would agree with most of the

comments made with respect to local governments being perhaps most

responsible when considered in the whole sphere of governments

throughout the country. But, again, there has to be that initiative on

our part to ensure — and this legislation provides it — that local

governments in certain areas do not run away, because while we may

speak in generalities about the responsibility of individual councils

or members, there are certainly those areas where there would be the

danger of considerable tax increases, and we know this can be avoided.

This legislation, which puts a limit on the amount of budget increase,

will be the vehicle that will make it all possible.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 19

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Leggatt

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill

32, Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act, 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. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS:

When the British Columbia Systems Corporation was established a few

years ago, the board of directors was made up of members of the

Treasury Board of the province of British Columbia, and it appeared

appropriate at that time. The power to control and direct systems

development within the government clearly is a matter to be determined

ultimately by the Treasury Board and by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Mr. Speaker, the board's

membership has changed to the degree to which only one minister, the

Minister of Finance, sits on the board. I relinquished the chairmanship

of the board some time ago to Mr. Mallory Smith, believing that, again,

a minister should not serve as the chairman of any Crown corporation

board; that is in line with this government's philosophy. This is

clearly appropriate in this case and in the best interests of the

corporation. However, there exists a necessity to clarify the duties

and the responsibilities of the board and its relationship to the

provincial government. The amendment contained in Bill 18 makes it

clear that the Systems Corporation is subject to the direction of

Treasury Board.

At the present time the System Act also

requires the British Columbia Systems Corporation to remit their net

income or loss for each fiscal year to the general revenue or the

general expenditure of the province. At the outset this provided the

government and the corporation with the most practical method of

dealing with this responsibility. Given the increased activities of the

corporation — it's maturing, in fact — and its financial

arrangements with the province, it's now appropriate to provide for

increased flexibility in the financial relationship which I just

described. Under the arrangement proposed in the amendment, the

province would have that increased flexibility in determining the

timing of the movement of the income from the corporation. This would

provide for simpler accounting procedures and would also provide the

province with a method of accommodating the corporation with respect to

its particular financial needs.

In regard to the

corporation's borrowing limit, Mr. Speaker, the Systems Corporation has

leased property for its operation since its inception in 1977. Again,

the leasing was appropriate at the outset, but certainly with the

maturing of the corporation it is no longer the best route to follow.

Last year the government granted the corporation permission to

construct its own facility. Members, of course, will know of the

progress which is occurring on the construction of this building on

what may be called the northern part of Blanshard Street in the

municipality of Saanich but in the constituency of Victoria. Completion

of the structure is expected in just under a year from now — in fact,

in March 1983.

In order to adequately finance this project

and the corporation's existing operations obligations, it will be

necessary to increase the corporation's borrowing limit. This is made

clear in a breakdown of the corporation's capital program and working

capital requirements for 1982-83. Funding requirements beyond the

present fiscal year will be a function of net

[ Page 7519 ]

income

retention and new capital projects, if any, not presently identified.

This

summary indicates the need for funding authority beyond the

current level of $50 million.

In speaking to this it is

necessary to point out that the precise amount required is unknown.

However, it should be comfortably larger than the 1982-83 amount of

some $56.2 million; thus the recommendation that $65 million be the new

statutory funding limit. I can assure you and hon. members that I

believe that is comfortable. It is difficult to project in connection

with this particular corporation, but I feel that it is a comfortable

figure which we can live well within.

In addition, the

System Act presently allows the government to guarantee borrowings

undertaken by the corporation. Equipment lease contracts in existence

at the time of the formation of the corporation which had been entered

into by the province were assigned to the corporation. Subsequently

these leases were allowed to lapse or, if renewed, have been done so in

the name of the corporation without the necessity or advantage of a

provincial guarantee. New leases have been similarly structured. In

assessing the financing opportunities in the capital markets available

to a number of Crown corporations — I speak here of those other than

British Columbia Hydro — lower cost advantages do exist for certain

classes of capital acquisitions, through lease arrangements to provide

increased financing flexibility at the lowest cost, along with the

improved certainty of being able to access these lease markets. An

amendment to the System Act is proposed to provide for the government

to guarantee payments under a lease arrangement entered into by the

corporation. The provision of this guarantee should increase the

leasing opportunities at lower costs than those which might be

available without the benefit of the province's triple-A credit rating.

will assist members to the extent possible in second reading, but I

appreciate that there may be more detailed discussion at the committee

stage. I move second reading of Bill 18.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) mentioned

on some other occasion that one has to be almost leery of bills that

come in this form. It is like a little billet-doux from the minister to

the House. It contains one full page — two half pages — of information.

would like to remind the minister that we've had a long series of

debates in this House about the function of Crown corporations and

where the government stands in respect to these Crown corporations. The

favourite saying of the Premier is, "It's got to be arm's length, " and

he always used to stick his hand out. If we pass this bill we're going

to chop the arm right off, right down to the wrist, and all that's

going to be left is that they can get it around the throat of the Crown

corporation.

When they introduced the Crown Corporations

Reporting Act some years ago, the Premier said: "This bill and this

opportunity for scrutiny come at a time when the corporations listed

are those corporations which we're trying to depoliticize, for which we

are trying to appoint independent boards of directors." I point out to

the minister that I've met Mr. Mallory Smith, and he's an extremely

impressive individual, so much so that I can't understand for the life

of me why the minister wants to do what he wants to do in this bill. He

is a capable administrator of a very large corporation in the private

sector, and in the day that I spent with him he showed that he

obviously knows what is going on in the Systems Corporation. He has

acquainted his board with what's going on in the Systems Corporation.

Mark you, the board has had some interesting people serving it, but not

like Smith, who is a very capable man. Here the minister comes in and

has cut the ground completely from under the board.

It's all

very well for the minister to tell us that when the Systems Corporation

was first set up members on the board were members of the Treasury

Board. That's not why they were on the board; they were on the board

because they seemed to represent the major users of data processing in

this government. Now he wants to use that as a rationale for taking

away all of the power of the board, because that's what this bill does:

it leaves that board at the complete mercy of the Treasury Board. Gone

is the philosophy of "arm's length"; gone is the idea that it will not

be politicized, because that's what it is. But this is where they put

it in writing.

When the Systems Corporation was first set up

the purposes of the corporation were to establish and implement

policies it considers appropriate for the consolidation and

rationalization of data-processing services provided to government

entities. When that bill was first brought in the Systems Corporation

was dealing with something like $22 million. That was what the

minister, who is now the Provincial Secretary, told this House. The

total cost of data-processing in this government was $22 million in

1977. The cost of the Systems Corporation today is upwards of $70

million.

It says: "…rationalization of data processing

services provided to government entities." There is also another

section: "to ensure that government entities achieve economies by the

use of data processing services and procurement services as are

available through, or offered, provided or recommended by, the

corporation and that are appropriate for the needs of the government

entities." In there they set up a board and that was going to be the

way the board would function. This act takes all of that function away

from the board. The government will now do everything.

Therefore

one might well ask: why do they need a Crown corporation for the

Systems Corporation? We know why you took it out of the government in

the past. You took it out of the government, thereby taking all of that

expense out of the various departments; then you put it into a Crown

corporation and the Crown corporation charged back. Today those charges

are running pretty close to $70 million. That is a very long way from

the $22 million envisioned by the former Minister of Finance.

Last

year we had a discussion about the building that the minister wanted.

He came in and amended the act so as to increase the $25 million bond

power to $50 million. I said to him in that debate: "Are you sure

you've got enough, or are you going to come back next year and ask for

some more?" Ironically, he said pretty well the same thing as today:

"We are not completely sure just how much we're going to need." Now we

know they need $60 million.

What I am trying to point out is

that either you run it as a department of the government or you let the

Crown corporation people run it. They have $70 million in terms of

service costs and $60-odd million in terms of a building, adding more

to the debt of Crown corporations. One would think, if you are

fortunate enough to put together a capable board, that you would want

to leave it in the hands of that board. They are fortunate that they

have people who know about the operation of services for

data-processing. They also happen to have a very good chairman. What is

his function really going to be? It's not going to be any function at

all. When the minister presented the bill — not for the first time, but

for the second

[ Page 7520 ]

time

— it was completely wrong for him not to have been able to tell this

House what's going to happen in respect to that building. We're going

to be dealing here with an enlarging of their borrowing power. They're

going to gut the board's power.

Buried in this bill is one

very small provision which is sensible. That is the one that the

Systems Corporation asked about for some time: "Why does the government

have to scoop out all the profit we make — two or three million dollars

— and leave us absolutely nothing with which to go out into the

marketplace to buy some of the things we need?" Buried in this little

billet-doux is that provision. It's the only provision that's

worthwhile.

The other provision goes against the enunciated

principles of that government led by the Premier. He introduced a bill

about the reporting committee, in which he said: "Arm's length is what

it has to be — no politics. Good private citizens serving on a

voluntary basis on boards are doing the job for us." That's come to an

end now. They're going to be completely subject — it's written in

there — to the whole business of the Treasury Board. We know about the

Treasury Board. We know about the powers of the Treasury Board in this

government: all their interface people in the ministries, and the

difficulty ministers have in developing policies.

I put this

to the minister. This government has prided itself on knowing where the

dollars are — planning. For the second year running, this minister is

not able to tell us — I would challenge him to tell us, Mr. Speaker —

if this is the last time he is going to come to this House for an

extension of the borrowing power of the Systems Corporation connected

with that building you've got going on out in Saanich. Last year you

didn't know; this year you're not sure. The building was supposed to

cost around $30 million. We don't know; he hasn't told us. He could

have told us that in the beginning. Maybe he didn't read his speech

from last year; he left it open-ended last year, Now we're going to

have to wait until he sums up, or wait for the committee stage, when he

can tell us exactly what the extension of the borrowing power is going

to be. Surely, with all the machinery over there, with all the

accountants, with all the comprehensive auditing that's supposed to be

going on over there, the minister can be a little more candid and give

us some facts as to exactly what the building is going to cost. If you

don't know now, we're really going to be in trouble.

Then

he's going to have to deal with the philosophy in relation to the

boards, the arm's length philosophy that was enunciated by the Premier.

That's all disappeared. Why has it disappeared?

He tells us

that he needs special authorization with respect to the leasing. There

already is a

section in there which allows you to do some kind of

leasing. But none of this has been explained by the minister.

Unfortunately,

he did a very poor job of introducing the bill. I know it's not a very

big part of his empire over there. He and I have often had at it about

the Systems Corporation. But it's a pity that here is a corporation

with which, frankly, he's having a lot of difficulty. I say

difficulties, because of its size. I would suggest that the size of

this corporation is well beyond what anybody on that side of the House

ever envisioned. It's enormous and getting bigger. We have never been

able to get many of the facts that we need.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't like the Canucks.

MR. LEVI:

Do you want to put this guy in order, Mr. Speaker, or ask him to leave.

I can't debate over his yelling. Take it easy, Bill. We've got one more

hour, and then you can go and watch the hockey game.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Those who wish the protection of the Chair should be sure that they themselves are in order.

MR. LEVI:

That's quite true. I just wanted to remind him to go and watch the

hockey game. But don't, for God's sake, take an ad out tomorrow.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to finish shortly. I just want to say to the

minister: we need to know, in this bill, why you've moved away from

that all-important, enunciated philosophy of arm's length. You're no

longer arm's length with the Systems Corporation creation. Why? What is

it that you're concerned about?

I would accept that there's

got to be some concern about the fact that the services for

data-processing in this government are costing some $70 million and up.

That's a long way from the $22 million it started out at. It's almost

out of control. Now the minister's taken basic authority away from the

board. He's come to us and he wants us to give more money, and we want

him to tell us exactly what that building is going to cost. Even if he

tells us within a matter of $5 million, we'll be a lot better off than

we were last year. I said to him, "Are you sure you've got enough

money?" and at that time he said he did have enough money. He said in

reply:

Not all decisions have been reached with respect to

this new headquarters building for the British Columbia Systems

Corporation. The existing $25 million borrowing limit — the ceiling

which is in place — has not been fully utilized. Ten million dollars

has been advanced to the Systems Corporation to finance current

activities, so it is not correct to assume that we have fully committed

the existing ceiling which is now in the statute and is being amended

by this proposal.

All we want to know from the minister are

the facts. He was the one who was yelling in another debate: "Give us

the facts; give us the figures." Well, that's what I'm asking him. Give

us the facts; give us the figures. How much is the building going to

cost? Is it going to cost $30 million, $40 million, $50 million or $60

million? Are they looking at charges back to the ministries for

services they don't even have to provide but they're going to do it

anyway? What kind of charges are they going to provide? What's this

managerial stuff? It's beginning to sound like a small real estate

company that wants to do a little bit of management.... Anything to get

the money back out of the ministries. He discussed none of this; he

hasn't told us anything. There is no way we can support a bill like

this. You're going to extend the debt of the province. We had great

discussion about the size of the Crown corporations' debt.

But

the other question is: what have you done to the board? That's a slap

in the face for members of the board who are citizens and wish to

serve. As the Premier is fond of saying, private citizens are only

wanting to serve their government and all of a sudden they find out

they don't have any power at all. It's written right into the bill that

from now on

[ Page 7521 ]

the Treasury Board is going to run everything in the Systems Corporation.

want the minister to be much more candid in the presentation of this

bill. It's small and it looks ineffectual, but it destroys one basic

principle: your arm's length approach. Secondly, you have not told us

any facts or figures. Even when he delivered his opening statement he

was not quite sure how much it was going to be.

Mr. Speaker,

I would hope that when the minister closes the debate he will tell us

some of these facts so that when we get into committee we won't get a

rather wide-eyed look telling us he's not prepared to answer the

questions that have been put to him in this debate.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I find Bill 18 an amusing bill in the face of what else is

going on in this government at the present time. If Prime Minister

Trudeau, the author of all the restraints over there, the great friend

of our Premier, knew that behind the scenes.... You know, the facade

out there is that there are great restraints, and yet we see this

minister striving to increase his empire while, at the same time, we

see the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) doing exactly the same

thing.

There is a study for the Ministry of Health setting

up a whole new systems corporation for the hospitals. He's not even

using this expensive, dynamic structure that the Minister of Finance

has under his wing. It is amusing, and if it wasn't so sad in these

times of stress and constraint, it would be doubly amusing. But it's

totally irresponsible. We have these ministers out there striving to

build their empires. Bill 18 indicates that there is an expansion. If

that expansion is going to be an effective expansion, then what are we

doing with a very expensive study being carried on by Computech — Mr.

Hawkins, a systems man, to be exact? I know that there is no way that

Pierre would endorse this. Let's hope that he doesn't hear about it.

They get very edgy whenever we expose the fact that the author of all

that's coming off that side of the House is coming directly from

Ottawa, and all it was was a hint.

Mr. Speaker, they're not

following that at this time; there is no restraint here. You've got the

Minister of Health dusting along, trying to set up a proposition for

$5.5 million in the first two years for the hospitals.