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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7491 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7491

Division –– 7494

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

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On the amendment to

section 2 –– 7494

Mr. Barber

section 2 as amended –– 7495

Mr. Hall

Mr. Barber

Appendix –– 7502

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 28.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. CURTIS:

In a very few moments yesterday afternoon I attempted to start the

summary of this debate which commenced one week ago today, late in the

afternoon of last Tuesday. Through the course of the several days

intervening I think most members have had an opportunity to express

their views with respect to this bill and their views on the decisions

that the government took leading to this particular point.

the introductory remarks last week I set out the fundamental points

which were embodied in the bill. I spoke of guidelines and regulations.

I indicated that it was our expectation that the majority of matters

that are referred to the commissioner would be handled through the more

conciliatory guideline route. Nonetheless, as was made clear yesterday

by the Premier of this province, the bill has teeth if and as

necessary. That, I submit, is as it should be.

I want to

thank those members who focused on the principle of the bill; frankly,

it must be said that some members opposite did not. They used this as

an opportunity to indulge in reflections on individual members when in

fact we were hoping for more useful comment on this particular

initiative taken by the government.

A great deal of time was

also spent by the NDP last week in attempting, with failure, to jump

out of the federal Liberal bed. I think that other members of the

government benches spoke with eloquence and demonstrated the fallacy

and laughable nature of that effort when one considers the sorry record

of the NDP-Liberal alliance in Ottawa over a good number of years.

When

the leader of the official opposition first developed this theme I

thought that perhaps it would be a passing thing and that, in the

excitement of debate, he thought that he could have a little fun.

However, subsequent speakers from the official opposition made it very

clear that this was a clearly decided approach. Mr. Speaker, it failed.

It didn't work. You can say it as often as you want in this House, but

it didn't work and it won't work. So much for the diversionary tactic

that was taken.

MR. LEA: Then don't worry about it.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I don't, Mr. Member, but since the members opposite spent so much time

developing the theme, I thought I might take 90 seconds to just refute

it — to dismiss it for what it is: a diversionary tactic. And it didn't

work.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that restraint in the public sector is an

important aspect of the government's thrust towards controlling the total

cost of government in this province. If we were completely alone in this particular

approach perhaps some of the criticism which has been directed towards us in

this regard would have more merit. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, you and, I think,

most members and most Canadians know that it is a problem which is being addressed,

discussed and considered and which will be acted upon in a number of provinces

in the months to come, because there is no other easy way for us to ensure that

government does not go out of control.

would refer hon. members to the six provincial budgets which have been

tabled to date this year, including British Columbia's. Even Alberta

next door said this — and I believe the quote is almost entirely

correct: "Alberta faces new budgetary realities. Basic changes in

Alberta's present taxation, expenditure and savings and investment

policies will be required before long." There is specific reference to

the need for restraint. Alberta has a problem. We have been compared so

often with Alberta, and we have been told that it is unfortunate that

we do not have the heritage trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, is

there a need for restraint in the province of Alberta? I submit there

is. They have a budgetary deficit — not a capital debt, but an

operating deficit — increasing from $240 million in 1981-82 to a quite

astonishing $2, 440 million in 1982-83. It results from low oil

revenues and a massive 27.3 percent increase in budgetary expenditures.

As a result, it has been announced that no future loans will be made to

other provinces from the Heritage Fund. In Ontario the 1981-82 deficit

is expected to exceed $1 billion. Interest on public debt is currently

9.4 percent of total budgetary expenditure in that province. The

situation is likely to worsen in 1982-83.

I spoke about Quebec. I referred to the editorial in the Globe and Mail

on April 30. Quebec 1981-82 deficit over $3 billion, likely to worsen

this year. They are servicing $3 billion on operating account. The

servicing of the public debt will cost $380 million in 1981-82, 16

percent of total budgetary expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, you might be thinking: "What does this recital have to do

with Bill 28?" I submit that it is the essence, the heart and the reason

for Bill 28, because this government has taken notice of early warning. In Quebec,

as we all know but perhaps as we should remind ourselves from time to time,

the provincial government has told its employees that wages will have to be

frozen — not limited to a moderate, responsible, reasonable increase, but frozen.

That is the problem in Quebec. I suggest that that is the kind of thing that

no government in British Columbia would want to see occur to our public employees,

whether they are at the officials level, whether they have just joined the public

service, whether they are involved in local government, whether they are involved

in education, whether they are involved in hospitals or whatever. I don't

want to see that happen, and this government doesn't want to see that happen.

Continuing

with Quebec, grants to hospitals have been substantially cut back in

the course of the last few months to keep that huge deficit from

growing larger. So it's a desperation situation in one of our sister

provinces.

In Nova Scotia the 1982-83 deficit will be $374

million on a per capita basis, equal to a British Columbia deficit, if

we had one, of $1.2 billion. That's the budgetary truth, the reality of

Nova Scotia in May 1982. If their deficit were converted into British

Columbia terms, it would be $1.2 billion. This deficit will be incurred

notwithstanding massive

[ Page 7492 ]

tax increases. The cost of servicing that debt in Nova Scotia represents 14.1 percent of total budgetary expenditures.

The

federal government is the most alarming instance of all, because we are

all Canadians. The 1982-83 deficit may now exceed $12 billion. The cost

of servicing that federal debt could be as high as 25 percent,

one-quarter of the total budgetary expenditure in 1982-83. Restraint?

We need restraint, Mr. Speaker. We need restraint across this country,

and we certainly need it at the federal level. The bell is starting to

ring in Ottawa. The federal government is reported to now be

considering general expenditure restraints and controls for its

employees, along with staff reductions in order to keep that deficit

under control.

Getting back to Alberta, very briefly, I have

another quote. I think it was on page 23 of the budget address: "If

demands for provincial services continue to rise rapidly, the

government will have to increase tax rates sooner than expected. Tax

increases will inevitably have to occur."

Mr. Speaker, by

speaking of a few provinces and the federal government, I have

attempted to outline the problem which we might have faced in British

Columbia if we had not introduced the Compensation Stabilization Act.

The Premier spoke yesterday. If I may say so — it is not essential that

I say so — I want to say I thought the Premier yesterday identified for

all employees and all British Columbians precisely how this government

views the need for the controlling of government growth, and I

congratulate him for it. It is tempting today to rebut some of the

silly points that have been raised by the opposition — for example, the

reference by one speaker last week regarding furniture in the Ministry

of Finance. I hope no one is still misinformed on that particular

point, Mr. Speaker. It's furniture for employees, virtually all of them

members of the British Columbia Government Employees Union — working

furniture in order that they can perform more effectively at their

desks or work stations, and in order that they would be treated as

first-class rather than second-class citizens. So don't offer that as

an example of a lack of government restraint. When we order furniture

for some hundreds of employees over a good number of months, because of

complaints and because of our concern for the working condition of

government employees, don't offer that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Balderdash.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

"Balderdash," the member says; he's not even in his seat. Don't offer

that to us as an example of why we introduced this legislation. If you

have a legitimate criticism, make it, but don't fish around for phony

issues to support your weak case. Phony issues, phony arguments, I'll

stop short of saying phony members; that would not be parliamentary, so

I won't say it.

To the member who is interjecting with

respect to the Ministry of Finance's furniture — he has perhaps thought

of things he should have said when he was on his feet, but that is

usually the case — in the event that he wishes to see the furniture, I

extend an invitation to him; today, tomorrow, we'll go and see it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Oh, he doesn't want to see it, because that would tell him, and me,

that in fact it was a phony argument. Mr. Member, put your feet where

your mouth is, you usually do. Walk over with me — I invite you to.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. No interruptions, and the member who is speaking will address the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Of course, Mr. Speaker.

What

we have, and what was identified by government members and the Premier

yesterday, is a unique challenge to our public employees throughout

British Columbia — to those in the public sector, those at the local

level, the school board level, the hospital level, the provincial level

and in our Crown corporations. It's an opportunity to ensure that their

colleagues are not laid off as a result of the very severe difficulties

in which all of North America finds itself. That's a great opportunity.

It was the essential element that was developed when the government

first started its discussion of what is now known as Bill 28. It has

nothing to do with the past. As a problem, it was identified and this

was seen as a solution appropriate for the situation in which we find

ourselves today in British Columbia, along with the rest of Canada and

the United States.

To reflect again for just a moment, if we

had ignored, first of all, the problem, and if we had not found the

solution embodied in this bill, then we would be in the situation,

which can now only be described as desperate, obtaining in some other

parts of North America with respect to public employees. The debate on

second reading concludes in a few moments. I ask the NDP again: in

committee, in the corridor or in your statements to the press, where

are your numbers? If you don't like our guidelines, then give us yours.

We didn't hear any. We heard none in the debate. We heard a great deal

of extraneous information — irrelevant in some respects, in my view.

But we didn't hear the NDP numbers. We didn't hear what kind of level

or lift should be permitted in the public sector in the 1982-83 year,

given the conditions which apply here and elsewhere. So as they work on

their numbers, Mr. Speaker, perhaps they will make comment in the days

and weeks to come.

The purpose of this bill is work-sharing.

I think that is a very fundamental matter at this particular point.

Others have spoken of — and so have I on previous occasions — the very

cruel factor which comes into play in the private sector, where

suddenly no job exists. Not so in the public sector. I'm glad that it's

not so. We'll hear more about the NDP numbers in the course of the days

and weeks ahead, if they wish to offer them to us.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) will come to order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think it is important for objective British Columbians to read the remarks in Hansard ....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Prince Rupert will come to order. This is the second call.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: This is the third call.

[ Page

7493 ]

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I noticed in your

warnings to members about speaking out of turn that you've started

saying first, second and third call. I think, in fairness to the

members, you should tell us what happens when we've been bad boys and

girls on the third call or the fourth call, because I don't think it's

fair that you start saying first call, second call, third call unless

there's some way that the members know what you mean by it. You can't

use it as a threat. You have to give us the rules to go by.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair hardly needs any encouragement from the hon. member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: It's not encouragement.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Please be seated. The authorities require that Mr.

Speaker maintain order. The authorities also require that members

should not be caught unaware of having been repeatedly called to order.

In trying to assist the members so that they not be caught unawares,

the Speaker tries to extend to them the courtesy of letting them know

they are offending, and are offending in a pattern. That is the reason.

I trust that's acceptable to all members.

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, it's not acceptable.

think we have to know exactly where we stand. You can't say first

warning, second warning, third warning without letting us know what

happens on the second warning, the third warning and the fourth

warning. If you don't, it's a threat with no substance to it. I would

like to know what the rules are. I

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the member is aware that he has not been caught unawares and that is all that the authorities require.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I want to know what the rules are, because that is a threat that I will not accept.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. The member will be seated. It is hardly the purpose of

the Chairman or the Speaker of this House to be in a debate with hon.

members regarding the rules. All hon. members know the rules. The Chair

will seek to enforce them.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA: On the same point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The member wishes to debate with the Chair?

MR. LEA: No, I don't.

MR. SPEAKER: On a new point of order....

MR. LEA:

No, it is the same point of order. I want an answer. It's not good

enough that you say "first warning, second warning, third warning." I

want to know what the consequences of each warning are.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is out of order.

MR. LEA: So that is it — you can use it when you want.

MR. SPEAKER:

The member is out of order. I will review the Blues, but it appears

that there is almost an attitude of contempt from the member for Prince

Rupert.

The Minister of Finance continues.

HON. MR. CURTIS:

I was attempting to conclude these remarks in relatively short order,

because the debate has been protracted. I again would point to a couple

of remarks which were made by members opposite and which I think need

clarification.

British Columbia Hydro was mentioned. I

assure the House that British Columbia Hydro executives are not exempt

from the compensation stabilization plan, contrary to be point that was

made in debate last week. The usual date for annual increases for those

executives is December 1. The last increase was approved on December 1.

It was implemented in January 1982, before the announcement of the

compensation stabilization plan on February 18. B.C. Hydro executives,

therefore, will enter the compensation stabilization program for two

years as of next December 1. I think that that was important.

The

allegation was also made that the compensation stabilization

commissioner, Mr. Peck, would not be able to administer the law,

guidelines and regulations governing the CSP free from cabinet

interference. The point which has been missed by members opposite — in

fact, the key to the success of this program — is the commissioner's

credibility and independence. The government will not interfere in

individual cases which are before Mr. Peck, which he has under

consideration. That is fundamental to the form of program which we have

introduced. We have chuckles from across the way, once again. It is a

very important subject, I think, and there is far too much chuckling on

the other side instead of discussion of the principle of the bill. I

feel very sorry about that, because I think we could have had a good

discussion. One member — the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) —

did address himself to the principle of the bill, and we disagree on

the thrust. That is fair enough, but at least he had some comments to

make which I think could be analyzed and considered.

In the

greater Victoria area, where I reside, and in the constituency which I

represent, we have a large number of public employees. Some of them are

employed by the British Columbia Ferry Corporation; many of them

employed by the government of British Columbia in one ministry or

another, the liquor distribution branch, and a variety of Crown

corporations. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are

members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. In fact, as a member

from the capital region, as others would know — as my colleague, the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) would know — it is very

difficult to go anywhere n this area without meeting and having an

opportunity to discuss government business and public affairs with

individuals — whether you meet them in a shopping centre, in a cafe, on

the street or in the course of moving through the constituency. I have

a message, not from the Lieutenant-Governor but from those

public-sector employees whom I know, and whom I've had a good

association with over a number of years, and who live right here.

Notwithstanding the attacks from the other side, notwithstanding the

incredible exaggerations which occurred in the debate last week,

notwithstanding inflammatory statements made by union

[ Page 7494 ]

leaders,

the bulk of the public-sector employees in British Columbia accept,

understand and welcome Bill 28. That's the message, Mr. Speaker, and

nothing which has been said in the last several days can contradict it

or prove it incorrect. Whether it is in the capital region, whether

it's in the north of British Columbia, whether it's in the interior,

whether it is in the lower mainland, the story is the same.

Public-sector employees recognize the difficulties in which we — in

Canada, in British Columbia, in North America — find ourselves. They

hope and believe that it is a short-lived difficulty. I believe that.

They are prepared to see moderate restraint imposed during these

difficult months and years. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have Bill 28.

That is why it was so carefully designed. That is why we selected an

eminently qualified commissioner. That is why this government supports

it, and that is why the people who are affected by it, understand and

accept it.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Richmond

Ree

Davidson

Mussallem

Brummet

NAYS — 18

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Hall

Levi

Gabelmann

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Bill 28, Compensation Stabilization 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: Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

Section I approved.

section 2.

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

On the amendment.

MR. BARBER: Surely it shouldn't pass without some word of explanation from the minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is self-explanatory. If the member

wishes, I can read it to him. In short, it states that "of amounts,

calculated under prescribed formulas, to assist a municipality or

regional district to pay the costs as determined by the inspector of

municipalities of constructing sewage collection and disposal

facilities, recommended by the inspector of municipalities according to

prescribed criteria, including debt charges incurred by the

municipality or regional district in respect of such facilities before

this

section came into force...." This is simply to ensure that there

is the provision, as outlined, to allow the inspector to give

consideration to this.

MR. BARBER: It allows the

inspector of municipalities to exercise a rather extraordinary degree

of discretion in determining which are the favoured municipalities and

which are the unfavoured. You're asking him to perform a fundamentally

political chore. You're asking him to do so in the guise of

administering

an act which is fundamentally political in its content.

This is not, I think, reasonable. This is not a fair or appropriate

request of the inspector of municipalities. The inspector of

municipalities is supposed to be one of the most impartial and

politically disinterested of public servants. The inspector of

municipalities and the deputy minister used to be one and the same

person; they are now separate offices. This is a course that we

recommended to the government some years ago, and which they accepted

two years ago. We're glad they did. But now, as far as I can tell — and

I certainly read the amendment, but I ask for your explanation of it —

they propose to use the office of the inspector in a manner that is not

consistent with the other duties and obligations of that office.

you propose to allow the inspector to determine which are, and which

are not, appropriate expenditures for sewage and other similar matters,

and to give him the discretion to determine whether or not they were

initiated at a sufficient period before the inception of this act to

allow them to qualify under it, you are asking him to make a basically

political choice. The office of inspector of municipalities is that

which arbitrates disputes between citizens and persons in local

government. That office is not the same as the deputy minister's

office, which has different capacities and functions. I ask whether or

not it is wise to give the inspector this obligation, and ask whether

or not, if this is your policy, it might not be wiser to give it

instead to the deputy minister of municipalities, who, more

traditionally and more appropriately, carries out the political

direction of the minister of the day. I don't think it's appropriate to

use the inspector of municipalities for this function. If you wish the

function handled, give it to someone who should handle it better, and

who can handle it more ably. That, I think, is the deputy, and not the

inspector of municipalities.

Amendment approved.

section 2 as amended.

[ Page 7495 ]

MR. HALL:

The net effect of

section 2 has, of course, been listed in debate on

second reading. However, those of us who have heard back again from our

municipalities since debate on second reading, and since the minister

spoke during second reading, now have an opportunity to evaluate even

further the effects of this

section and of the bill. I want to tell

you, as I predicted in the previous debate, of the effects of this

particular bill on the municipalities in my riding.

For

instance, since the minister spoke, I've heard from the city of White

Rock, particularly in view of some of the cuts they've got to make in

terms of sewerage, which is dealt with particularly in this section.

The net loss to the city of White Rock, because of the bill, is going

to be in excess of $200,000, which will seriously affect their sewage

program. They're going to have to stop sewage tiling in the city of

White Rock. They're going to have to stop some of the expansions of the

libraries. They're going to have to stop the recreation and

conservation activities in the city of White Rock. They're going to

have to stop some of the paving in the city of White Rock.

first blush the net effect of this

section appears to be an increase,

but when you examine all the labelling of money that takes place

through the various effects of this bill, the city of White Rock will

be short of money to the extent of 3 mills, and they'll have to

increase the debt levy 1 mill. No provision will be possible in the

city of White Rock this coming year for a contingency fund. What else

will they have to do in that city, which everybody knows is one of the

main centres in our province for retired citizens? You'll be interested

to know, Mr. Chairman, because you live not a million miles from there,

that they're going to have to reduce the number of hours for senior

citizens' activity centres because of the net effect of this

section

that we're dealing with — a pleasant springtime present for the senior

citizens of our province. Paving cuts, recreation and conservation

cuts, library cuts, sewage tiling cuts.

Summertime in White

Rock. The minister and I spend a happy day in the summer at the

sandcastle competition, building castles in the air, dreaming of

leadership on the one hand and getting home to my family on the other.

What are they going to do this summer when the beach crews, the number

of personnel hired on our beaches in White Rock, are cut because of

this section? Maybe the minister will be safe, high and dry in his

penthouse eyrie on Rockland Avenue and not down there at the sandcastle

competition with no protection.

Mr. Chairman, that debate style aside, I would ask the minister if

he knew when he responded to my suggestions about what was happening in

Surrey, the other major municipality in our riding.... He chose to

belabour the municipality of Surrey in an attempt to deal with my

criticisms about their cuts. He said: "Why doesn't Surrey reduce its

capital expenditures in the extension to its municipal hall housing all

the bureaucrats? Why don't we do that," he said. Do you remember the

vigour and force with which he dealt with that subject in second

reading? Didn't he know that the Surrey municipality has a council of

extension programs? But he didn't address the points I did raise, such

as that we're going to have three less RCMP constables than requested.

He didn't answer any of the questions that were raised about his own

municipality during second reading. Instead, he chose to berate the

municipal council and accuse them of building palaces to house a

bureaucracy.

That

wasn't good enough, I say to my partner in Surrey. You didn't serve the

people of Surrey well in that debate. Now, in committee stage, I ask

you again: why should our municipality in White Rock have to take that

kind of punishment by this kind of bill? Why should the senior citizens

have their activity centre reduce the number of hours open for service?

Why should the library program be cut back in that municipality by this

teaming and labelling "first you see it, then you don't" kind of

program contained in Bill 15? Mr. Speaker, I say it's not good enough.

I'm not going to vote for any of these revenue-sharing agreements that

will see this kind of activity visited upon the municipalities of our

province, which we've shown as we've gone up and down the length and

breadth of the province and read and registered into the record what

the full net effect of Bill 15 is on the citizens, the municipalities

and the districts of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have to respond to that, because the member is

a colleague of mine in the constituency. Firstly, I want to assure him

that I intend to continue living in the constituency. I have always

lived in my constituency. As far as I can recall, he has never lived in

his constituency and still lives in beautiful Tsawwassen, which is some

considerable distance from the constituency.

All of the

remarks coming across the floor from the Leader of the Opposition....

Neither he nor his running mate have ever lived in their constituency

either. So let's set the record straight.

While we're

setting the record straight, let's also mention here that if all of

those programs in White Rock that my colleague from Surrey mentioned

were to be cancelled or cut back, they could reduce the taxes in White

Rock by half. The effect on White Rock is not what the member makes it

out to be, and I think it's rather irresponsible to throw such a scare

into senior citizens, those who use libraries, those who enjoy the

beach and those who look to the RCMP for protection, an effect that is

certainly very minor compared to what he mentions. I don't think it's

proper at all.

MR. HALL: It's not good enough to say

it's not as I say it is without giving some reasons and some evidence.

First of all, I can quote from personal conversations I've had with

aldermen in the city of White Rock. That's the first thing I want to

say. The second thing I want to say is that I don't think the minister

even reads his own local newspapers any more. That's another pity. If

he cared to buy or purchase — or I can lend him or arrange a

subscription for him to — the White Rock Sun or the Peace Arch News ,

he would see columns by Jennifer Brown, Eileen Tuomaala. He could see

the quotations from all of the reporters and the city officials who

list all of the things that I've said. If he likes, I'll send him

photostats of these articles that were in his own local newspapers. I

can send him articles that were in the White Rock Sun

dated Tuesday, May 4, which quotes city treasurer Bob Carmichael and

alderman Carmen Beuhler, a raving left-wing New Democratic who said all

of these things. As a matter of fact, I believe he's the agent for the

local Conservative member of parliament. Mayor Tom Kirsten, Alderman

Brian Brett and engineer Bob Gascoyne, are all mentioned and quoted,

and they list those things I have read into the record today in terms

of the effects on White Rock. So it's not good enough for the minister

to just stand up and say that isn't so; he's got to do a

[ Page 7496 ]

little

better than that and tell me where indeed the city of White Rock is

going to find the $200,000 to replace the cut programs I've listed.

MR. BARBER:

This is the bill which the president of the Union of British Columbia

Municipalities described as fraudulent. This is a bill which gives with

one hand and takes back with two. This is a bill which in

section 2 —

that we are now debating, Mr. House Leader — indicates the repeal of

the Sewerage Assistance Act and the Transmission Line (Underground) Act

— that's

section 5 and

section 6 specifically — and in this instance

grants authority to require that moneys that were formerly made

available from separate sources now be made available with the Revenue

Sharing Fund, which therefore automatically reduces the moneys that

were previously available for unconditional grants to municipalities.

Once

upon a time it was the policy of this coalition opposite to guarantee

that 80 percent of all the moneys from the Revenue Sharing Fund would

be made available in the form of unconditional grants. In the usual

sneaky way that these guys always do policy changes, they announced

nothing. They did not indicate openly and honestly that they were

cutting back that 80 percent figure and abandoning that promise they

made to municipal governments in British Columbia. Instead, in a sneaky

way they simply introduced this and hoped that we and the

municipalities would forget the 80 percent promise. Well, they don't

and we don't either, although I'm sure the minister would be glad if we

did.

I want to read into the record a series of

calculations, Mr. Chairman, of the impact of

section 2 and others — but

section 2 is adequate for the purpose — on individual municipalities in

certain provincial ridings, on the individual municipalities that are

going to be the victims of the cuts in unconditional revenue-sharing

and of the new obligations found in

section 2. The figures that I read

into the record today will be given in two forms: what we will call

method one and then method two. The difference between the two is small

and simple and has to do with how you calculate the losses to

municipalities as the result of the distinctions between the calendar

and fiscal years among local governments and the provincial government.

Method

one is calculated as follows. The total allocation for 1982-83 equals

the basic grant plus the supplementary basic grant plus the

unconditional or per capita grant plus three-quarters of the

social-assistance savings estimate. Let me repeat that method one, the

figures I will read into the record today, indicates that only

three-quarters of the amount of social-assistance saving will be used

in the calculation. This is because the municipalities and the

provincial government have different fiscal years. While the province

is estimating savings over the whole year — April 1, 1982 to March 31,

1983 — municipalities with a fiscal year following the calendar year

have already contributed social-assistance moneys in the first quarter

of 1982, and as such they will only receive three-quarters of the

benefits indicated by the ministry in its announcements. So, Mr.

Chairman, whenever I refer to method one as a means of calculating the

losses that will be suffered by municipalities, this is the basis upon

which that calculation has been made.

Method two is

calculated on the same basis, with the following exception, which

refers to social-assistance savings calculations. It runs as follows.

The total allocation for 1982-83 equals the basic grant plus the

supplementary basic grant plus the unconditional per capita grant plus

.3636 of the social-assistance savings estimate. Let me explain how

that is derived, because this is the one that municipalities are going

with. The first is the one that the government has gone with; the

second is the one that local government has to live with. I ask the

minister to note that only .3636 of the amount of social-assistance

savings is used in this calculation. This is because 11/44 of the

savings, which is to say one-quarter of the total savings, have already

been paid out by the municipalities for the first quarter of 1982, and

because an additional 17/44 of the total allocation — this is figured

on the basis of $44 million, and that's where the figure comes from —

must be paid back to the provincial treasury this year. This is a

direct loss to municipal governments. Since approximately $28 million

of the estimated $44 million in social-assistance savings will not

accrue to applicable municipalities this year, only 16/44 or .3636 of

the total individual savings and social assistance costs will be used

in that calculation.

So there are two bases, Mr. Chairman,

and each of them results in a loss to local government; but method two

tends to produce a greater loss, and this is the method used by more

municipalities than any other. We have contacted virtually all the

municipalities in British Columbia — directly or indirectly through the

Union of British Columbia Municipalities. These figures come straight

from them and, comparatively in method one, from the government itself.

So no matter which way you calculate it, on the basis of method one

which is the provincial government's version, or of method two which is

the local government's version, you will see loss upon loss. Let me

remind you, this government had a policy that 80 percent of the

revenue-sharing moneys would be made available in the form of

unconditional grants. Unannounced they have abandoned that policy.

this bill they propose to require that money come from revenue-sharing

that used to come from another place, to pay for sewerage and

underground transmission lines. This is a direct loss to

municipalities. This loss is proven when you examine the following

instances. For the benefit of Hansard , I'll follow the same

system throughout, and I will afterwards provide a copy of these

calculations. Every one of them comes from UBCM, the Ministry of

Municipal Affairs, or the municipality concerned. You now know the

methodological basis for calculating these figures. I don't expect to

hear a word of dispute from the minister, because they are his own

figures in method one and they are probably the figures of the Union of

B.C. Municipalities based on the formula I've outlined. I hope you

won't try, even once, to pretend that these are not absolutely accurate.

The

municipality of Stewart, in the provincial constituency of Atlin, under

unconditional revenue-sharing programs was allocated $120,588 in

1981-82. In 1982-83, according to method one, the allocation will be

$108,203. This is an absolute loss of $12,385, or a percentage loss of

10.27. According to method two they would be allocated the same figure,

$108,203, in 1982-83. This is an absolute loss of $12,385 and a

percentage loss of 10.27. By way of illustration, as the minister will

see, the figures are identical on both bases of calculation.

the municipality of Burnaby, which is covered in the provincial

constituencies of Burnaby North, Burnaby-Edmonds and

Burnaby-Willingdon, the unconditional revenue-sharing grant in 1981-82

was $10,071,209. In 1982-83, by method one, it will be $7,806,332. This

is an absolute loss of $2,264,887 for a percentage loss of 22.49.

According to method two, in 1982-83 Burnaby would lose $3,319,713 on

[ Page 7497 ]

allocation of $6,751,496, for a percentage loss of 32.96. Burnaby, when

you use the provincial government basis of calculation, loses 22.49

percent of its unconditional grant, or when you use the local

government calculation, 32.96 percent.

The town of Golden in

the riding of Columbia River in 1981-82 had $279,674 allocated for

unconditional revenue-sharing grants. This year that is cut under

method one of calculation to $252,531. This is an absolute loss of

$27,143, or a percentage loss of 9.71. According to method two the

allocation for 1982-83 is down to $225,668. This is an absolute loss of

$54,006, or a percentage loss of 19.31.

In the municipality

of Kimberley in the riding of Columbia River, 1981-82 saw $554,801

allocated for unconditional revenue-sharing grants. According to method

one this is a loss this year down to $468,514. The absolute loss is

$86,287, for a percentage loss of 15.55. According to method two the

unconditional revenue-sharing allocation would be $411,520. This is an

absolute loss of $143,281, or a percentage loss of 25.83.

the same riding the town of Invermere last year had allocated $140,770

for unconditional revenue-sharing programs. This year, method one says

that's to be cut to $138,067, for an absolute loss of $2,703, or a

percentage loss of 1.92. Method two provides identical figures.

the riding of Comox, Courtenay was allocated $635,002 last year under

this program. Method one this year sees that grant reduced to $546,009.

This is an absolute loss of $88,993, or a percentage loss of 14.01.

According to method two, in Courtenay this year the unconditional grant

is reduced to $476,519 for an absolute loss of $158,483, or a

percentage cutback of minus 24.96 percent.

In the same

riding of Comox, last year the municipality of Comox had allocated

$499,236. This year, under method one, we see that cut to $441,665.

This is an absolute loss of $57,581, or a percentage loss of 11.53.

Under method two we see allocated to Comox this year only $390,596.

This is an absolute loss of $108,640. It is a percentage loss of 21.76.

Parksville,

in the same constituency of Comox, last year had allocated $380,343.

This year, under method one, that is cut to $341,329, for an absolute

loss of $39,014 and a percentage loss of 10.26. Method two demonstrates

that this year Parksville will get only $301,020, a loss from the

previous year of $79,323, or a percentage loss of 20.86.

The

village of Qualicum Beach, in the riding of Comox, last year had

$211,022 allocated for the unconditional revenue-sharing program.

Method one indicates that they will be increased this year. I want to

read an increase — the one we can find in Comox. It will be increased

to $229,568. This is an absolute increase of $18,546 or a percentage

increase of 8.79. I want the minister to understand that we're not

simply reading all the negatives into the record. When we could find a

positive figure we have quoted it. It is as accurate in the positive

sense as are all the other figures in the negative. I don't want the

minister to think that we, like him, cook the books. We will read the

positive figures as well as the negative ones into the record. Method

two would calculate that this year, however, the town of Qualicum Beach

would suffer a small net loss. Method two would see the revenue-sharing

unconditional program grant cut to $207,590. That is a loss of a small

amount: $3,432, or the small percentage of 1.63.

The

municipality of Cumberland, in the riding of Comox, had an

unconditional revenue-sharing program grant last year of $171,822. This

year they will suffer a small loss.

Under method one we

calculated it as $171,238, for a loss of $584. This is represented by

the percentage of 0.34. Under method two Cumberland sees the very same

small loss. The different methods result in the same figures.

Let's

move now to the riding of Cowichan-Malahat. Let's take a look here at

the municipality of North Cowichan, which, in 1981-82, was allocated

$1,225,390. This year method one indicates that the allocation will be

cut to $1,078,542. This is an absolute loss of $146,848 and a

percentage loss of 11.98. Method two demonstrates an even greater loss.

They would be cut to $937,815. This is an absolute loss of $287,575, or

a percentage loss of 23.47.

Duncan, in the constituency of

Cowichan-Malahat, was allocated $404,990 last year under the

unconditional revenue-sharing program. This year, under method one,

that is cut to $283,603. This is an absolute loss of $121,396, or a

percentage loss of 29.97 — a quarter of their budget gone away. Under

method two Duncan suffers an even greater loss. If you calculate it

according to the basis I outlined at the beginning of these remarks,

you will see that Duncan's unconditional revenue-sharing grant is cut

even further — in this instance to $250,929. This is an absolute loss

of $154,070, for a percentage loss of 38.04 percent.

The

municipality of Lake Cowichan, in the same riding, last year had

allocated $236,397. Method one demonstrates that they will be cut to

$198,459. This is an absolute loss of $37,938, or a percentage loss of

16.05. The same municipality, according to method two, would see the

same losses dollar for dollar. There is no difference in the way that

works out.

Let's move now to the riding of Dewdney. Maple

Ridge, in that riding, was allocated $2,368,967 last year. This year

method one provides only $1,864,325. This is a total loss to the

municipality, under the calculations of method one, of $522,642. This

is a percentage loss of 21.90. Maple Ridge, in the same riding,

according to method two, would get $1,615,236. This is a loss of

$771,731, or a percentage loss of 32.33. Mr. Chairman, I believe

there's an error in here. I will correct that in a moment. I think it

should read $1,615,000,

In the same riding of Dewdney, in

the municipality of Mission, last year they had allocated $1,439,434.

This year, under method one, it will be cut to $1,239,291. This is an

absolute loss of $200,143, or a percentage loss of 13.9. The

municipality of Mission, according to the other calculation, this year

will see allocated only $1,084,298, for an absolute loss of $355,136,

or a percentage loss of 24.67.

In the same riding of Dewdney, taking a look at Pitt Meadows, we see

allocated last year, under this program, $415,310. Method one sees that

figure cut to $382,472. This is an absolute loss of $32,838, or a

percentage loss of 7.91. The second method of calculation sees that cut

even further. Allocation this year is $334,479, for an absolute loss of

$80,831, a percentage loss of 19.46.

Let's move to Kamloops. Last year Kamloops received $4,522,144

under the unconditional revenue-sharing program. This year the first

method of calculation sees that reduced to $3,880,620. This is an

absolute loss for the people of Kamloops of $641,521, or a percentage

loss of 14.19. According to the other calculation, once again Kamloops

loses. Method two provides a loss to $3,385,657. According to the

second calculation, this is an absolute loss of $1,136,487, for a

percentage loss of 25.13. That's what

[ Page 7498 ]

Kamloops loses under the wonderful new formula that Social Credit has imposed on them.

Let's

move to Kootenay and the municipality of Cranbrook. We see that last

year they received $1,271,858 in unconditional revenue-sharing. Method

one demonstrates that this year that will be cut to $1,079,699. This is

an absolute loss of $192,159, or a percentage loss of 15.11. The second

method of calculation sees the allocation this year reduced to

$956,708, or $315,150 less, for a percentage loss of 24.78.

Kootenay as well, looking at Fernie, we see that last year they

received $449,568. Method one provides that that will be cut to

$394,953. This is an absolute loss of $54,615, or a percentage loss of

12.15. Alternatively, in Fernie, on the basis of the second method, we

see that the allocation this year will be only $352,882, for an

absolute loss of $96,686, or a percentage loss of 21.51.

the same riding of Kootenay, in Sparwood, we see that last year they

received $310,439. This year under method one it will be cut to

$260,164. To the people of Sparwood this is a loss of $50,275, a

percentage loss of 16.19. The second method of calculation demonstrates

that this year they will receive only $228,039 in unconditional

revenue-sharing grants. To the people of Sparwood this will be a loss

of $82,400, a percentage loss of 26.54.

To continue with the

riding of Kootenay, when you look at the town of Elkford you discover

that last year they received $203,701 in unconditional revenue-sharing

grants. This year method one provides an increase. Once again let me

demonstrate that we are prepared to provide evidence of increases where

we can find them. We do so here in the case of Elkford. Admittedly it

is a small increase, but nonetheless a welcome one. Formula one

provides that that will be increased to $236,889; this is an absolute

improvement of $33,098, a percentage improvement of 16.24. Method two

is somewhat less generous, but it is still a small increase in Elkford.

This year it provides that unconditional revenue-sharing will be

$212,731; this is a benefit of $8,940, a percentage increase of 4.39.

would like to move now to the riding of Saanich and the Islands and the

municipality of Saanich, represented so interestingly by the Minister

of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Last year the municipality of Saanich

received $5,557,641 in unconditional revenue-sharing grants. This year

method one cuts that to $4,559,140, an absolute loss of $1,018,501, a

percentage loss of 18.33. In Saanich method two makes the cut even

greater; the grant will fall to $3,920,869, for an absolute loss of

$1,636,772, a percentage loss of 29.45. Central Saanich, which is in

the same riding, received $700,191 last year; this year, on the first

calculation, it will receive $582,857, an absolute loss of $117,334, a

percentage loss of 16.76. In the second calculation the same

municipality would have only $506,427 allocated this year; this is an

absolute loss to them of $193,764, a percentage loss of 27.67.

Saanich and the Islands again, looking at the township of Sidney, we

see that last year they had allocated $548,323 under this program. This

year they get only $496,272 under the first method, for an absolute

loss of $52,051 or a percentage loss of 9.49. The second method would

see even a deeper cut in revenue-sharing under Social Credit. Sidney

will fall victim to that cut and be reduced to $434,865 for an absolute

loss of $113 458 or a percentage loss of 20.69.

In the same

riding of Saanich and the Islands, the municipality of North Saanich

had $404,434 under this program last year. This year that will be cut,

under method one, to $365,652. This is an absolute loss of $38,752 or a

percentage loss of 9.59. Method two provides alternatively an even

greater cut. This will be $318,380, an absolute loss of $86,054, a

percentage loss of 21.28.

Looking now at the riding of

Shuswap-Revelstoke, represented so ably by the member for that riding

(Mr. King), who yesterday gave such a brilliant speech about the utter

hypocrisy of Social Credit restraint programs last year, the

municipality of Salmon Arm received $834,015 under this program. This

year that will be cut to $684,722 under the first method. This is an

absolute loss of $149,293 or a percentage loss of 17.9. According to

the second method the people of Salmon Arm will be cut even more

viciously by Social Credit. They will go down to $601,414, for an

absolute loss of $232,601 or a percentage loss of 27.89.

the same riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke, when you look at the city of

Revelstoke you see that last year they received $475,968 under this

program. This year they will get a small improvement. Once again, let

me indicate that we are prepared to give credit where it is due. We are

not going to cook the books. We're not going to fudge the figures. We

are going to tell the truth, unlike the coalition opposite, about the

actual impact of this program. The town of Revelstoke gets a small

benefit from this particular means of altering revenue sharing. This

year they will go up to $586,594. This is an absolute change of

$110,626 in the positive, or a percentage change of 23.24, according to

method one. Method two — the other means of calculating these things —

is somewhat less generous, but nonetheless it is still a small net

gain. In Revelstoke this year, the unconditional revenue-sharing grant

will go up to $523,364. This is an absolute improvement of $47,396, or

a percentage increase of 9.96. Regrettably, that's the only improvement

in that riding; everyone else loses.

In the same riding, you

look at the township of Spallumcheen. Last year they received $282,988

under this program. This year they are being cut by Social Credit to

$270,649. This is an absolute loss of $12,339, or a percentage loss of

4.36. Method two is even more devastating for the township of

Spallumcheen: they will be cut to $238,091. This is an absolute loss of

$44,897, or a percentage loss of 15.87.

The municipality of

Armstrong, in the same provincial constituency, had $230,777 allocated

last year. Method one sees a small improvement. That figure will be

raised to $233,897. This is an improvement of $3,120 over last year, or

a percentage increase of 1.35. However, method two provides that they

will lose. Method two sees Armstrong being cut to $213,163. This is an

absolute change by way of loss in the amount of $17,614, or a

percentage loss of 7.63.

In Enderby, in the same riding of

Shuswap-Revelstoke, $162,379 was allocated last year. Method one will

mean $151,008 this year. The loss this year will be $11,371, and the

percentage loss 7 percent exactly. Method two provides the very same

figures.

In Chase, in the riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke,

$133,999 was allocated last year. This year, with method one, there's a

small increase: $142,724 was allocated — an absolute improvement of

$8,725, or percentage improvement of 6.51. Method two provides the very

same figures for Chase, in Shuswap-Revelstoke.

[ Page 7499 ]

The

municipality of Kitimat, in the constituency of Skeena, received

$927,884 last year. This year, under Social Credit, that will be cut.

Method one says $806,591 is the allocation, while the absolute loss is

$121,293 and the percentage loss is 13.07.

My time is up. I know one of my colleagues will stand. In a moment I will continue with the figures.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to point out that I'm absolutely astounded

by these numbers that are coming from the hon. first member for

Victoria. It's astounding that the communities throughout this province

are going to take this kind of shellacking from an unfeeling

government. I just thought that I should say that.

MR. BARBER:

Mr. Chairman, I was referring to Kitimat, which under method two will

be cut this year to $707,564. This is an absolute loss of $220,320, or

a percentage loss of 2374.

In the same riding of Skeena, the

municipality of Terrace suffers under Social Credit. Last year they had

allocated $832,655. This year, under method one they will be reduced to

$712,595, for an absolute loss of $120,060 or a percentage loss of

14.42. Method two sees the cut even deeper. They will be reduced to

$628,252, for an absolute loss of $204, 05 or a percentage loss of

24.55.

Smithers, in the same riding of Skeena, last year had

allocated $351,646. This year that will be cut under Social Credit to

$314,882. This is an absolute loss of $36,764 or a percentage loss of

10.45. Smithers suffers even more under the second calculation. They

will be cut to $279,565, which is an absolute loss of $72,081 or a

percentage loss of 20.5.

The municipality of Hazelton, in

the same riding of Skeena, last year had allocated $60,006. This year

they have a slight improvement. Once again, Mr. Chairman, let me

indicate that we are not prepared to lie about, twist or distort the

figures. Where they indicate benefit we will demonstrate benefit and

give credit where it's due. Where they indicate loss, Social Credit as

usual will fib about it, I expect; they will be as deceitful as they

always are about these things and will not admit the truth. The same

formula that we've indicated before provides loss upon loss, provides a

benefit in the case of Hazelton. And let's give credit where it's due.

Last year — $60,006; this year — $86,541. This is an absolute

improvement of $26,535. That may not seem like much, but it is for them

a percentage increase of 44.22. That's under formula one. Formula two

provides the very same figures.

In the constituency of

Surrey, my colleague the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) has

already indicated what the losses are, but for the sake of this record,

which will be distributed across the province as soon as Hansard

prints it, the municipality of White Rock received last year $962,145.

This year, under Social Credit, that will be cut to $812,070. This is

an absolute loss of $150,075 for a percentage loss of 15.6. Method two

sees the Socred cutbacks even deeper. That provides that they will be

cut to $707,356, for an absolute loss to the people of White Rock of

$254,789, or a percentage loss of 26.48.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER:

We're a phony? If the minister were less preoccupied with the sleazy

politics of Social Credit and a little more concerned with the genuine

interests of the municipalities — that is right; when we talk about

Social Credit we talk about sleazy politics — he might be able to do a

better job for them, instead of imposing these incredible cutbacks and

losses, and the inevitable tax increases that will be suffered by

victim after victim of Social Credit in British Columbia. The sooner

the next election, the better.

In the riding of Surrey, last

year they had allocated $10,219,312 under this program. This year that

will be cut viciously by Social Credit. The government of dirty tricks,

Gracie's Finger and all that other junk will see that cut....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are in committee on this particular section. The member must stay within the prescribed parameters of debate.

MR. BARBER: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman.

The

government that did all of those other things is doing the following:

Surrey last year, $10,219,312, method one this year, cut viciously by

Social Credit to $8,500,447. This is a loss to the people of Surrey of

$1,718,865, or a percentage loss of 16.82. In the minister's own

riding, however, when the second method of calculation is used you see

that the loss is even more vicious. Under Social Credit, the people of

Surrey will have that grant reduced to $7,363,365. This is an absolute

loss of $2,571,677, or a percentage loss of 27.9. How the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in the government of dirty

tricks thinks he can get away with this dirty trick in his own riding I

don't know. I do observe that the minister has been corrected three

times now on the completely false claim he made, the absolute

misinformation he provided this House, that the city of Surrey was

still proceeding with its municipal hall when, in fact, they are not,

The minister has yet to apologize for that misinformation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's a municipality; it's not a city.

MR. BARBER:

Oh, the municipality of Surrey, he says, not the city. That's a

wonderful rebuttal; what a learned reply! You tell total nonsense, a

completely false thing to this committee, an utterly untrue statement,

and all you can say is: "It's a municipality and not a city." Are you

guys all that dumb? Are you all that stupid?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I will advise the member for the second time that he is now straying

from the parameters of this debate. Also, if he would address the

Chair, it greatly aids in the debate.

MR. BARBER: I'm happy to address the Chair, because the Chair, unlike the minister, does not bring incorrect information to the House.

the ridings of Vancouver Little Mountain and Vancouver East we find the

city of Vancouver. To deal with those two tidings for a moment and the

problems faced by the city of Vancouver, last year they had allocated

the largest amount of all — this is understandable — under the program

of unconditional revenue-sharing grants. Last year they received

$30,421,674. Method one this year provides a loss to the city of

Vancouver by way of a reduced allocation in the amount of $24,149,197.

This is an absolute loss in the city of Vancouver of $6,272,477, or a

percentage loss of 20.62. Method two

[ Page 7500 ]

provides

even greater losses to the people of Vancouver, who, after the next

election, will be formerly represented by the Deputy Premier — God

pray. That will be reduced to $20,974,633, for an absolute loss of

$9,474,041, or a percentage loss of 31.14.

I have other

figures, each of which will be read into the record. The whole of the

record will, I promise the government, be distributed to every

municipality in the province — to all of their elected representatives,

all of their employees, and as many of their taxpayers as they can

reach. It's absolutely vital that this Hansard record of the

actual and vicious cuts in revenue-sharing, perpetrated by Social

Credit, be known, figure for figure, loss for loss, tax increase for

tax increase, across British Columbia.

The information we're

reading into the record today will be distributed everywhere the

taxpayers care about Social Credit cuts in revenue- sharing, and

understand the reality that will result. That reality is simply this:

taxes will have to go up because Social Credit has reduced its

contribution. Why are they doing that? Everyone knows: to finance

northeast coal, B.C. Place and all of the other megaprojects that they

hope will buy their way back into election after the writ is dropped.

Let's

take a look at more cuts. My own riding, the municipality of Victoria —

or, as the minister might ably say, the city of Victoria — last year

had allocated $4,802,660. This year, under the minister's own method,

that will be cut to $3,843,247, for an absolute loss of $959,413, or a

percentage loss of 19.98. Method two sees an even more vicious cut

under the provisions of this section. Method two sees it cut to

$3,345,726, for an absolute loss of $1,456,934, or a percentage loss of

30.34. It should be noted that the city of Victoria at the moment is

going on the basis of the first calculation. The city of Victoria

recognizes that their cut will be almost 20 percent. Every dollar that

the Socreds cut will have to be made up by the local homeowner. Every

dollar that the Socreds siphon off on expensive wine encounters, fancy

Phaeronic schemes to build B.C. Place, and those ridiculous Good Show

buttons to the Vancouver Canucks, of all people — good grief, what an

insult — will instead now have to come out of the taxpayers' pockets in

the city of Victoria.

Let me offer a few other figures from

the ridings of Maillardville-Coquitlam and Coquitlam-Port Moody. Last

year the municipality of Coquitlam had $4,098,499. This year that will

be cut to $3,496,125, an absolute loss of $502,374 and a percentage

loss of 14.70. In the second method of calculation the people of

Coquitlam lose even more money. That method provides that they will be

cut to $3,024,122 and an absolute loss of $1,074,377, a percentage loss

of 26.2 1. No wonder Jim Tonn, the mayor of Coquitlam, is so incredibly

angry at the deceit and, in effect, at the legalized theft of the

revenues that they formerly had and counted on. No wonder Jim Tonn

describes this bill as fraudulent; so do we; so does everyone except

the minister.

In the municipality of Port Coquitlam in the

riding of Coquitlam-Port Moody, last year they had $1,962,819

allocated; this year a cut by Social Credit to $1,608,480 is the first

figure, an absolute loss of $354,339, and a percentage loss of 18.05.

However, the second basis for calculation provides for an even greater

loss: $1,395,690 would be allocated, an absolute loss of $567,129, and

a percentage loss of 28.89.

Last year the city of Nanaimo

received $3,214,214. It will be cut this year to $2,918,911. Under

Social Credit, for the people of Nanaimo this is an absolute loss of

$295,303 and a percentage loss of 9.19. The second basis for

calculation sees the people of Nanaimo suffer even more. This year

their grant will be cut to $2,555,162, an absolute loss of $659,052 and

a percentage loss of 20.50.

Last year New Westminster

received $2,745,926 under the unconditional revenue-sharing program;

this year it will be $2,395,224. The absolute loss is $350,702 and the

percentage loss is 12.77. Or if you care to calculate it under the

second basis, it would be reduced to $2,097,310, an absolute loss of

$648,616 and a percentage loss of 23.63.

In the riding of

Alberni, let's take a look at the city of Port Alberni and discover how

they are being cut back by Social Credit and how the coalition is

forcing homeowners in Port Alberni to make up the difference in order

to pay for vast welfare schemes for the Japanese steel industry. In

Alberni last year they received $1,482,210. This year they will be cut

by Social Credit to $1,200,571. This is an absolute loss of $281 639 or

a percentage loss of exactly 19. Alberni under the second calculation

would lose even more. It would be cut to $1,046,846, an absolute loss

of $435,000 or a percentage loss of 29.37.

I have more

figures. All of them demonstrate the deceit and political fraud

implicit in this bill. In the provincial constituency of Prince Rupert

we see that last year they received $1,214,436. This year there will be

a loss. They will be cut to $1,084,774 on the first basis of

calculation. That is an absolute loss of $129,692. This is a percentage

loss of 10.68. Alternatively, the loss is even greater. Method two

would see the people of Prince Rupert being reduced to $959,574, for an

absolute loss of $254,862 or a percentage loss of 20.99.

Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, the municipality of Esquimalt — or the city, as

the minister may care to so ably reply — last year received $1,188,866.

This year they are cut to $983,509. This is a loss of $205,357 or a

percentage loss of 17.27. On the second basis of calculation the people

of Esquimalt lose even more. This year they would be reduced to

$860,866. This is an absolute loss of $328,000 or a percentage loss of

27.59.

In the riding of North Island we look at Campbell

River and we discover that last year they received $1,067,188. My

colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) will go to Campbell River

shortly and will tell them that, thanks to Social Credit and its vast

welfare schemes for northeast coal, the grant for Campbell River will

be cut under method one to $940,472. This is an absolute loss of

$126,716, or a percentage loss of 11.87. Campbell River does even more

badly under the second basis of calculation: they are cut to $818,122.

This is an absolute loss of $249,066, or a percentage loss of 23.34.

the same riding of North Island, the people of Port Hardy last year got

$383,230. This year they are being cut to $328,238. This is a loss of

$54,992, or a percentage loss of 14.35. The second means of calculating

the Socred losses on cutbacks see the people of Port Hardy reduced to

only $289,018. This is an absolute loss of $94,212, or a percentage

loss of 24.58.

The municipality of Port McNeill in the

riding of North Island does even more badly under the program. Last

year they got $212,076. This year they'll receive only $176,282. This

is an absolute loss of $35,794, or in percentage terms of 16.88. The

second method of calculation sees the very same figures result.

[ Page 7501 ]

Gold

River — also in North Island — last year got $202,574. This year, as my

colleague for North Island will shortly be telling all of those

ratepayers, the government grant is being cut to $150,391. This is an

absolute loss of $52,183, or an incredible percentage loss of 25.76

percent, which is almost as bad as Duncan. That is what the Socreds

have done to the people of Gold River. However, they're doing it to

others as well. Let me continue.

They had allocated

$1,029,975 in Mackenzie, the district of Powell River, last year. This

year, only $838,123 was allocated. This is an absolute loss of

$191,852, or a percentage loss of 18.63. Under method two they would

receive only $734,390. This is an absolute loss of $295,585, or a

percentage loss of 28.7.

Last year, the municipality of

Trail in the riding of Rossland-Trail received $744,991 under the

unconditional revenue-sharing program. As the result of the vicious

cuts imposed by Social Credit in order to finance northeast coal and

other giveaway schemes, this year Trail will be reduced to $605,560 for

an absolute loss of $139,431, or a percentage loss of 18.72. Under the

second method of calculation, they would be cut even further — in this

instance to $531,379. This is an absolute loss of $213,612 or a

percentage loss of 28.67.

In the same riding of

Rossland-Trail, the town of Rossland last year received $346,909. As

the result of Social Credit giveaway schemes for northeast coal, their

figure this year is being cut under method one to $307,538. This is an

absolute loss of $39,371 or a percentage loss of 11.34. On the basis of

the second calculation, Rossland will be cut this year to $276,881. The

absolute loss will be $70,028 or a percentage loss of 20.19.

Nelson-Creston, the great riding so ably represented by the former and

only full-time Minister of Housing this province has ever had.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Yes, he's up there investigating the shutdowns in the forest industry caused by your incompetent economic policies.

In the provincial constituency

of Nelson-Creston, represented so ably by Mr. Nicolson, they received

$817,952 last year. In order to subsidize northeast coal this year the

people of Nelson will receive only $683,339. This is an absolute loss

of $134,613 or a percentage loss of 16.46. On the basis of the second

calculation Nelson would only receive $612,682 this year, for an

absolute loss of $205,270 or a percentage loss of 25.10.

In the same riding of Nelson-Creston, let's take a look at Castlegar, which

received $520,231 last year. This year they are being cut by Social Credit

to $435,896. This is an absolute loss of $84,335 or a percentage loss of 16.21

on the basis of the first method of calculation. On the basis of the second

calculation Castlegar is being cut even more viciously by the coalition opposite.

They will be reduced to $382,557. This is an absolute loss of $137,674 or

a percentage loss for the people of Castlegar of 26.46.

Creston,

in the same riding, last year received $319,226. This year they will

receive $286,752. The absolute loss is $32,474 and the percentage

loss is 10.17. Or, on the basis of the second method, $254,372 is the

amount that will be allocated under the unconditional revenue-sharing

grant program this year for an absolute loss of $64,854 or a

percentage loss of 20.32.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's get to work.

MR. BARBER:

This is work for the people of British Columbia, who have to make up

the losses that you impose on them through their home tax because of

your crackpot schemes to finance northeast coal and your crackpot

proposals to build things like Transpo or Expo 86 that no one wants,

needs or requested.

In Nelson-Creston, the township of Kaslo

last year had allocated $89,279. This year they have $87,420 — a

small absolute loss of $1,859, a percentage loss of 2.08. That is on

the basis of the first and second methods of calculation.

New

Denver, in the same riding, receives a small increase. Again, when the

figures demonstrate an increase we read that into the record too. We

are not going to lie about the figures like some opposite have done all

too often. Method one shows that last year New Denver received $78,231.

This year they will have an increase to the amount of $100,832.

This is an absolute increase of $22,601 or a percentage increase of

28.89. The same figures apply under method two.

In Slocan,

in Nelson-Creston, last year they had allocated $57,211. This year

they are cut to $51,699. This is an absolute loss of $5,502 and a

percentage loss of 9.63. The same figures result when the second method

is applied.

We have lots more information of the same order

to provide the government. I wonder if the House Leader would indicate

whether or not he wishes to adjourn right now or continue.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Gibber another five minutes.

MR. BARBER: I sure can. I've got lots more.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Okay.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Page

7502 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

15 The Hon. W. N.

Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 15)

intituled Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

Section

2 is amended by deleting

section 4 (3) (

d) and substituting the

following:

"(

d) of amounts, calculated under prescribed formulas, to

assist a municipality or regional district to pay the costs as

determined by the Inspector of Municipalities of constructing sewage

collection and disposal facilities, recommended by the Inspector of

Municipalities according to prescribed criteria including debt charges

incurred by the municipality or regional district in respect of such

facilities before this

section came into force.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada