Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 17, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 3, Number 24

[ Page 2585 ]

The House met at 2:07 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: First of all, a very sad comment. I'd like to take a moment to offer condolences on behalf of all British Columbians to the people of Quesnel, who lost five members of their community in a terrible fire and explosion last night. This town has been struck by a tragedy that has affected the whole community and, in fact, the whole province.

I'm struck by the stories that are coming out in the media which articulate the human courage when tragedy strikes a community. It's my understanding that many of the people that were injured in the explosion and resulting fire received their injuries as they went to rescue their neighbours. While the loss of life in this tragic accident is horrifying for this community, they have reminded all of us of how important it is to band together under trying circumstances.

We must recognize and thank the passers-by whose quick action likely saved more lives, as well as fire officials, police, ambulance attendants, hospital workers, volunteer emergency coordinators and, in fact, the whole community for their heroic efforts in saving the lives of their neighbours, at considerable risk to themselves.

G. Campbell: I'd like to join with the Premier in offering our condolences and heartfelt best wishes to that community. When these tragedies take place there is no question that we are all aware of how fleeting our lives can be, but I think we're also aware of how strong and how reinforcing our communities can be in getting on and building from these really incredibly sad and tragic experiences for family after family.

When you do hear of people saving people's lives because they care, because they move in, they forget about themselves, they think about what is right to do, I think it's a strong message to all of us; it's a strong message to the province. I am pleased to join with the Premier in offering our condolences to the families, in offering our support to the community and in offering our hopes that these sorts of tragedies will not take place.

The Speaker: It would seem to be appropriate for all of us, perhaps, to stand and take a moment of silence to commemorate.

Thank you, members. Please be seated.

I. Chong: Joining us today in the gallery is a constituent of mine, a supporter and an avid watcher of political affairs, Ms. Ann Behennah. Would the House please make her welcome.

S. Orcherton: There's a delegation in the precinct today from my constituency: a grade 6 class from St. Andrew's elementary school. Accompanying them today in the precinct are their instructors Mrs. Brady and Ms. Greco. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

F. Gingell: In the gallery today is a very special person, known to most of us as Mr. Christy Clark but known to himself as Mr. Mark Marrisen, here to ensure that his wife is truly working and being where she's supposed to be and doing what she's supposed to be doing. I ask all members of the House to join me in making him welcome.

J. Doyle: First of all, I would like to pass on my condolences to the people in Quesnel and the Cariboo. When the people in Golden were going through a tough time last fall, people up there were mindful of Golden's tough times, so I would like to pass on my condolences to that community.

In the gallery today I have a friend and constituent -- in that order -- Ellen Zimmerman. I'd like the House to make her welcome.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today are 43 students and several adults from Hastings Junior Secondary school in my constituency. They're accompanied by their teacher Mr. Wright. Would the House please make them welcome.

Ministerial Statement

CANADA-B.C. SALMON FISHERY AGREEMENT

Hon. G. Clark: I'm very pleased to advise the House that a new agreement I signed yesterday with Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien marks a turning point in the conservation and management of our salmon fisheries.

For the first time since the commercial Pacific salmon fishery began more than a century ago, we have an agreement with the federal government that no major decision regarding this vital resource will be made without the direct involvement of the people closest to the fish: the people up and down our coast in fishing communities, in first nations communities, in the sport fishery and in the commercial fishery. This is a breakthrough agreement for our province which for the first time makes us full partners in the management of our salmon fishery.

Nearly 80 years ago, in the wake of catastrophic losses to the Fraser River fisheries caused by the Hells Gate slide, B.C. fisheries commissioner William Sloan noted in a report to this House:

". . .the fish of this province belong to the people of Canada. They constitute one of our greatest natural resources. Depleted runs can be restored. The runs of former years may even be enlarged. If the beds are seeded, there will be a certain return. The fish will do the work necessary provided the government gives them a chance to do so. They will perpetuate themselves without cost. They will entirely disappear if left to corporate and individual control."

The agreement signed yesterday commits both governments to cooperate and coordinate our efforts to protect this vital public trust. We are going to give the salmon the chance they need.

For the first time, a Canada-B.C. Council of Fisheries Ministers will oversee the management and enhancement of the fishery. For the first time, those most vitally concerned with the future of the fishery will have a direct voice in decision-making.

A new Pacific Fisheries Resource Conservation Council will provide independent analysis and advice to both governments on conservation of the runs and protection of salmon habitat. And stakeholders and community groups will be able, through a joint Fisheries Renewal Advisory Board, to assist enhancement and development of our habitat and salmon restoration programs.

Last year was one of the most difficult our fishery has ever faced. We lost thousands of jobs in the commercial and sport fisheries due to mismanagement of the stocks and unilateral decisions by the federal fisheries ministry designed to cut the fleet. This agreement means that that can never happen again.

This agreement should mark a turning point in the history of the resource. From now on, conservation must and will

[ Page 2586 ]

be our starting point. We must respect the special relationship between our first nations and the resource. We must build our salmon runs to provide economic opportunity and decent, steady jobs for our coastal communities. We must end the bickering and division that have dominated the dialogue over the future of our salmon and build a new cooperative approach that makes our dreams for the salmon fishery a reality.

[2:15]

This is a good agreement for British Columbia. It is a good agreement for Canada. Most importantly, it is a very good agreement for the salmon resource.

The Speaker: Thank you, Premier. Responding to the ministerial statement, I recognize the member for Abbotsford.

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to respond today to the Premier's statement on the fisheries agreement. The agreement signed yesterday represents the culmination of a lot of discussion, negotiation and confrontation between the provincial government and the federal government. I am pleased to see that this agreement has been reached, and I share the Premier's enthusiasm for a more cooperative approach with the federal government.

It is important to record that this agreement is a framework for consultation with the federal government. It formalizes consultation which should have been happening anyway. It is not an agreement that shifts power or decision-making authority to the province. It is not an agreement that involves any delegation of powers to the provincial government. The Canada-B.C. Council of Fisheries Ministers will be a critical factor in the future success of the management of the west coast fishery. Really, it's up to the leadership of the two ministers to make it happen.

I acknowledge that the deal will help with consultation for British Columbians who have an interest in the fishery. However, I also want to caution the Premier and the government that the provincial government needs to be vigilant about ever-growing bureaucracy. Scarce taxpayer dollars need to be constantly focused on the front line. The only spending that really counts is that which actually improves and maintains habitat, fishery stocks and the economic activity of the sector. A proactive effort by the ministers and both governments will maximize the work of people on the ground.

This agreement clearly leaves the decision-making authority in the hands of the federal government, as it is today on most issues involved in the fishery. I am hopeful that this authority will be exercised wisely by the federal minister and that due consideration will be given to the legitimate input of the people whose livelihoods are affected. The ultimate test will not be what both governments talk about but what they actually deliver on habitat, stock protection and maintaining the livelihood of fishermen.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I wish to lend my voice to those who congratulate this Premier for the work that has gone into this agreement. I also appreciate the degree to which the Premier and members of government have kept me informed as this difficult negotiation has taken place.

I heard in the Premier's comments, however, that he said the depletion of our stocks and the rather poor record on salmon management can never happen again. I wish I could be so confident. While we have clearly, in this agreement, built a new vehicle by which we may manage the salmon, I think it is important to note that the federal government still holds the keys that make that vehicle run: licensing and the ability to determine when and where openings may occur. Those keys are an important component to what has gone wrong in the fishery.

So while I embrace this agreement, and while I congratulate the Premier, I don't necessarily share this unfettered optimism that this agreement will solve our problems. This is just the beginning. I hope that the cooperative spirit that we can have in this beginning will in fact allow us in the province to once in a while have control of those keys.

Introduction of Bills

ENVIRONMENT, LANDS AND PARKS

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1997

Hon. C. McGregor presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1997.

Hon. C. McGregor: I move that the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

This bill amends a number of acts that my ministry is responsible for. These amendments address a number of issues that provide necessary improvements and corrections to ministry legislation. This bill updates the Land Act to transfer responsibility for the Crown land registry from the surveyor general, who is no longer responsible for the registry, to the minister.

It enhances environmental protection and streamlines activities under the Pesticide Control Act by enabling the use of approved pest management plans, residual pesticide stewardship programs and community involvement in education and certification of pesticide applicators. It expands a manager's powers under the Waste Management Act to suspend or cancel a permit or approval in a number of limited cases in order to increase efficiency and reduce the paperwork required to deal with matters of routine administration.

Under the Waste Management Act, it authorizes the government to carry out actions to address hazardous spills and to recover all or part of the cost for such actions. These amendments will ensure continued protection for human health and the environment, reduce costs to government and hold accountable those persons who are directly responsible for spills.

It will streamline and create a consistent appeals process under the Commercial River Rafting Safety Act, the Pesticide Control Act, the Waste Management Act, the Water Act and the Wildlife Act by sending all environmental appeals directly to the Environmental Appeal Board. I commend this bill for your consideration and urge its passage.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 14, Environment, Lands and Parks Statutes Amendment Act, 1997, 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.

[ Page 2587 ]

Oral Questions

FORMER B.C. HYDRO CEO COMPENSATION

G. Farrell-Collins: When Marc Eliesen left B.C. Hydro with his tail between his legs, we thought the abuse of taxpayers had ended. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he's back -- and with a vengeance. Marc Eliesen left B.C. Hydro and went to the Asea power group, and we thought it was over. But it turns out that within a period of 16 months, Mr. Eliesen was paid a total salary of $275,724 -- one-third of which was picked up by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

Can the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro -- and the various boondoggles that have gone on there -- explain to British Columbians exactly what it is Mr. Eliesen is doing for the money the taxpayers are continuing to pay him?

Hon. D. Miller: In light of the sidebar in Today's News -- "Liberals Silent on Senior Salaries". . . . I'd be tempted to use that, but I won't.

Mr. Eliesen left B.C. Hydro in 1994. He was entitled, under the provisions of his agreement at that time, to certain salaries, severance, pension benefits, etc. Rather than simply accept that, he was assigned to B.C. Trade, then to the position of president and chief executive officer of B.C. International Power Group, a joint venture between the B.C. Trade Development Corporation, Westcoast Energy Inc. and Asea Brown Boveri Inc., to pursue power projects internationally.

He was paid and will be paid -- and I might as well give the numbers to the end of October 1997. . . . He will receive, by the end of 1997, about $1.5 million in salary and benefits. During the period that he is working for the joint venture, the two other companies are bearing part of his salary.

By the way, that joint venture has met with some success, currently finalizing arrangements in China which will see them obtain a 1.5 percent carried interest on a $200 million power project in China.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm sure the minister is aware of the provision in the House for ministerial statements, and if he wishes to make one, he can do so.

It was interesting to hear the minister's response, because it doesn't jibe with what the Premier, the then-minister responsible, said at the time. He said that Mr. Eliesen was to receive no severance, that he chose to leave B.C. Hydro. I know the Premier has trouble recalling discussions he has with senior people at B.C. Hydro. Can the minister tell us if the $302,000 that Mr. Eliesen received in that 16-month period, the $302,000 that was said in this document to be in lieu of severance. . .? How does that jibe with what the Premier said, that Mr. Eliesen was to receive no severance?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I answered that question carefully, but let me repeat.

At the time that he left Hydro, he was entitled to certain provisions. Rather than accept that, we assigned him to B.C. . . . Rather than accept simply paying those out, he was assigned to B.C. Trade and subsequently to head a private sector company that has pursued, with some success, power developments in China.

The Speaker: Vancouver-Little Mountain on a supplemental.

G. Farrell-Collins: My question is to the Premier, because he was the minister responsible at the time. If Mr. Eliesen was fired, he would have received severance. If he wasn't fired, as the Premier said, why is he receiving any consideration for his choice to leave B.C. Hydro? Why $1.5 million? Who knows how much of it was for pension in lieu of severance, as the minister says.

Hon. G. Clark: It's pretty straightforward. He did not receive a penny of severance. Mr Eliesen went. . .

Interjections.

Hon. G. Clark: Do you want to hear the answer?

. . .to work for a new joint venture company consisting of Westcoast Energy, ABB and B.C. Trade. They picked up the contract that he had at B.C. Hydro. One-third of his salary was paid and his benefits were paid by B.C. Trade, as per the contract he had with B.C. Hydro.

And incidentally, that private sector consortium is engaged in power projects. He has worked for that consortium for this period of time. He did not get money for nothing. They picked up his contract, he's pursuing business, and that business is paying off, and we intend. . . . The taxpayers of B.C. will receive the benefits of his work when these power projects come to fruition.

W. Hurd: Surely Mr. Eliesen will live in infamy as the NDP's Sultan of Swill. When Mr. Eliesen was relieved of his Hydro duties, taxpayers were told by the current Premier that Mr. Eliesen had resigned. To quote the Premier, Mark Eliesen's resignation "is to pursue an offer from a business consortium." We now know that this was no new offer; that it was in fact an agreement in lieu of severance related to his duties at B.C. Hydro.

Can the minister responsible for Hydro tell us: if Mr. Eliesen resigned -- if he did resign -- why did he need an agreement in lieu of severance from B.C. Hydro?

[2:30]

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have answered the question. Mr. Eliesen did resign from B.C. Hydro. The provisions of his agreement entitled him to certain things. Rather than simply pay him out, he was assigned to B.C. Trade. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order!

Hon. D. Miller: . . .which formed a joint venture partnership, which is pursuing and appears to have met with some success. For example, the indications are that the joint venture is currently finalizing arrangements. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, the members opposite ask questions but they don't appear to want to listen.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members, please.

Surrey-White Rock on a supplemental.

[ Page 2588 ]

W. Hurd: When the million-dollar severance package to former Hydro president Ray Hunt was disclosed, the then communications director, Shawn Thomas, was asked how much severance Mr. Eliesen had received, and he replied: "Zero." So there has been a definite change in policy at B.C. Hydro.

Can the minister tell us why the government would say that Mr. Eliesen was receiving zero severance when the government obviously knew that he was getting a golden parachute for his work at B.C. Hydro?

Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated, Mr. Eliesen was assigned to B.C. Trade and, subsequently, as the president of B.C. International Power Group. That group is now finalizing arrangements which will see them obtain a 1.5 percent carried interest in a $200 million power project in China. The project is in the stage of receiving final approvals, and under the agreement the value of BCIPG's involvement is projected to be about $3 million (U.S.). It appears that Mr. Eliesen, moving from Hydro to B.C. Trade and subsequently to this International Power Group, has indeed pursued ventures that are of benefit both to the private sector partners and ultimately to British Columbians.

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON GAMBLING

G. Wilson: My question is to the minister responsible for gambling. On Tuesday the minister indicated, in a response to a question from the member for Peace River North, that the decision on the expansion of gaming will "rest with the communities." Today I have a memo, dated April 4, from the president of the Casino Management Council of British Columbia, advising their members that they have been given advice by Mr. Peter Clark and Mr. Harry Elliott that the $500 bet limits will go into effect in all locations on May 1, and that the longer hours will go into effect in the greater Vancouver regional district on June 1 and in all other areas on July 1.

Further, hon. Speaker, it says here: ". . .there is an urgency attached to opening longer hours in the GVRD because of the possible implications of the city of Vancouver gaming study." Lastly it says: "Please recall our commitment to introduce these changes with as little public stir as possible."

Will the minister tell me: is he so desperate for money, for his 30 shekels of silver, that he has advised his people to fast-track gaming expansion in British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I'm unaware of the memo, but let me be clear on, really, two points here. One is that we made it abundantly clear -- abundantly clear -- when we announced the gaming policy that there would be an increase in bet limits and hours in the existing charitable casinos, and this memo seems to be dealing with that.

Let me also remind you that under the existing charitable casinos, government receives very little. Now, there will be some additional revenue as a result of these enhancements; but these are in charitable organizations -- existing charitable casinos.

G. Wilson: A supplementary. If this government isn't getting any money from this, and if in fact the public is so opposed to it, why is the government, even today, in negotiations with the Casino Management Council to determine the share that each of these will get, and the share that the government will get, as a result of these new gaming regulations?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I did indicate at the time we announced the policy that the issue of sharing additional revenue from the charitable casinos as a result of these enhancements would be determined through discussions and negotiations, and that indeed is taking place.

B.C. TRANSIT CHAIR COMPENSATION

D. Symons: My question is to the Deputy Premier. The part-time chair of B.C. Transit, Derek Corrigan, is supposed to be paid a stipend of $4,000 a year, plus $500 for each day worked. Now we've learned that for 1996, Mr. Corrigan -- a prominent New Democrat -- made $119,500 for his part-time position. Hon. Speaker, that's 231 days that this part-time chair allegedly worked. Can the Deputy Premier tell us why he's allowing this NDP hack to run up these bills for B.C. taxpayers?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, a little order, please.

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I'll take the question on notice for the minister responsible for B.C. Transit.

SCHOOL DISTRICT LABOUR DISPUTES

A. Sanders: My question is to the Minister of Education. Yesterday two unions representing support staff in the building trades in Prince George issued 72-hour strike notice. The government has appointed a mediator, but on Monday the children of Prince George may not have a class to go to.

My question to the Minister of Education is: when will his government stop allowing the children of this province to be held hostage in union negotiations?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I really think that the Liberal opposition should take me up on my offer and apply for a training subsidy for their researchers. Once again, hon. Speaker, they have their basic facts wrong. Their basic facts are wrong.

Yesterday my colleague the Minister of Labour appointed a special mediator, Debbie Apps, to intervene in the two negotiations going on in Prince George. While a special mediator is involved in negotiations, no strike or lockout action will occur. There will be no curtailment of educational activities in Prince George on Monday.

A. Sanders: We're looking here at the two million days of school that have been lost across B.C., in terms of negotiations before. Children in Qualicum are currently facing the same uncertainty. The support staff there have voted in favour of a strike, and the mediation process began yesterday. If their differences cannot be resolved, classes could be shut down at an important time in the school year.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

A. Sanders: When will the minister acknowledge that students have the right to an education uninterrupted by union strikes?

Hon. P. Ramsey: I'm not quite sure whether the member opposite heard my answer to her first question. There is no

[ Page 2589 ]

strike occurring in Prince George on Monday, or on Tuesday or on Wednesday. There is no disruption of schools anywhere in the province at this time. We will continue to work with parties involved in collective bargaining to assist them in reaching free collective agreements. I continue to believe that that is the best way of resolving bargaining in public schools in British Columbia.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Ministerial Statement

EQUALITY DAY

Hon. S. Hammell: I rise to make a ministerial statement. Today is April 17, and it's a very important day in the lives of Canadians, especially for those Canadians who, throughout history, have experienced discrimination. Today is Equality Day, when we recognize the day in 1985 when the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force. This

section of the Charter declares that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical ability.

I would like to acknowledge our many community partners who worked tirelessly to eliminate barriers to women's full participation in our society, especially the work of LEAF, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund. LEAF was formed on April 17, 1985, the day these provisions came into effect, to ensure that the equality provisions of the Charter were translated into meaningful gains for women, and to bring an active voice before the courts to ensure gender equality provisions were argued in ways that have positive outcomes for women.

Our government has made women a priority, because what's good for women is good for every British Columbian. Everyone is entitled to be paid fairly and equitably. Everyone is entitled to a life free from violence and free from the fear of violence. Everyone is entitled to have their health issues taken seriously.

I remind you that, on average, women still earn 73 cents for every dollar earned by a man. To achieve economic equality, we have to close the gap by 27 cents.

In the recent throne speech, His Honour said his government would work to combat domestic violence, a terrifying reality for far too many women in British Columbia. We must ensure our health care system is respectful and responsive to the general and particular health care needs of women. I ask that today we renew our commitment to end discrimination and to ensure that all British Columbians are treated equally, not only under the law but in our hearts, in our minds and in our actions.

L. Stephens: I am pleased to respond to the Minister of Women's Equality on behalf of the official opposition. It is important for all Canadians to recognize the importance of the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important to also note that the Charter was developed by a Liberal government and a Liberal Prime Minister dedicated to social and economic justice.

But in spite of the equality of rights that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees, social attitudes and behaviour continue to reflect the fact that many women and other groups in British Columbia receive unequal treatment. Today, women want to be free from poverty, violence, harassment and discrimination.

I am pleased to celebrate Equality Day, and I encourage the minister and her government to demonstrate their commitment by reducing the barriers that limit women's opportunities and choices. On behalf of the official opposition I would like to recognize and voice our appreciation to the many individuals and organizations, including LEAF, who work so hard to build a better society for us all.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: My remarks will be brief, as the sentiments carried by the member of the official opposition certainly speak to those of mine. However, I would like to add two comments.

Those of us in Canada who are strong believers and defenders of the Charter of Rights look forward to the day when that Charter, in reality, is seen in our society, particularly with respect to the legal community and how the law is affecting aboriginal people, women and certain minorities -- people who believe that they are no longer protected within the law. I wish I could share the minister's comments with respect to LEAF. However, on two occasions, when in need of that kind of service, I found that organization lacking.

I only say that because the law -- and the provision of the letter of the law -- and the manner by which the judiciary applies it does not promote equality in this country. I think all of us as members of this assembly, as lawmakers, must keep in mind that the letter and the language of the law continues to discriminate against certain minority groups and continues to discriminate against women in certain circumstances.

I look forward to the day when the Charter of Rights includes a charter of responsibilities, responsibilities that will allow every citizen to recognize that in our social contract we must do more than simply pay lip service to suggesting that we are equal. We must work toward the responsibility that each of us holds to protect that social contract in the interest of peace and dignity.

[2:45]

Petitions

J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to present this petition on behalf of 24 constituents who are opposed to any expansion of gambling in the province.

Tabling Documents

Hon. A. Petter tabled the 1996 annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

Hon. A. Petter: In

Section A, I call estimates on the Attorney General's ministry, and in the House a continuation of second reading debate on Bill 2.

BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1997

(second reading continued)

F. Gingell: Well, it's always a good opportunity to have a little break between the first, second and third periods on

[ Page 2590 ]

these issues, because it allows you to go back and get some further information on some of the matters that have been raised by speakers across the House.

First of all, there's a terrible paucity of speakers from the other side of the Legislature, and I guess it really isn't any great surprise to anybody why. This is a day of shame for this government.

It is less than three years ago that the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, the former member for Vancouver-Point Grey, made some very special statements about the new Municipal Grants Act:

"This province has taken a stand with municipalities to seek stability, predictability and some form of credible relationship between the provincial government and the municipalities we attempt to serve. . . ."

Well, that didn't last long.

"The new act replaces the smoke and mirrors and this notion of revenue-sharing with an honest and forthright bill that basically gives municipalities what they have been asking for for quite a number of years -- plus, for the first time in legislation, this bill includes an innovative consultation clause that commits the provincial government. . . ."

I really shouldn't read any more about that, because the consultation, as we all well know, was nil. "The third thing it provides the municipalities is some compatibility with multi-year commitments. The new act assures future-year payment of prior years' commitments." Well, they didn't last, either.

This morning it was said by two or three members that we should think about comparing how the total reduction in provincial government spending hasn't just been laid upon the municipalities -- how it's been shared.

If you go to the estimates and look at the estimated expenditures for the year 1997-98 and the year 1996-97 -- the revised forecasts -- and you take out the $20 million non-cash item, the difference is basically $110 million. It is $110 million that this government is saying they are going to reduce their expenditures by in '97-98, over '96-97. I have some arguments about their calculations and whether or not that is a genuine statement. But for the moment, for this discussion, let's accept that in fact they have reduced expenditures of the government by $110 million.

Well then, Mr. Speaker, I direct your attention to the press release put out by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on November 26, 1996, which deals with the restructured transfer to local governments. The previous system, estimated, is all listed; the restructured system for 1997-98 is all estimated. You will remember that we've been somewhat surprised by this document, because it includes a whole series of things that were provincial responsibilities, not municipal, and shouldn't have been included in there in the first place. They were included only to make the numbers look better percentage-wise.

But these numbers -- the government's own numbers -- show $805.9 million under the old system and $692.5 million under the restructured system for this year. If you do a little subtraction you come out to $113.4 million. Now, the next question is: is $113.4 million greater or less than $110 million?

Hon. A. Petter: Aw, come on.

F. Gingell: Mr. Speaker, the minister says: "Aw, come on." But this government is saying: "We have had to reduce our expenditures, and we haven't laid it on the backs of the municipalities only."

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, they have. It's $3.5 million more in the reduction to the municipalities than the total reductions.

Hon. A. Petter: Oh, come on.

F. Gingell: But that's true, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. A. Petter: You can't even keep a straight face and say that.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: We can continue with this discussion about whether there has truly been a reduction in expenditures. I can list them off quite easily: repairs and renovations that used to be for schools, used to be grants through the Ministry of Education, but are now put onto capital; $100 million for silviculture and $20 million for Tourism B.C. are moved off the balance sheet. We found some more today included in this bill, didn't we? How many million dollars are going to be billed by the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to ICBC?

Interjections.

F. Gingell: I know it's only $2.6 million, but $2.6 million was moved off the budget of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs onto the B.C. Assessment Authority. Who pays that? Not some magic third party; there isn't some pot of gold at the end of the rainbow into which you can go and dip. It's coming out of the pockets of taxpayers of British Columbia. They're just playing a shell game. That's all it is. They're just playing a shell game.

Now, they've talked at great length about the effect of federal transfers, and yes, I agree, they have been cut. In the last two years they've been cut by a total of 27 percent: 18 percent last year and another 9 percent this year. I've got $614 million, which is even greater. So that's 27 percent of the previous grants.

So what has this government done to the municipalities? Well, they have cut them 46.3 percent. How much does this government rely on transfers from the federal government to fund their operations? Roughly 10 percent; in fact at this moment it's down, I think, to eight-point-something. How much do municipalities rely on the provincial government for transfer payments to pay their expenses? Roughly the same. They're very, very similar.

So if this government were truly doing what they say, which is, "We're just passing on proportionate pain to the municipalities that we are receiving from the federal government," you would expect the cuts to be proportional.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Oh yes, you would. That's what you would expect.

[ Page 2591 ]

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Let me give you some numbers, Mr. Speaker, to pass on to the Minister of Finance in his spare time. The portion that the federal government has cut to the provincial government was 2.2 percent of total provincial revenues in 1996-97. The similar cut that this government is now making to municipalities is equivalent to 4.46 percent of their property tax revenues -- exactly double.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Is the minister suggesting that if there were a $400 million cut from the federal government that the whole of that $400 million would be passed on to the municipalities? That's nonsense.

Hon. A. Petter: Including transit revenues.

F. Gingell: Why would you include transit revenue?

Hon. A. Petter: Municipal transit revenue.

F. Gingell: No, it's not. It is a responsibility of the provincial government, and this government has been looking at ways to move themselves out of that position for some years. And I quite understand that, because B.C. Transit would, perhaps, be better managed at the local level than by an overseer position of the provincial government. They should move taxing resources to local government and allow local government to operate it a lot more efficiently than it is operated now.

During this discussion, the Minister of Transportation and Highways was talking about many of the municipalities -- the small municipalities that are going to get no cut to their grants. On this list, Tahsis's grant is exactly the same, and then there's a number of them, starting with Princeton, Oliver, Cache Creek, Hudson's Hope -- a whole series of smaller municipalities -- who will not suffer any cut. In fact, some of them will be getting an increase: Slocan, Lytton, Midway, Silverton, etc. The Minister of Transportation and Highways was sort of indicating that we were in favour of cuts to these municipal governments, which is, of course, absolute nonsense.

[3:00]

If this government were serious about protecting those small municipalities, in Bill 2 -- in this act that we're dealing with, where they've taken out all certainty -- they would have left certainty in for these small municipalities, even though the small municipalities would know and clearly understand that the commitments they made in 1994, as the member for Shuswap said earlier, had a very short shelf life. It didn't last for very long.

It really is a sad day. It is a pity that the former member for Vancouver-Point Grey didn't decide to go and run in some other riding in the election in 1996, so that she could be here to tell her fellow caucus members what a disgraceful act this is. It might be called the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, but it is a disgraceful act that is being done.

It is hard to believe, but this government hid their financial problems for a year and a half, kept them quiet behind a fa�ade. And so as the situation got worse and they delayed taking corrective action, they had to go through a whole series of actions: no-fault insurance, increased gambling, cut the grants to municipalities, raid the forest renewal fund and so on. If they had faced up to the real world -- if they had brought discipline to their responsibilities -- we wouldn't be in the position that we are now.

To briefly reiterate the other issues of importance that are in this bill, I can find no logic for the change in the funding of the appeal process in the Assessment Authority. I haven't heard any logic for doing this from the minister. Why would you put the funding of the appeal board in the hands of the body whose appeals that board has to adjudicate? It is nothing more than simply taking $2.5 million or thereabouts out of the consolidated revenue fund and putting it onto our property tax notices -- and that's where it will be.

There's another item in this shell game that is in Bill 2: the ability of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to bill certain funds dealing with traffic safety initiatives to ICBC. This is a responsibility that for years has been that of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. When the minister speaks about reducing expenditures year over year, it's an item we didn't know about at the time. It's come up now.

I gave a list of something like $285 million that had been moved out of the consolidated revenue fund this year for the purposes of that thin, narrow and untrue claim, and I didn't include this item because I didn't know about it. I didn't include the Assessment Authority item because I didn't know about that either at that time. I don't think either were mentioned in the budget speech.

This morning I spoke briefly about the sunset of the exemption of tax on propane and suggested that the minister might think of himself as King Canute and slow this down. But I'm quite serious, actually. I think it's good that legislation has sunset clauses. It causes us to sit down and think about what we've done in the past, how appropriate they are in current circumstances and whether they're the right tool to use in the future. And it may well be that the exemption on propane is something that this government believes they should take out.

But recognize, first of all, that it was done for a purpose. It was done to reduce harmful emissions from vehicular traffic into the atmosphere. Secondly, recognize that to buy a vehicle that is OEM'd for propane use is very expensive. I would imagine the vast majority of propane-driven vehicles are conversions. And those conversions in this day and age, I understand, cost somewhere between $2,000 and $2,500. Now, there are a lot of people who have spent that money recently on the understanding that this exemption was there.

When someone is making that kind of decision, they think: "Why don't I convert my vehicle to propane use, because I'll recover the cost of doing that with reduced fuel costs and, in the meantime -- right from day one -- I'll be doing something positive for the environment." They don't go and consult a lawyer and find out all the details on how good the propane exemption is. They don't go and search the revised statutes of British Columbia and look through all the sections of the Fuel Oil Tax Act. They don't go and find out exactly what the rules are.

So why doesn't the government, having made this decision, say: "Okay, instead of extending the exemption for five years, at this point we are going to extend it for only three years or two years"? I think three years would perhaps be fair to allow people that have only recently done the conversion. . . . Everybody would be aware at this point that the exemption is over. The people think they've been tricked. They think they've done the kind of things that the government wanted them to do to improve the quality of the environment, and they've been knocked on the head from behind.

They didn't know that this was going to happen. They didn't believe it was possible, but all of a sudden it has hit them. So although the minister may not be able to stop the sun from going down over there, perhaps he could try and slow it down a bit.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: I appreciate that, but it is tax that people were not expecting to pay.

[ Page 2592 ]

I would like, again, to just reiterate my concerns about the changes in the Municipal Act, the Vancouver Charter and the rural tax act dealing with the issue of exemption of pollution abatement equipment from assessment for property taxes. I think I understand the problem. Again, this government sort of rushed in. I spoke to the Minister of Municipal Affairs about it. I was hoping they would withdraw this at least for a few days or a week to give themselves an opportunity to look at it again.

It is going to cause inequity. This government says that they believe in improving the environmental and waste management issues of this province. This is not the way to do that. Let's think about what means we can use to improve the proper and safe environmental handling of pollutants and other waste materials, and find a system that works properly. This is not it. It's going to cause inequities. They get worse as time goes by, and it will create more problems than it has solved.

Well, this is the act that brings in many of the proposals made in this budget. The credibility of the Minister of Finance and this government is critically important to all of us. It's important not only to our citizens but to our creditors. And we know that many of the things that have happened have caused some feelings of discomfort around the province's credit rating -- which has already been reflected, as we have earlier noted, in the bond market. I sincerely hope, and I mean this, that the minister is successful this year in bringing the final results generally in line with -- or better than -- the plan that is laid out in this budget.

The minister speaks of being proud of this budget. I would suggest that one shouldn't be proud of a piece of paper with some printing on it. What we have to be proud of is what we accomplish, and the minister has an opportunity to accomplish this. This time next year the cake will be cut, and we'll see whether the minister had the right recipe. But the history has not been good; it has hurt the reputation of this province.

I sincerely hope that there will be a reversal of that, because when you owe as much money as this province does -- no longer the province with the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio, as I make a point of saying -- an increase in interest rates will take away important resources from education, health care and the social safety net. These are the things that are truly important to British Columbians. I am concerned this government only pays lip service to their protection.

L. Stephens: I rise to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: I'd like to introduce Credo Christian High School. There are 62 grade 11 students with their teachers: Mrs. Enid Luiten, Mr. De Jong, Mr. Ron Smouter and Mr. Jerry Scholtens. Would the House please make them welcome.

L. Reid: I, too, rise in debate this afternoon on Bill 2. Frankly, it's entitled Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997, but it might as well be entitled "Broken Promises Implementation Act, 1997."

An Hon. Member: Third edition.

L. Reid: Thank you, hon. member -- third edition and probably a repeat on the horizon. My own city council in the city of Richmond refers to it as the "Repeal of Local Government Grants Act." It's nothing more than a collection of broken promises. And that this government has taken it upon themselves to disillusion the entire civic government within British Columbia is dead wrong. They had a commitment; they had a relationship; they had a recognition of some partnerships that made sense to taxpayers across this province. They've tossed that away by again providing a litany of broken promises.

Communities across this province are looking for stability. They want to have some certainty around funding. To take that away makes no sense. It will not improve service delivery in this province. It will not improve the integrity of this government. It will not do good things for British Columbia taxpayers. It will simply heighten their awareness that indeed they've been deceived yet again by these New Democrats.

And duplicity is an issue, hon. Speaker. Yesterday in the Times Colonist , Les Leyne wrote, "Mayors Award NDP a Perfect '10' for Duplicity" -- a shocking return on that survey, hon. Speaker. Certainly I'm going to quote this into the record:

"In the entire history of opinion surveys, there has likely never been such an overwhelmingly definitive finding that a government has broken its word.

"It's not a 'scientific poll' of the general public, it's a survey of a certain special group: the mayors and councillors of B.C.'s 179 villages, towns, municipalities and cities. But that doesn't detract from the validity, it enhances it. The respondents aren't people distractedly answering questions on the telephone while watching TV and making dinner at the same time. They are all elected officials, well-versed in the workings of government.

"More than 100 of them sat down and marked a questionnaire distributed by the Union of B.C. Municipalities, after weighing all the evidence."

And again, they were awarded a perfect 10 for duplicity.

[3:15]

An Hon. Member: One of the few awards they'll get.

L. Reid: Absolutely right.

"The results are remarkable, for [the Premier's] government has achieved the political equivalent of gymnast Nadia Comaneci's perfect marks at the Montreal Olympics: they've scored perfect, 100 percent disapproval ratings."

We have a great deal of regard on this opposition bench for the work of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. They are the voice of local government in this province. And they believe that the questions were answered truthfully. They believe that their civic leaders responded honestly and effectively to this survey, and I would support that contention. I, too, believe that they have answered this honestly and effectively. The findings are so astonishing that it appals Les Leyne, the writer of this article. It appals the UBCM.

"Eleven solemn assurances over the past few years by [the Premier] and NDP cabinet ministers were quoted to the councillors, who were then asked whether they considered the promises 'kept' or 'broken.'

"Fittingly, it was [the Premier] himself who scored the historic breakthrough mark. It came over NDP legislation three years ago designed to guarantee that municipalities would get a set amount of money each year from the province. Asked to rate [the Premier's] comment at the time that the grant formula was 'guaranteed' -- in light of last fall's unilateral decision to ignore the law completely and slash the grants by more than $100 million -- they marked it 103 to 0 as a promise broken.

"Imagine: more than 100 judges from across the length and breadth of B.C. have held up their scorecards at the conclusion of the NDP's political gymnastics routine and unanimously declared it a perfect failure."

It's an astonishing result, because it represents every town, every village, every city, every community in this province, and they are finding fault with their provincial

[ Page 2593 ]

government. Again, every member on the opposition benches has a great deal of regard for the work of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. Obviously, the members on the government benches don't share that commitment, because they are prepared to deny that they have a responsibility. They are prepared to legislate away their responsibility and to disillusion every single taxpayer in the province, who doesn't deserve government that continues to deceive them at will.

Again, many questions in this document. . . . I'll certainly quote one or two more into the record:

"The other perfect score went to [the Minister of Employment and Investment]. He said in September 'no decisions have been made yet [on local government grants] and none will be until a review is complete and we have a complete analysis of the impact.'

"Was the analysis available? Again 100 to 0 agreed no, it wasn't.

"[The same minister] also came close on another statement last fall. 'We will make every effort to engage you in timely discussion about significant changes because we know your perspective and your feedback will help us. . . .'"

Another huge broken promise, hon. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democrats, because they don't define consultation the way everyone else in British Columbia defines consultation. We on the opposition benches believe that means you sit down together and have a meaningful exchange of ideas. You don't receive it in the form of a memo, a press release, a directive that your future is at stake, the future of your community is at stake, and you were not allowed to participate, not invited to participate in the process.

Again, on the Minister of Employment and Investment, the mayors in this province responded. Did he keep his promise? Did he break his promise? "He scored 102 to one in favour of broken, or 99 percent. [The Premier] also posted a 99 percent, with a similar empty promise: 'We will work with you, we will involve you in our consultations.' The mayors marked against him 103 to one."

Only in British Columbia would the insight, the wisdom of local government be disregarded to the extent that it has been. It's abundantly unfair; it's frankly mean-spirited, shortsighted. And it doesn't make good sense for this province. This is the very same government that talks at length about regionalizing service, about joining in good partnerships across this province, about ensuring that communities work together, about how important that is to put those foundations in place.

What do they think this approach will do to any further collaboration? I suggest that it will dampen and probably eliminate that for most communities across this province. Why in the world would anyone enter into a negotiation that requires some stability, some maturity on the part of the players, when one party doesn't know how to consult -- doesn't, frankly, care if they do -- and then has the audacity to mislead the public about whether or not that has taken place? It's not fair; it's not honest; it's not decent; and it's certainly not democratic.

This is about ensuring the life and livelihood of a democracy, the life and livelihood of our communities. What this government has done is denigrate that, and, frankly, I find that offensive.

I think there are ways in which certainty can be achieved so that indeed partnerships can be meaningful between civic government and provincial government. I suggest that this has put back that camaraderie at least a decade, if not more.

Why in the world would anyone trust this government? I mean, we have the Minister of Finance on the front page of the local press saying: "I don't expect you to believe me." Well, guess what: we don't. Nor do the mayors in this province believe that they can accept a single thing that this Minister of Finance, this Minister of Employment and Investment or in fact the Premier utters from this day forward. We've had difficulties with previous budgets, previous discussions. The level of honesty is not improving, hon. Speaker.

The local mayors comment in this article: "The worst

part is that the public's cynicism toward politicians is felt by us, who are actually accountable to our electorate." We've heard many members on these government benches stand up and talk about local government being the closest to the people. Well, yes, indeed that's true. This group of individuals, this local government, is going to feel the heat the most from the fact that the provincial government has skewered them one more time.

They continue: "It is galling to be lumped together with a group that is so dishonest, shortsighted and ignorant." That's a direct quote; that is what the mayors in this province are saying. Another comment: "The provincial government's unilateral actions are unbelievable, outrageous, immoral, dictatorial and contrary to their own legislation." If they don't respond to any of those adjectives, Mr. Speaker, they must recognize that this is indeed contrary to their own legislation. "These actions must be resisted relentlessly and vigorously. . . .

It is very frightening to see how clearly the provincial government has worked hard to achieve a 100 percent failure rate." That alarms me, because I do believe that this should be about building useful partnerships in British Columbia. It shouldn't be about alienating individuals repeatedly.

The mayor of the city of Richmond has written and has brought forward his concerns. And we are a city, Richmond. We achieved that status some time ago. We are well over 140,000 people, growing by leaps and bounds. There is no vision in the broken promises implementation act that allows for cities of this magnitude to continue to meet the needs of constituents, of residents. That's alarming, certainly.

The Minister of Employment and Investment recently attended the opening of the new Hewlett-Packard facility in my riding. What a fine contribution they're going to make to job creation. Yes, I absolutely support that, because frankly, they are the only ones who can make a contribution to job creation. But to have such a narrow view as to suggest that this legislation isn't going to diminish the good things that are going on in the city of Richmond is again appallingly shortsighted. There are some good things, and the government should be assisting in that regard rather than diminishing the impact of the very fine things that happen today in the city of Richmond.

This letter is dated April 14, 1997. It's written to the Members of the Legislative Assembly, and it's entitled: "Repeal of Local Government Grants Act." My commitment to my city, to the city of Richmond, is to enter this into the record, because I believe it's very important that every single person in this chamber understands the impact on every taxpayer in British Columbia and upon every city, town, village or municipality.

"The provincial government has reduced revenue-sharing grants to Richmond this year by $3.7 million, which will be implemented by a repeal of the Local Government Grants Act. The city of Richmond would like to go on record as objecting to the steps being taken by the provincial government, from two perspectives. The first area to which we object is the non-consultative approach the provincial government used to bring about the changes in the funds that are distributed to local government. Throughout the 1980s, we had a reasonably secure

[ Page 2594 ]

funding formula that was based on provincial revenues and allowed us to budget for a share in these revenues, based on a fairly predictable formula.

"In the early 1990s, when [this current Premier] was the Minister of Finance, he discontinued the revenue-sharing formula and brought in a new funding agreement that he promised would bring predictability and stability in grants. Even though municipalities lost of tens of millions of dollars by agreeing to the new program of [the then Finance minister], we reluctantly agreed to the change in hopes of a new, stable revenue-sharing act. In November of 1996, very shortly after signing a protocol of consultation with the province, the provincial government then announced cuts to grants to municipalities for the 1997 year."

Imagine the feeling of this writer, the mayor of the city of Richmond, acknowledging that very shortly after the commitment was made, it was changed -- without consultation, hon. Speaker.

"Not only was there no consultation in this announcement to the cuts, but it made a mockery of the earlier change to the grant structure described above. This unpredictable behaviour of the provincial government over the past five years not only makes municipal budgeting very difficult but continues to off-load provincial funding shortfalls onto local government. The problems are not of our making, but we are expected to bail the province out. The 40 percent cut in revenue-sharing for local government is a very drastic step.

"Our second objection is, of course, the ramification of the $3.7 million in provincial cuts to the city of Richmond.

In order to deal with this reduced funding, we have had to take several drastic steps, as follows: severely reducing the hours of operation for our two outdoor pools; reduction in overtime for firefighters that might affect their level of service to the community; a reduction of six management staff and the elimination of some union positions; no funding for hiring additional RCMP officers or for replacement RCMP officers for the federal drug squad which is being moved to Vancouver; having to hire legal counsel to handle bylaw infractions, due to the removal of Crown counsel services; decreased levels of service in public works; and reduced contributions to our capital programs.

"Our staff and council have worked very hard to realize efficiencies wherever we could in order to mitigate the effects of the provincial cutbacks. In addition, our high growth rate has meant additional taxes are being collected from new development, which is helping to pay for programs, though, as you know, this is not keeping up with levels of additional growth.

"We therefore wish to reiterate our objections to the abrupt and non-consultative manner in which the cuts were thrust upon us and to the amounts of the provincial cuts. One of the reasons I believe the public has a lot of respect for local government is that we live up to our commitments and are open and accessible. The provincial government has a responsibility to do likewise." And members of this opposition would certainly agree. "We certainly hope that a similar procedure of unilateral action and cutting of grants will not be on the government agenda for next year.

"As elected MLAs for the city of Richmond, I hope you will be able to present our position in the Legislature when Bill 2, Budget Measures Implementation Act, is debated.

"Yours truly,

"Greg Halsey-Brandt,

"Mayor"

This letter has gone to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, to the opposition Municipal Affairs critic, to the president of the UBCM and to members of council. This is a letter of commitment, from the mayor, on a belief he has in the city of Richmond and in its ability to do its job without the provincial government interfering to the extent that it has.

I began my remarks today, hon. Speaker, talking about stability, about certainty of funding. They are not evident in this bill, the broken promises implementation act. This is a denial that indeed provincial government has a responsibility to integrate service, to work in partnership with civic government. This is an out-and-out denial that that scenario needs to exist for the useful running of cities, municipalities, villages and towns across this province. This doesn't assist, hon. Speaker, in any way, shape or form to the desired outcome, which should be reasonable government, government that's trustworthy, that possesses some integrity, that does consult in a meaningful way.

[3:30]

This letter, I am convinced, will be one of many representing every single mayor across this province, because indeed the points raised are valid. The points are shared by every mayor -- city to city, village to village, municipality to municipality -- across this province.

The government has no reasonable response, hon. Speaker. Certainly I don't believe they're putting up many speakers to this bill today, because I think they're frankly ashamed of the decisions that have been taken. Each of these MLAs on the government benches will need to return to their local communities and try to sell it as somehow being a good thing. They'd best not try, because frankly there's very little, if anything, in here that makes good sense for local government. This provincial New Democrat government is diminishing the partnership that they have enjoyed with civic government. Those days will be soon over, I believe. That's the scenario for 1997.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

What about 1998? Can any mayor in this province have any confidence, any assurance, that the scenario in 1998 will be any different? Again, comment from the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. . . . Many municipalities are working hard to get their 1997 budgets finalized. But what about 1998? The certainty that was eliminated yesterday in the province's announcement to amend the Local Government Grants Act would seem to put 1998 grants at risk. Depending on the legislative changes, municipalities could be facing a further reduction next year.

It's a legitimate and an alarming comment, because we have cities, towns, municipalities across this province that are cutting to the bone for 1997, foreclosing -- as in the case of Richmond -- recreational opportunities for young people this summer, reducing firefighters, the drug squad, things that are vitally important to the life and livelihood of communities. People wish to live in safe communities; they wish to have access to recreational resources. To suggest that that is the only avenue this government has allowed local government and then to suggest that the scenario for 1998 might be worse. . . .

Again, the government opposite has nothing to be proud of. They are diminishing what local government can offer. They are not going to stand up, I daresay, and attempt to defend this piece of rubbish.

There needs to be true, meaningful consultation in British Columbia between every level of government. I trust, hon. Speaker, that will only happen once this government leaves office.

R. Masi: I would like to begin by commenting on the implications of federal downloading that I heard this morning from the member for Vancouver-Fraserview. It was quite an interesting comment, and to my knowledge, I have never heard anyone on this side of the House ever support the concept of the federal downloading on the provincial government. I think we speak for British Columbia as well as all members in this House.

[ Page 2595 ]

But the point that we're discussing is process, hon. Speaker -- it's process. I noticed that the member for Vancouver-Fraserview disregarded process, said it was a small matter -- if you don't want to talk about it, that's fine, but it's really a small matter. Well, I don't think process is a small matter, and I don't think consultation is a small matter. What we're talking about is how one level of government deals with another, and that's very important. Intergovernmental relationships are important; we have to maintain these to make good judgments for Canada and for British Columbia.

Can you imagine the whining and wailing and bellyaching of this government and this party across the way if the federal Minister of Finance had applied the same method of process and consultation that the provincial government applied to the municipalities? I can hear it now, and I heard it for years and years. They're experts, and they've had many years of training in whining and wailing and criticizing, so I think they would carry on in the usual manner.

We all know, hon Speaker -- and this is no big secret or anything like that -- that deficits have to be eliminated, and we all know that debts must be reduced. We all know that in order to carry out social programs, we have to lower the debt -- the national debt, the provincial debt. It's just good common sense, because interest payments are killing these programs. We have to do that. So we don't need lectures from across the way on how to do this. We know, we accept, that tough decisions have to be made both federally and provincially.

But it's how you make these decisions, how you do it. It's respect, again, from one level of government for another. It's not ramming down punitive legislation to a so-called lower level of government; municipalities are not a lower level of government. They may be a creature of the province -- and I guess we could get technical about that -- but it's not a lower level. This is the government that's closest to the people of the province, to the residents of British Columbia.

We don't need this sort of instant decision-making with no consultations based on the premise, I guess, that we've heard by one of the ministers, that government can do anything. Well, can they really? I don't know. We'll see in a year or two.

It's not saying one thing publicly, making public statements, such as in the road situations, where we're turning maintenance of specific roads in various municipalities over to the municipalities and later realizing. . . . I guess there was some confusion in contractual arrangements with maintenance companies that maybe they really couldn't do that.

Then the next thing we hear is that the government really will take care of the maintenance of these roads, failing to say: "We will also further reduce your grant." I know in my municipality -- and the member for Delta South mentioned it this morning -- we had a very quiet reduction of one-third of a million dollars for road maintenance. That came off the grant as well.

These grants are very important. They're very important to the people who live in these municipalities. It has a direct effect on policing. This is what people are concerned about -- their safety. They're concerned about law and order, basic protection. They're concerned about the hardships that they're undergoing, taxpayer hardships. It sounds easy to say, "Well, we'll just add another 3 percent to your tax bill this year," or something like that. Many municipalities are struggling with this. Of course, then what they have to do is implement tax and fee increases. Fee increases. That's the old backdoor system of taxation that the members opposite are very familiar with now.

We have to remember that municipalities have to, by legislation, balance their budget. So somehow they have to squirm and wiggle -- and maybe wriggle, even -- in order to accomplish this balance. Only two years ago the government brought in legislation. They brought in an agreement. What about an agreement, an agreement that would give local governments the capacity to plan and organize for the good of ordinary taxpayers, to be able to balance their accounts, to establish their budgets and to share in the growth and development of this province? That was a fair bit of legislation, and I commend the minister who brought that in.

But what do we see? Two years later, because, I guess, of the incompetence in the fiscal management of the province, we see it's all to be eliminated -- the stroke of a pen or, as our member for Shuswap indicated, a total whiteout. Now it will be replaced by the word "consult." The minister will consult with the various municipalities.

Well, what does consultation mean? I hope it means what I think it means. But I really think it doesn't mean interaction on an equal basis between municipalities and provincial officials or the minister concerned. The minister will come out with this piece of legislation saying, "No increases to large or small towns" -- however it works. This time around, it's the big cities that are taking the hit. Next time around it may be the tiny ones that take the hit. Or it could be no grants, period. What it really means is that this government has demonstrated -- and it's unfortunate we have to say these things -- a total disregard for process and consultation.

This should be the framework of how governments operate, not just hit-or-miss, holus-bolus legislation to correct an immediate situation. There should be process and consultation, and I'm sad to say that this government has demonstrated no credibility with local governments. I'm sad that we've got to this situation in this province. This government has had six years to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, to bring this province around so that we aren't in debt to the extent we are -- that we're not running deficits -- but they have not been able to do this. I've been waiting six years and still haven't seen it.

An Hon. Member: Don't hold your breath.

R. Masi: And I won't hold my breath.

M. Sihota: Listening to the opposition in this debate around the Budget Measures Implementation Act is interesting for two reasons. The first reason is that somehow they seem to take issue with some of the decisions this administration has made with regard to. . . .

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I want them to hear this. There's a good reason why we have two ears and one mouth, and why only one person can speak in this debate. So let it sink in a bit here, hon. members. The opposition seems to. . . .

I was going to talk about two issues. The first one I want to talk about is that it's amazing how quickly they forget. It's absolutely incredible how quickly they forget the position that they were advocating on the doorsteps during the course of the last provincial election campaign. Let me remind members opposite what they were proposing during the course of the last election campaign. Their leader released an alternative budget -- which they haven't done this time around. I challenge them to do so, so that they can show to British

Colum-

[ Page 2596 ]

bians the position that they would take with regard to the budget. During the course of the last election campaign, their party ran on a platform of cutting $3 billion out of the provincial budget. Now, let's put that in some kind of context. The budget for the province of British Columbia. . . .

[3:45]

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I've been listening patiently, and I would expect the hon. members to show me the same level of respect that I always show to them.

Roughly $20 billion is the amount of money the government takes in, and during the course of the 1996 fiscal year that was the case. They said that they would cut by $3 billion. You know what that means? That means they can't take it. That's what it means right now. . .as I see the member on his feet.

D. Symons: Point of order. As interesting and entertaining as this presentation may be, I would remind the speaker that we are speaking on Bill 2, a government bill, and that's what we should be discussing so that we can move on with the day's business. Could we do the orders of the day?

M. Sihota: I thank the hon. member for that reminder, and, of course, I wish to remind him -- as members opposite have been pointing out -- that certain municipal legislation falls under the purview of this legislation.

So $20 billion is what we take in, and during the course of the last election campaign they said they would cut by $3 billion. Of course, they want to forget that. Why is that? Well, because that represents 15 percent of the amount of money that government takes in. They made some comments about K-to-12 education and a number of other areas that they said would not be subject to that 15 percent reduction. So they would have to cut that $3 billion out of all sorts of budgets. They said which budgets would be protected, and of course, there were a number of budgets that were not protected.

One of those was the Municipal Affairs ministry budget. It wasn't protected, so therefore it went. I'm glad that the penny has dropped, because you can tell by the silence on that side that they now know where I'm heading.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I knew my comment would generate that remark.

So they would have made massive cuts to municipalities. They would have made massive cuts to the budget of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. They would have made massive cuts to municipal services. They would have forced upon municipalities massive increases in property taxes that they would have to pass through to commercial, industrial and residential residents in those areas. So let's put this in some kind of context. You have our budget before the House, which, quite frankly, does have an impact on municipalities. I can't remember the exact number, but I think it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million -- $113 million.

But let me remind the hon. members what the impact would have been if they had been elected. It would have been $500 million: five times more pain. The Municipal Affairs critic says there's not that much money in the whole budget. He doesn't get it. So let me remind him what was stated in their platform: unconditional grants and conditional grants would disappear by $181 million. To achieve that $500 million, in the last election campaign the Liberals committed to cutting transit grants to municipalities by $275 million, further cuts of $34 million were promised by the Liberals in terms of community grants and a further $10 million in terms of highway planning, for a total of $500 million.

It gives me great pleasure to stand up in this House and first of all remind members opposite of their own policies, which they've conveniently forgotten about now that the election is over -- now that they've lost. You know, they don't want to come in here. . . . If they want to have a debate about the changes that we're making as a government, it seems to me only fair game that they should talk about the commitments that they campaigned under in the election campaign.

In my mind, it runs somewhat hypocritical for them to stand up here and criticize this government for some of the changes that are being made in this budget, prudent as they are, when they opposite, had they been elected -- and thank God British Columbians saw to it that they weren't -- would have had a devastating impact on the ability of municipalities to deliver basic services in terms of roads, sewers and water.

They would have had $500 million in cuts, and not one hon. member opposite has had the temerity to stand up and say: "This is what we would have done." I challenge them now to confess that that was indeed part of the Liberal financial plan.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: Their screams today in this House run hollow. They have all of the attributes of hypocrisy. It would be my suggestion that they take this time now to remind voters of the position that municipalities would have been finding themselves in had the Liberals been elected.

I said that our initiatives are somewhat prudent, and they are. Look at the city of Victoria. I would say all municipalities in this wonderful province of ours would be well advised to do what the city of Victoria has done: to take a look at what we said was there -- namely, the ability to find administrative efficiencies, which they found.

Victoria, although initially concerned about this determination on the part of government, has now been able to find the fat in their budget so that there will not be a tax increase, which the hon. members would like, in their doom-and-gloom scenarios, to suggest there will be. There will not be a tax increase in Victoria, and other municipalities would be well advised to follow that course.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: I want them to listen to my second point, because I told them I would be making two points in the context of this legislation.

During the course of her comments, the member for Richmond East alluded to a certain columnist that had commented on things that this government was doing. She referred to newspaper summaries, and I've heard other members opposite do this. They'll take the most convenient editorial. . . .

Interjection.

[ Page 2597 ]

M. Sihota: No, but I'll tell you what I wouldn't do, in a second.

Some days you have to ask yourselves about the independence of the press in light of the fact, of course, that many generous contributions were made by the press to the Liberal Party during the course of the last election campaign.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: They say: "Tell us more." Somewhere in the neighbourhood of $90,000. I was looking at the donations today, and I was astonished to see that Steve Weatherbe donated $10,000 to the Liberals in the last election campaign.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Last time I checked, Steve Weatherbe was a journalist.

Interjection.

M. Sihota: Steve Weatherbe. That's right. Where is he now? I didn't realize that journalists made that much money in British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Well, Keith does but Steve doesn't.

M. Sihota: Yeah, maybe Keith Baldrey does. But even Keith's company donated to the Liberals during the last election campaign. I believe WIC donated somewhere in the neighbourhood of $13,000. But no reporter was as generous as Mr. Weatherbe was last May, when it turns out he donated $10,000 during the election campaign. Now, in terms of the initial disclosure of the Liberal Party, it's interesting to note that that donation on May 13 was made by Sterling Newspapers Ltd. But in the new papers that they filed this week, it shows up as a donation on the part of Mr. Weatherbe.

In fact, CanWest Global -- CKVU -- as it turns out, gave $6,000. We didn't know that initially. The Financial Post gave $5,000. We didn't know this until the disclosure the other day. And there was $10,000 from Shaw Communications cable systems. This is, of course, on top of the $12,500 contribution that was made by the owners of the Vancouver Sun , a paper who I think often prints far more fiction than fact.

Now, this isn't intended to be a criticism of. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: It is my second point. I think it raises two questions, in all seriousness, and I don't think that Mr. Weatherbe made that contribution. I think it came from Sterling, and it should have been reported as such. But it begs two questions: why was the true nature of the transaction not properly disclosed? Or was it initially disclosed properly as Sterling's? And why did they change it to Mr. Weatherbe? But more importantly, in terms of our own society: how can a public have confidence in the neutrality of the press when these kinds of contributions are made to a political party, like the Liberal Party of British Columbia?

I think it begs some legitimate questions in terms of the role of the press in a democracy, where I think the public expects neutrality and independence from the press, and then, as in the case of the owners of the Vancouver Sun , these contributions are made without apology. I think it certainly causes some -- including me, at times -- to question the propriety of these kinds of donations when one would expect the press not to make donations to a political party, such as the Liberal Party of British Columbia.

I just want the hon. members to reflect on that, not to sort of. . . .

Interjection.

M. Sihota: I'm listening, hon. Speaker, and I must confess that I'm not supposed to be hearing voices opposite; members aren't supposed to exist when. . . . But I often do hear voices from the other side of the House, and they often have little to say and perhaps are not worthy of a response.

But I don't think they should be grasping for straws. I think they should be returning the cheque. I think they should be making a statement to the press in British Columbia that as a political party they will not accept donations from BCTV, from CKNW, now from Shaw Cable and CKVU and Mr. Weatherbe. So it would be my advice to the hon. members opposite that they ought to return the cheque.

Interjections.

M. Sihota: If they wish. Let me say more. I don't have it here; I should have brought it. They never really got. . . .

An Hon. Member: What do you want? Some material?

M. Sihota: No, I have lots of material. But I tell you, I wouldn't rely on any material from your research department, hon. member. I mean, add it up this week. Today they didn't know what the labour legislation was in this province. They came in here saying: "Oh no, there's going to be a strike in the schools in Prince George and in Qualicum Beach this week." No one over there in that research department looked up the labour statutes. They didn't know the law of the land.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, order! Hon. member, I don't think the Labour Code is in Bill 2, so I think you might wish to address a different point.

M. Sihota: All I'm saying is that they should either fire people in that research department or ensure that they get adequate training through the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training. The other day they made certain allegations about the Nisga'a lands, saying the lands were up for sale, that they were being given away.

An Hon. Member: They're still saying it.

M. Sihota: And they're still saying it. Again their research department was wrong. Perhaps they should go over to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and be educated on how the system is working. They don't care if it's wrong. You know how they get together in their little question period committee, and they say: "Hey, we've got a great story today. Let's go

[ Page 2598 ]

ask it." It's all based on fiction, probably fiction read in one of those newspapers that donated to them during the course of the last election campaign.

Then, of course, there's that famous question period when they told us that A&W and other food multinationals in the United States -- Starbucks -- were getting all sorts of contributions from government, all sorts of subsidies. Again they were wrong. In fact, the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia came down here and stood in the halls of the Legislature. People -- good New Democrats like Malcolm Ashford -- stood there and told them: "Look, they don't know. The Liberals don't know what they're talking about." And they don't.

Then, of course, there was the gaming fiasco. This opposition is so bad, it's incredible -- like the gaming official who was slam-dunked by the Minister of Employment and Investment.

[4:00]

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, Bill 2, please. Return to Bill 2.

M. Sihota: Sorry, hon. Speaker. Let me say that in this budget implementation legislation there are certain things that are missing. There ought to be in this bill, in my view, provision made for training allowances for Liberal researchers. That's the kind of provision that we need in this legislation, and it's lacking. If you want my honest opinion, there should be provisions made in this bill, two different columns: one column with regards to municipal grants that lays out what we're doing and another column that lays out what the Liberals would have done had they formed government -- $500 million in cuts.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, order. This is not about rehashing question period; it's about Bill 2.

M. Sihota: No, it isn't, hon. Speaker. And I have too much respect for the rules of this House to digress much from the provisions of this legislation.

But I think I have made the point that it's somewhat hypocritical for the members opposite to make these suggestions about the municipal budget in light of the fact that their cuts would have been $500 million and would have had a devastating impact. Secondly, I think that all members in this House need to reflect on the fact that it's somewhat inappropriate -- in fact, totally inappropriate, in my mind -- for that party to be accepting those kind of donations, whether they're from Mr. Weatherbe or other journalists or journalistic outlets.

With that said, I thank the hon. members opposite for their remarkable attentiveness during the course of my presentation.

R. Thorpe: It certainly is nice to see that member with a smile on his face for a change. It's been a long time since we've seen him smile. The only issue is: how long will the smile last?

We're debating Bill 2 here, the Budget Measures Implementation Act, 1997. Unfortunately, the members on the other side have not seen the seriousness of their errors. This bill is about yet more broken promises. It's about the integrity of all of our government. It's about off-loading to municipalities. And what it is most about -- I'd just like to get it in before that member leaves -- is fiscal mismanagement. Yet the Minister of Finance says that he's proud of the budget and this bill, which is going to end up as $31 billion of debt for all British Columbians. It is not possible to be proud of this bill. This bill should have been titled "More Broken Promises, Act One, More to Come, 1997."

On March 25, the Minister of Finance said: "I don't expect you to believe me." Guess what: municipalities do not believe the Minister of Finance of British Columbia -- and that is sad. The auto propane users do not believe the Minister of Finance. That is wrong, when people do not believe ministers.

Why has all of this happened? It's happened because of broken promises. People haven't asked for more. They're asking their government to keep their word. In 1994 this NDP government promised municipalities stability, certainty and predictability. That has not happened. In September of 1996 the Premier of this NDP government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs signed a protocol agreement to consult with UBCM, and a mere two months later the municipalities learned -- through media releases -- of the cuts. That is not consultation. That is a broken promise, and that is what has British Columbians upset.

We're told that the cuts are 3 percent. The people in my riding, the people in the municipality of Penticton, are looking at a 37.38 percent cut in their transfers. That is not 3 percent -- another broken promise. The people of Summerland are being cut $168,000 or 28.5 percent. That is not 3 percent. It is more broken promises.

This government has stripped away stability, predictability and certainty, and communities are having great difficulty with that. Yes, some of the communities, through very effective management, are able to cope right now. But there are some other communities who are concerned. They're not concerned about this year; they're concerned about going forward, providing the services to their people. They're concerned that there is only one taxpayer in British Columbia. There is not another pot of gold, although this government is trying to find it at the expense of local governments. There is only one taxpayer in British Columbia.

One of the things this government fails to recognize. . . . It's about real people and real families. I have to tell this House and this government that, with respect to the auto propane tax increase, we were promised there would be no tax increases. But now they say: "It's just that we're getting ready for the exemption." When you take the money out of people's back pocket, when government does that, that is a tax.

But do we have certainty as we move forward? No. If this government did not have more deception in mind, why, when they're making amendments to this bill, would they say in (

e) that the minister may do "any other prescribed basis"? That

[ Page 2599 ]

means the minister can do to the communities whatever he wants, whenever he wants. And it is not just the large communities. People in the small communities are concerned, they are afraid, yet there is no comfort in this legislation. And that is wrong.

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: Thanks for reminding me. It was the Minister of Forests on that side who said this government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. Here are two examples: the tax on propane -- they promised no taxes, yet they are doing that -- and cutting and taking away from municipalities.

This government just does not understand. I don't like to repeat myself, but there is only one taxpayer in British Columbia. They pay all of the taxes. People know that when you shove costs down from one level of government to another, it has to stop at the taxpayers, and they are going to have to pay. I want this government, on behalf of the people of Peachland and Summerland and Naramata and Penticton, to have some respect and to understand that it's not their money that they're spending. It's not their money that they're wasting. It's the hard-working taxpayers' money, and they have a responsibility to keep their word and to safeguard these funds. They just have to do that.

The hon. members talk and take shots because they know they can't defend their own policies and their broken promises. When we form government, we will introduce truth in budgeting, we will implement balanced-budget legislation, and most of all, when we sign protocol agreements that say we will consult, we will honour those agreements, because that's all that people want. They want the opportunity to help solve the problem.

I was told a few years ago that one of the problems that people encounter. . . . Why we get at opposite ends of the spectrum is because we don't share what the problem really is, and therefore we can't work together on the solution. That is what this government has failed to do. They have failed in consultation. They have failed to keep their promises. And that is wrong.

Hon. Speaker, I will have more to say about this issue in the committee stage. I will be speaking then on behalf of my constituents. But this government should be ashamed of itself for breaking two more promises -- the promise of consultation and the promise of no tax increases -- which this bill acknowledges that they're doing.

D. Symons: As much as I would like to respond to the outrageous comments made by the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin, I think I will refrain from that and just deal with Bill 2, and maybe take a slightly different tack than some of my colleagues have done on that, because I want to look at parts of it, as well as the Local Government Grants Act.

The first thing that concerned me in here is -- I note it in

section 2 -- the change to the Assessment Authority Act. I have no problem with what it's doing; I guess I have a problem with the time it's doing it. What this will end up meaning is that they will now make the funding for the appeal process payable through the authority rather than what it was paid through -- out of the consolidated revenue fund.

The only concern I have about this, hon. Speaker, is that this government, when they were bringing in their budget, made the statement that they had cut spending by $100 million, but when we looked more carefully at that statement we found out that the way they had cut the spending was by moving numbers around, off the books. They took them from one agency that was counted through the budget process, in the consolidated revenue fund, to other agencies where they didn't count that way. So the $100 million spending reduction turned out to be more like a $250 million to $300 million increase in spending, if you take the moneys they have shifted off the books onto other ones.

This indeed does exactly the same thing. It's simply going to shift roughly $2.3 million from the books that counted before, from the consolidated revenue fund, over to the Assessment Act. I have no problem, as I say, with it being done that way, because maybe the thing should be self-supporting in that sense. But it seems that this government will next year use that as another example of how they have reduced spending. Indeed they haven't; they have just shifted the books around a little bit. So it's a bit of another shifty move on the part of a shifty government, I suspect, to go about doing that.

I have another concern, and this of course will certainly come up in second reading and possibly deserve an amendment to

section 8 on the Hotel Room Tax Act, because there we have. . . . Apparently, if the government makes a mistake in the taxes for a hotel or other establishment, they could be fined for having to pay the moneys that are due because of a refund that was improperly paid. I suspect, most of the time, it will happen when an audit is done. They'll find out it was the hotel that made a mistake on it.

[4:15]

But the way this act reads here, if the mistake was made by the government -- the auditors or the assessment people that collect the taxes there -- then indeed that hotel would still be subject to paying interest on the moneys that were improperly refunded. I think that would be incorrect. A slight change would make that correctible.

Now we do get down to

section 12 and on, which deals with the Local Government Grants Act. That, of course, is the one that most of us are concerned about, because it hits us where we live, in our own communities. I would like to say that the real thing that bothers most of us, again, is the removal of

section 2 from that act. That basically takes away the limits that the government was allowed to change the grants to.

The problem with all of this thing and the whole act, as others have said, is that just a very few years ago we had the municipal cost-sharing changed by this government when they brought in this Local Government Grants Act in 1994, I believe it was. At that time, they said this will bring certainty, predictability and those wonderful words of assurance to communities: "Now you'll know what you're going to be getting year by year."

And communities bought into it. As a matter of fact, they bought into it by allowing the government to sort of get out of paying about $250 million in unpaid grants that they had hanging over them. They bought into it because there was this predictability and this certainty of funding coming. We find just a few years later that the certainty has suddenly evaporated, because taking out that limit of a plus-or-minus 2 percent change certainly will remove it and leave it open to government to use whatever figure they want to change it to. As a matter of fact, the only reason we're discussing this bill today and this

section of it is the very fact that the government wants to make the promise it made to the municipalities back in 1994.

[ Page 2600 ]

The other part on the grants that I'd like to mention is that that particular reduction is 66 percent to the city of Richmond. That is a terrific reduction on the part of this government in its grants to the municipalities. Overall, it's a 28 percent reduction to municipalities, but to Richmond it's 66 percent.

A couple of the government members and, I believe, the minister, when he was introducing the bill, gave the comments about the fact that we've had the federal government off-loading on the province -- everybody's got to share the pain and all the rest. Well, you know, I looked back and found out that the federal government cuts for this year are $435 million. It's roughly 5 percent of their grants to this province this year that they've cut back on. The cutback to Richmond was 66 percent.

That seems to be a little bit out of balance there, in the sense that they're saying, "We've got to share the load," and they complain about Ottawa's 5 percent cut. I don't necessarily agree with Ottawa's cuts to B.C., but they say: "There's a cut of 5 percent to B.C., and we're going to off-load that cut by a 66 percent reduction in grants to the municipality of Richmond."

It varies from community to community. That, of course, brings up the other business of whether there's any certainty and predictability, because certainly Richmond did not know that they would have such a huge cut. Nor did any other community know what size the cut would be to their community, until it was announced.

The second part, I guess, brings up the concerns I have with the credibility and the reliability that people can have in anything this government says. Last September, I think it was, I attended the UBCM in Penticton. At that point, we had the Deputy Premier stand up and sign an agreement on consultation with the mayors of this province, through the UBCM. They made a great to-do about the fact. "We've signed this protocol agreement, and indeed there will be consultation between the government and the municipalities whenever anything comes up that's going to affect them."

Did they consult with the government when they brought in the change to this bill, the Local Government Grants Act? Did they consult when they cut back the grants to the communities? Hon. Speaker, they did not.

Hon. D. Miller: Read my speech from the time -- very clear.

D. Symons: Very clear that you were not. The minister is saying it's very clear that they were not going to consult with the communities when they cut back their. . . . It's interesting that the impression given to the mayors was certainly that there was going to be consultation, but the minister says otherwise. We're finding today, anyway, that certainly consultation is not one of the strong suits of this particular government.

Now, we find when we look at the unconditional grants part,

section 3, that what this is really going to do is leave any future grants to municipalities totally up to the minister or the cabinet, because basically it says in the very last part that they can give grants on "any other prescribed basis." Nothing at all -- nothing -- was in the original grants act to that effect. There was certainty and predictability in that act. This means there's uncertainty -- no predictability whatsoever -- for any community, year by year.

Honestly, it is extremely difficult for school boards, for municipalities, for any level of government to perform the services that they must perform for their communities or their relative constituencies without knowing what's coming year by year. You need to know; you need some sort of predicability to plan for the future. You can't have a jumping from one year to the next, wondering what's going to happen the following year. You need some degree of certainty. This bill simply removes that as far as provincial grants go for those communities.

I have a great deal of concern with a government that would even consider bringing this in. If the federal government said to B.C., "Next year we may cut out all the grants to B.C., or we might raise them, or we might reduce them by 50 percent; but we'll tell you when the fiscal year comes near to an end what you'll be getting for the next year," this government would be up screaming. They're screaming now about the cuts the federal government has been making. They gave them a ten-year lead time on it; we knew year by year what the reductions would be from the federal government.

The municipalities did not know at all what this government was going to be doing to them. They found out they'd better not bend over in their presence, because they'll get it in the end.

Interjection.

D. Symons: I won't explain that to you.

You know, the government has suggested that they have reduced the grants by 14 percent. They have done this, again, through what they're getting very good at, and that's fixing the numbers somewhat to suit their purposes. Really, what has happened is that they've included a lot of things which were not part of the government grants for what they've totalled up that goes out to the communities, and they've used that as the basis for their percentage calculation. The actual figure, as I said earlier, is somewhere closer to 28 percent.

So when compiling the 1996 grants under the program, subject to changes, really, the grant reduction is closer to 30 percent. We also find that the estimates of the transfer to local governments were under $3 million a year in 1995, and the $113 million reductions are now 30 percent of the total of what was received. That is from the UBCM, who have worked out these figures.

There are 68 communities that are having some sort of reduction in their grants. Four of those communities have reductions of between 70 and 80 percent in government grants. Seven of the communities, Richmond included, have reductions of 60 to 70 percent. The largest group, I guess, if you do a mean curve here, have 40 to 50 percent reductions. But to all of these communities, that's going to be difficult.

The reason is difficult; it's because the minister said and suggested: "Well, it's very easy for them to make a small adjustment in their budget, because this government is doing it here, and they should follow the example." There's a slight difference, and that is that the community of Richmond and, I'm sure, many other communities around the province have been fiscally responsible. They have not run up a deficit; they have not run up debts each year. They have been paring things to the bone to keep the tax rate as low as possible all through their last decade or so, so that there is not the fat there.

There are not the high-paid government consultants. There are not the high-paid. . . . What's the term I want here -- cupcakes? What's the name for that particular government agency that basically is. . .?

An Hon. Member: Cabinet policy and communications.

D. Symons: The cabinet policy group, right, the communication centre that takes $7 million out of the provincial

[ Page 2601 ]

budget there. You know, in the municipalities you don't have those sorts of things. They don't give out the sort of patronage appointments that this government has been doing. They don't have the money to cut back as readily.

It's going to come down to reduction in services, to an increase in the tax or some combination of both of those. We find out in the city of Richmond that already now they are going to be reducing services. They're cutting back on the times the swimming pools are open to the public; that will affect children and so forth who use them. They're cutting back in library hours and things of that sort in order to make up the difference that this government has reduced the budget by. So we find there are all sorts of concerns that I really don't think this government considered when they brought it in.

We have a letter here from the mayor of Richmond, addressed to the three MLAs from Richmond, basically asking us to do something -- if we can to bring this to the attention of the government. It says:

"The provincial government has reduced revenue-sharing grants to Richmond this year by $3.7 million" -- I note, hon. Speaker, that was a 60 percent reduction -- "which will be implemented by a repeal of the Local Government Grants Act. The city of Richmond would like to go on record as objecting to the steps being taken by the provincial government, from two perspectives. The first area to which we object is the non-consultative approach the provincial government used to bring about the changes in the funds that are distributed to local government."

I won't read the rest. I have made some comments about that non-consultative part, but they go on quite a bit about the consultations that were promised and didn't take place.

"Our second objection is, of course, the ramification of the $3.7 million in provincial cuts to the city of Richmond. In order to deal with this reduced funding, we have had to take several drastic steps, as follows: severely reducing the hours of operation for our two outdoor pools; reduction in overtime for firefighters that might affect their level of service to the community; a reduction of six management staff and the elimination of some union positions; no funding for hiring additional RCMP officers or for replacement RCMP officers for the federal drug squad which is being moved to Vancouver. . . ."

These are all going to affect the service in Richmond. They end by saying:

"We therefore wish to reiterate our objections to the abrupt and non-consultative manner in which the cuts were thrust upon us and to the amount of the provincial cuts. One of the reasons I believe the public has a lot of respect for local government is that we live up to our commitments and are open and accessible. The provincial government has a responsibility to do likewise."

That's signed by Mayor Greg Halsey-Brandt, mayor of Richmond.

[4:30]

Now I'll move on from that Local Government Grants Act to just a few of the other ones. I note that there are some changes to the Motor Fuel Tax Act. The tax on alcohol-based and compressed natural gas is remaining as is. At the same time, it's allowing for the taxation of propane. I would suggest that that is a retrograde move on the part of this government. Propane fuel does, if burned efficiently in an engine, put out a lot less emission than the current gasoline that we use. So we should be encouraging people to change to alternative fuels, not discouraging them by taxing them. So that is also a retrograde step on the part of this government as far as environmental issues go.

The Municipal Act has provisions. . . . I made notes here -- oh yes, the Municipal Act. I just had some interest when I saw in the current Municipal Act, which this government brought in a few years ago, that there was a provision that when they're having an election in the municipalities, the value of donations of services -- of people to work for a given party or given group -- must be recorded as a donation to that particular group that's running in the municipality.

It interested me greatly, because when this government brought in the Election Act for British Columbia, that particular facet of reporting expenses and donations did not occur in the provincial Election Act. Yet this government insisted that it be in the Municipal Act -- a rather interesting omission, hon. Speaker, considering the things that the member from Esquimalt was saying earlier. It's a rather interesting omission, because that permits a given party -- and a certain party in this province seems to get a lot of support during election campaigns from the labour movement. . . .

Indeed, they get a lot of donations of services from various labour organizations where employees are still receiving their salary. They're not working at the union office but are working for a given candidate in one of the ridings. That doesn't count as a monetary donation. The value of that donation doesn't count under the Election Act for British Columbia. It would count if they gave that same donation during a municipal election. That's just a rather interesting omission.

I thought maybe if they were going to bring about some changes to the Municipal Act, they might also bring in a change to the Election Act and put in that little thing that really belongs in our Election Act.

I think the last comment I'd like to make relates to

section 34, on the Tobacco Tax Act. I do remember that for the last two years we heard Finance ministers stand up -- frequently during the election campaign -- and we've heard this phrase from this government: "No new taxes. A promise of no new taxes. Taxes are frozen for two years."

Now, I have no love for the tobacco industry at all, as you know from my support for various curbs on their. . .particularly in appealing to young people on the use of that product. But nevertheless, this is obviously another broken promise. We've gone from an 8.4 cent tax to an 11 cent tax -- indeed, somewhat of a broken promise again. There are just too many broken promises on the part of this government.

I suffer -- as every member in this Legislature suffers -- as the public perception of politicians sinks lower and lower when more things said one day are unsaid or not kept the next day. This act just brings in more of those features, and people can no longer trust the government that they have elected. And I feel personally affronted by that, as every member in this House suffers from the perception that the public now has of politicians. With that, I will take my seat and leave it to somebody else.

P. Reitsma: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to this bill. It will probably come as no surprise that I cannot support this three-D bill -- disastrous, deceitful, discriminatory. Today is April 17. For me it is a very happy day, because it is, as a matter of fact, my son's twenty-second birthday. [Applause.] Thank you, and donations are accepted for his scholarship. Of course, it's a very happy day to be 22. In fact, my daughter will be 25 very soon, but. . . .

An Hon. Member: How old will she be when the provincial debt is paid off?

[ Page 2602 ]

P. Reitsma: She'll be 45, I suppose.

It is a sad day for the province, for the municipalities. This day will go down, in some infamy probably, as bully-the-municipalities day rather than the name of this particular bill. It's a day of shame.

The government really doesn't practise what it preaches. As you very well know, because we've been together at many UBCMs. . . . In my political background, I'm very proud to have served as a council member and as the mayor of Port Alberni in the early eighties. The person who took over is a very well-known person, the now president of the UBCM. Gillian Trumper has been mayor of Port Alberni since she took over in 1983, and she is doing an incredibly good job. She is also UBCM president, as a matter of fact -- and I'll be referring to that later. I'm extremely proud to have been a mayor.

I've also had the opportunity and privilege to serve as the mayor of Parksville for nine years, as well as serving on the regional district of Nanaimo and the regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot.

The reason I mention this is that I was really proud to be part of presenting 12 balanced budgets. The reason we were so proud to present 12 balanced budgets is. . . . Because we had no choice. This provincial government -- and this is why I said that it doesn't practise what it preaches -- makes it law under the Municipal Act that we have to come up with a balanced budget, and I think that is very, very good. But what's good for the municipalities is indeed good for the provincial government. Aside from that, it's also good for the federal government.

You cannot dictate a law to one segment of society or one political institution, namely the municipal governments or the regional districts, and simply blatantly ignore that law for yourself. It's particularly galling because the people who put the law together to force it upon the municipalities -- and I think it's good to have a law to balance budgets -- simply are not adhering to their own laws.

When we get together in councils -- and there are many representatives of municipal governments on the other side of the House and, of course, on this side of the House as well -- and attempt to balance a budget, it is extremely difficult because of cuts, because of a lesser amounts of income and more demands. We sit down, we have long, long meetings -- day meetings and evening meetings for hours upon hours. We scrutinize. We buy more pencils, because we have to sharpen them all the time. At the very end, we are happy because we are able to come up with a balanced budget, as was dictated to us. This should and must happen to the provincial government, of course, as well.

This bill really rocks the foundation and pillars of working together. It is a breach of trust and a breach of integrity, and these are fundamental to working together. I've made presentations, and I've listened to the councils of Parksville-Qualicum and Nanaimo, and to the directors of the regional district of Nanaimo as well, and they are shocked and dismayed that this breach of protocol, this deceitful and disastrous bill, so deceptive and so discriminatory, can be put upon them. I've talked to them. I've addressed those councils, and they ask me, and of course, I ask the government as well.

Of course, the government's answer is: "Well, we can do anything we want, for that matter." How can this happen?

Municipal subsidies have been conveniently ignored. When you think of the total provincial transfers of $400 million -- or $800 million, or something else -- the part of the equation ignored is the announcement in the free services provided by local government to provincial facilities. Let me explain. Schools, colleges, universities and hospitals generally pay no taxes, grants-in-lieu or user charges. Yet they receive, at no cost, local services such as police and fire protection, road maintenance and water and sewer services. Similarly, Crown corporations do not pay taxes on the same basis as other taxpayers.

For instance, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferries. . . . Of course, the people of my riding in Nanaimo are particularly well aware of the B.C. Ferries, and so is the government. They shut off the taps for the water for a while because they wouldn't pay. B.C. Rail only pays partial grants in lieu of taxes.

Among the services provided to many provincial agencies at substantially reduced rates or at no cost are, for instance: most school board elections; fire protection to some provincial parks; emergency services outside the municipalities; ICBC; criminal-document services, partial payments; some provincial highway police patrols; court overtime for police called to testify in the provincial court system; and the first-responder program for the B.C. Ambulance Service.

Those subsidies by local property taxes total in the millions of dollars annually. Some of the spin that's been put on some of the questions. . . . I'd like to quote some of those. The spin the provincial government wants you to believe is that it subsidizes local government by $800 million a year. Well, I go to the doctor only to get better, not to get worse. The facts are that the $800 million is misleading. It includes programs that do not belong to local government.

Upon the advice of the UBCM, we got some information: the table produced by the province to clearly distinguish between actual cash transfers to local government and other provincial programs. I'll give you some examples of the $800 million which is included. It includes: emergency health, which is the provincial Ambulance Service, controlled by the Ministry of Health, $116 million and some change; the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks contribution to the Fraser basin management program, $300,000; programs that are not grants to local government, such as the B.C.

Police Academy, $1.6 million; policing in small and rural areas, $47.5 million; Canada Assistance Plan, which is federal money that flows through the province to municipalities, almost $3 million; the Fire Academy, just short of a million; and most glaring, the capital and operating funds of B.C. Transit, $287.5 million.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

The next spin that the provincial government wants you to believe is that the $130 million in cuts is only a small portion -- one-eighth -- of $800 million. Again, the real doctor will tell you that the estimates of the transfers to local government were under $300 million a year in 1995 -- $130 million reduction, or 30 percent of the total that has been received.

In the '96-97 fiscal year, local government will receive cash transfers of about $300 million. It is against this amount that reductions should be measured. Cutback impacts cannot be accommodated in the more than $500 million of the other perpetrated transfers, since this money never touches a municipal budget. On that, you cannot write in the chimney with charcoal, and neither can this government befuddle UBCM and the municipalities. As much as they like to try, they cannot.

The spin: a cut equivalent to 3 percent of the revenue is manageable. The facts: total revenue reported in the municipal statistics contain a lot of accounting factors. It doesn't really

[ Page 2603 ]

represent the room available to make adjustments. For instance, the total revenue can contain one-time transfers out of reserves into revenue; revenue collected for other groups -- i.e., the regional districts -- surplus carried forward for the previous year; and revenues to finance one-time purchasers. The better measure is to compare the reduction in transfers to property taxes. The reduction in this case is 4.5 percent of the total property taxes, on average, and up to nearly 7 percent. The spin, as previous: a cut equivalent of 3 percent of revenue is manageable.

When I listen or try to listen to colleagues from across the floor representing their municipalities -- those who have been in regional districts and/or municipalities, as well -- I find it incredible and sad that none of them are standing up for their communities and for their councils. It takes courage to stand up for something. But sadly, most fall for anything.

Having talked to the mayors and the councils of the three municipalities, I'd like to give you some of the impact and tell you the real numbers rather than the spin numbers. And with all this spinning, you get dizzy, anyway -- as everybody is at the UBCM. The changed percentage of transfer in 1997: for Parksville, it's 43.5 percent, not 3; in Qualicum Beach, it's 21.5 percent; in Nanaimo, it is 63 percent.

Now, in terms of the grant reduction as a percentage of the property taxes, it's not the 2 percent; it