[ Page 4759 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 58) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4759

Mr. Barber –– 4761

Mr. Nicolson –– 4764

Mr. Wallace –– 4765

Mr. Barrett –– 4767

Mr. Mussallem –– 4771

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4771

Division on second reading –– 4773

Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill.84) Second reading

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 4773

Mr. Lea –– 4774

Mr. Wallace –– 4782

Presenting reports

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing annual report, 1976 –– 4784

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome two fine British Columbians who are visiting our Legislature today from Kamloops - Anne and Guy Lemieux.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, visiting us today from the constituency of Little Mountain is Mr. David Young. I would ask the House to make him welcome.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity to advise the members that tomorrow is the opening day of the Pacific National Exhibition. I would like to say that it is an agricultural exhibition, the largest in the province of British Columbia. Last year it had over a million people in attendance. I would ask that all members and all people of the province who have the opportunity go in and view some of the agricultural exhibits there and learn a little more about our agricultural industry in this province.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in response to the Minister of Agriculture, I too would like to extend a welcome to all citizens of British Columbia to the great constituency of Vancouver East, the home and heartland of democratic socialism in British Columbia in the last 50 years. May you all have a good time in an area of co-operation and love in this province.

Orders of the day.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Second reading of Bill 58, Mr. Speaker.

REVENUE SHARING ACT

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, this bill is the most significant development in local government assistance ever presented to members of this assembly. That's a very sweeping statement, but one which I believe cannot be refuted. The guaranteed sharing concept that is introduced here will permit every municipality in British Columbia to enjoy the benefits of the province's continuing growth. In clear and enduring terms the bill spells out this government's commitment to revenue sharing. This party campaigned on that principle and we are acting on it.

The basic goal of revenue sharing is to improve the balance between revenue and responsibility at the local government level. For geographic and constitutional reasons the provincial revenue base has evolved to include income and sales taxes, as well as revenue from renewable and non-renewable resources. But by contrast - and as we have known, and as so many individuals present serving in this assembly and those who have served before them have pointed out - the municipal tax base has remained confined primarily to real property despite dramatic growth in municipal servicing responsibilities and costs, and the demands of the citizens of a local government component.

We propose, therefore, to alleviate the disparity between municipal revenues and responsibilities by giving those municipalities direct access to a guaranteed percentage of the much broader provincial revenue base. That in a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, is the principle of revenue sharing as articulated in this document.

By way of background, could I explore some of the factors which convinced us of the need for revenue sharing? We say again - and it's recognized on both sides of the House, I'm sure - that the demand for municipal services is increasing. A, very rough measure of this pressure is that municipal expenditure rose almost 141 per cent throughout B.C. between 1968 and 1975, a period during which population growth was only 31 per cent.

Rising service costs have accompanied the rising demands for municipal services. Among other things, the high labour component of municipal services makes municipalities particularly vulnerable to inflation.

A substantial and increasing portion of municipal revenue is derived from the narrow, slowly growing, and inequitable real property tax base. In 1968, 39 per cent of municipal expenditures were financed by property taxes. By 1975, Mr. Speaker, this figure had risen to 45 per cent. This means that other sources of municipal revenue, including provincial grants, rose more slowly and came to play a relatively less important role. Not only were municipalities becoming increasingly dependent on property taxes, but they were also competing with school boards for access to that real property tax base. The ration of local education costs to total municipal expenditure - net - on education rose from 45 per cent to 56 per cent between 1968 and 1975.

Mr. Speaker, these adverse trends in municipal finance signal the need for more effective provincial assistance policies. The existing grant system, including the interim revenue sharing programme of 1976 and 1977, is clearly incapable of satisfying this need. The assistance it delivers is inadequate in amount, in continuity, and in growth potential. It begs for reform.

[ Page 4760 ]

Rather than tinker and patch and band-aid, we propose to replace the existing grant system with a stronger and a simpler municipal-aid package. As provided in this bill and its accompanying regulations, the new package will initially raise the level of provincial aid and make subsequent increases in this aid proportional to future increases in provincial revenue.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, it will co-ordinate the various programmes to which aid is directed. I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that members of the House will note that this comprehensive proposal is concerned with both the source and the distribution of provincial aid to municipalities.

May I first deal with the source, because this is the area in which the most significant breakthrough has been made. Up until now, the source of municipal grants has been relatively static. The level of the per capita grant has been enshrined in statute, often remaining fixed for a few years at a time. Hence the need for supplementary forms of aid, such as the interim revenue sharing programmes of the past years. The recipients of this aid naturally complained that the per capita grant was inflexible, and that the volume of supplementary aid was unpredictable from year to year, and they were certainly correct.

This bill will change all that. From now on, the aggregate level of shared revenue grants will automatically equal the dollar value of one personal income tax point, plus one corporate income tax point, plus 6 per cent of the province's revenues from sales taxes, and renewable and non-renewable resources, in any particular year. Because of the need to accommodate inevitable discrepancies in revenue estimates, as well as collection and expenditure lags, we decided to operate the revenue sharing programme through a fund.

I don't intend, Mr. Speaker, to deal with sections specifically, but I would refer members, in debating this in principle, to sections 3 and 4 of the bill. Those members who have checked this already will be aware that our deposits into the revenue sharing fund must equal the actual yield of the formula, and that the subsequent withdrawals - to use that term - which all take the forms of grants, must equal the deposits. In other words, local government is being given guaranteed access to a statutory, constant share of every major provincial revenue source. Not only that, but the expected annual growth rate of this combination of revenue sources approaches 15 per cent.

British Columbia's municipalities, at long last, will share in these economic growth benefits on a partnership basis with the province. The days of ad hoc handouts by the province are over. In all probability, the success of revenue sharing will be measured by the dollars it generates, and on that basis, we believe that it will be an outstanding success. There are two other measures of success which I think should be mentioned, Mr. Speaker. In the first place, revenue sharing will be economically equitable, because local governments will experience the same shared revenue growth rate as the provincial government.

Secondly, the annual level of shared revenue will be predictable, in the sense that its aggregate amount in any year will automatically be apparent as soon as the province's revenue estimates become available.

In addition to the major reform in the source formula for provincial assistance, the bill, through its regulations, will offer significant innovations in the distribution of the money generated by that formula. Perhaps the most far-reaching of the innovations is the new method for calculating unconditional grants. There is great emphasis in this legislation on unconditional grants to local government.

By way of illustration, may I just describe the unconditional grant formula. In any year, 80 per cent of total unconditional grants will be distributed in the form of relative population grants. For example, a municipality with 2 per cent of the province's total municipal population will receive 2 per cent of the relative-population grants total. The remaining 20 per cent of total unconditional grants will be distributed in the form of relative expenditure grants.

Thus, a municipality accounting for 3 per cent of total municipal expenditure will receive 3 per cent of the relative-expenditure grants total. In addition, municipalities having below-average per capita assessments will have their expenditure or grants boosted in proportion to their assessment deficiency. That is to say, a municipality whose per capita assessment was four-fifths of the provincial average will receive five-fourths of the relative-expenditure grant to which it would be otherwise entitled. Once again, there's a considerable degree of equity being built into the assistance programme.

Three features of this unconditional grants formula deserve special emphasis, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, could the conversation which is taking place to the right of the Speaker be maintained at a much lower level than at present? I think all of the members would like to hear the hon. minister on this particular bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: First, while we are retaining relative population as a major means of determining grants entitlement, we are dispensing with the inflexible dollar rate inherent in the current per capita approach.

Second, while the relative-expenditure component may benefit a few municipalities which have the fiscal capacity to spend more, it will also benefit the many communities which are obliged to spend more by geography, climate, isolation or rapid growth.

[ Page 4761 ]

Thirdly, the per capita assessment bonus will augment the resources of communities whose property tax base is simply too narrow to support an adequate range of municipal services at reasonable mill rates. We all know of such communities and those with limited commercial and industrial development.

Since we anticipate that the bulk of shared revenue will be devoted to unconditional grants, I would like to outline the government's unconditional grants philosophy as it reflects on this particular piece of legislation. We are committed to strong municipalities, both as indispensable units of government and as the best qualified providers of community services and regulations. For that reason, we believe that unconditional forms of provincial financial assistance should predominate and that real property taxation must continue to contribute to the needs of local government. It's a paradox of unconditional grants that some conditions are always implicit, if only at the philosophical level.

In providing unconditional grants, the province has to be prepared to accept the spending decisions of the recipients, and this government is prepared to do just that. In doing so, we're suggesting only two general guidelines, which I believe are fully acceptable to local governments: first, let no municipality use provincial grants to cut taxes at the expense of adequate essential services within that community. To say more would be to beg questions which only experience can answer.

Besides funding the unconditional grants, revenue sharing will supply the needs of six other programmes: basic municipal grants, water facilities grants, housing starts grants, municipal incentive grants - the MIG programme, municipal major roads grants, and regional district grants. I won't burden the House this morning with the full details of these programmes, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to at least mention each of them in turn.

The basic municipal grant provides $30,000 to every municipality regardless of its size or fiscal capacity. This programme is the cornerstone of provincial assistance to our villages and to the smaller communities of British Columbia.

The water facilities grants will be provided under an existing formula which relates the provincial contribution to municipal assessment and debt-servicing costs.

The housing starts grants will provide $100 per net unit started regardless of price or density of the unit. Mobile-home sites will be included and demolitions will be deducted.

The municipal incentive grant will provide $1,000 per start in respect of those housing units falling within defined moderate price and density limits. This programme, as members of the House will know operates under agreements between the province and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

The major municipal roads grants will provide up to $15 million annually to cost share the construction of major roads which are designed to complement provincial controlled-access highways. Successful municipal applications recommended by the Minister of Highways and Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) will be eligible for 50 per cent of approved construction costs and companion planning grants will be made available.

Mr. Speaker, the regional district grants comprise a basic grant of $30,000 - the same as for municipalities - an administration grant of $10,000, plus a planning grant which is geared to geography, population and, indeed, planning grants to reflect this government's commitment to better regional planning.

The financial relationship between the various shared revenue programmes is very straightforward. In any fiscal year, the combined demands of the unconditional grants programme and the other six programmes I've just mentioned must equal the total shared revenue generated by the source formula. In other words, Mr. Speaker, revenue sharing is not an open-ended proposition. The entire group of programmes must operate within the limits of funding provided, again, by one personal income tax point, one corporate tax point, and 6 per cent from the other sources already identified. The limits are generous but they are firm.

Mr. Speaker, as a financial :aid package, revenue sharing in this bill is realistic without being extravagant. We feel that it will provide a strong foundation for the maintenance of vital local government in British Columbia. Among its other innovations, I'm particularly proud of this bill's promise of this government's commitment with respect to economic partnership and municipal revenue growth.

Mr. Speaker, I'm particularly pleased with the response that has come from so many municipalities, regional districts and individuals involved at that level of government with respect to Bill 58. We are very pleased to have had their positive comments. On the basis that this is a bill long overdue in British Columbia - one, Mr. Speaker, I indicated the need for during my years in local government - I'm particularly happy, and very proud, to move second reading.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of our party to tell the minister that we intend to vote for this bill. It is indeed a philosophy with which we can agree. It seems to us reasonable and competent that as the revenues of the province grow, so should those of municipalities.

There are, however, some criticisms that, I think, can be fairly made of this singular approach that the

[ Page 4762 ]

minister has taken. Indeed, there are some powers which once again he has given to himself that concern us a very great deal. Those powers lie chiefly in sections 4 and 5. One of the first problems with the bill, of course, Mr. Speaker, is that the converse also applies. The minister argues that in a good year the revenues granted to municipalities will improve. The converse is, of course, that in a bad year they will decline. The converse is that in a year of poor revenue for the province - and, indeed, last year was one of these years - what we will surely see is that municipal revenues, as well, decline.

As the minister I'm sure is aware, representations have been made to him expressing precisely that point. Municipalities in this province want guarantees that should any government mismanage an economy as badly as, say, it was mismanaged last year, especially in the tourism sectors and a few others that we can think of, then the amounts of money they would have ordinarily received under the previous programmes shall not be diminished by the amount of money they are about to receive under this.

We are concerned about the paradox implicit in this bill. The paradox is very simply that if as the result of mismanagement on the part of that, or any other provincial government, the economy declines and provincial revenues are in a downturn, then so, too, must be the revenues of municipalities. The further economic problem with that is that if municipal government must be subject to the failures of the provincial government, then the economy on the whole, operating provincially and locally, will continue to deteriorate. That concerns us a great deal.

My second major concern, Mr. Speaker, is that in his notes released on June 17,1977, the minister indicated he expects in the first operational year of the Revenue Sharing Act that there will be an increase in the area of 17 per cent in the amount of moneys actually available to the municipalities.

My research office has conducted an examination of this claim, and at the moment, it doesn't stand up. I propose to read into the record some figures based on the actual revenues that would have been derived in the year 1975-76, and are likely to be derived in the year 1977-78, based on the minister's own information.

Let me go through these one by one. The point of this, Mr. Speaker, is to ask the minister to clarify the basis on which he estimates that a 17 per cent increase is likely. But at the moment, the figures don't present any such optimism at all. In 1975-76, the amount actually received under the Social Services Tax Act was $443,685, 045; under fuel taxes, $173,356, 286; under lands and forests, $74,800, 877; under minerals, $328,150, 991. The total in that year was $1,019, 993,199. At 6 per cent that would have been obtained in 1975-76 is $61.14 million.

Let's continue examining the other sources of revenue and examining the real revenue that would have resulted to municipalities, had that formula been in effect then. On the basis of the personal income tax point system - that's 30.5 per cent - the actual revenues in 1975-76 were $655 million, according to the government's own figures. At one point, based on the ordinary calculation provided for in this Act, the result to municipalities under this formula would have been $21,480, 000. Continuing on with the income tax for corporations at 13 per cent, according to the government's own figures, that would have amounted to $260 million. At one point, that would have been $20 million for municipalities. Therefore, in 1975-76, based on the formula present in this bill, had it been in effect then, the total revenue to municipalities would have been $102,620, 000.

The problem for the minister is that under the old formula, the total grant would have been higher than that. Indeed, in 1975-76, the total grant, according to the figures provided by our research office, would have been $103,104, 428. That contrasts with $102 million under the minister's formula, had it been in effect then. Specifically, that is derived as follows: grants in aid of local government did amount in that year to $83,104, 533; and under the Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act, $19,999, 895.

Again, these are the government's own figures; these are actual payouts that were made. It is possible to derive therefrom by these calculations the actual amount that would have been paid to the municipalities had this formula been in force. What one has to conclude from this, Mr. Speaker, is that indeed, in 1975-76, there would have been a net loss to municipal government under the minister's formula, compared with the other formulae that were in place at that time.

Now let's take a look at what would happen in 1977-78, based again on this government's own figures. We find that the Social Services Tax Act is estimated to provide $740 million. Fuel taxes are estimated to provide $193 million; lands and forests would have provided $73,150, 000; minerals - a considerable drop from the actual revenues received in 1975-76 - are estimated to provide $284,640, 000. The total revenue under this formula in 1977-78, according to the government's own figures, would be $1,290, 790,000. The total in social services, fuel taxes, lands and forests and minerals would have been $1,290, 790,000. At 6 per cent of revenue, according to this formula, that would have brought $77.44 million into the coffers of the municipal revenue-sharing fund. That compares in 1975-76 with $61.14 million.

Now let's continue on the basis of this formula if it comes into effect in 1977-78. The government's estimate is that personal income tax will bring into the province in that period $1,115, 500,000. On the basis of the usual formula, that would produce an

[ Page 4763 ]

actual revenue under this bill of $34,323, 076.

Under the corporation tax income tax programme, the estimated revenue in 1977-78 is $283 million, which, on the basis of the one-point formula provided for in this Act, would draw $18,866, 666. It might be pointed out that because of these drops in the government's tax, there is a small decline there. Accordingly, the comparison can be made as follows: the total of revenue provided for in this bill, based on the government's own estimates for 1977-78, would be $130,630, 000. That compares with $102 million for the period 1975-76. However, what remains is the fact that under the previous programme - the one presently in place - there would also have been increases.

What I want to hear from the minister is the guarantee that the 17 per cent anticipated in his press release and not referred to in his remarks this morning can actually be met. We find that on the basis of the Stats Canada estimates of population growth, thereby justifying the figure we've arrived at for population growth and per capita growth expenditures, under grants in aid of local government, the estimated expenditure in 1977-78 would have been, if Stats Canada is correct, $85,514, 564. The Natural Gas Revenue Sharing Act, of course, cannot be provided for because that formula is determined annually by the cabinet. But it seems to us likely that, as in previous years, that figure would have gone up as well.

The conclusion that one has to draw from this, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister's claim that under this formula actual increases to municipalities would have increased by 17 per cent, at the moment does not stand up. Let me review the gross figures. On the basis of this formula, in 1975-76 the actual revenue to municipalities would have been approximately $102 million. On the basis of the other actual expenditures that year, they were in fact $103 million. In 1975-76, had this formula been in place, there would have been a net loss to the municipalities. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, we look for a guarantee that there will be no such loss to municipalities when the formula does come into effect. The minister anticipates a 17 per cent increase. All we can find is that in the previous year for which we have actual figures there would have been a loss. We want an assurance from the minister, and indeed we would like to be privy to his calculations which allowed him to suggest that there would be a 17 per cent increase.

If the minister would like a copy of this paper, I would be happy to send it across the floor to him.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, it's inaccurate, so I don't need it,

MR. BARBER: Well, they are based on your own government's figures, sir. If they're inaccurate, I would be happy to have them contested.

So we're interested in an assurance from the minister that the 17 per cent can be met, and if so, how it will be met. It's possible that regardless of the good intentions of this bill, the actual result will not be anywhere near as good as it presently looks.

Our third and final concern about this particular bill is that actual distribution of revenue is virtually unstated in it. Indeed, sections 4 and 5 make it very clear by the absolute generality and vagueness of their language that the minister alone through regulation will determine the precise amounts to go to municipalities and regional districts and the precise amounts under grants, as they are simply described in an incredibly general way, for general housing incentives or for regional district planning or administrative purposes or for an amount calculated pursuant to a prescribed formula, and so on.

The minister gave us the wonderful balance of his statement that they want to make very sure that the moneys derived under this programme do not go to goldplating present services and facilities, and on the other hand do not allow local politicians an opportunity to cut taxes at the expense of real services. Well, that's a very nice balance, but it doesn't mean anything at all. It's absolutely vague and general, and in that regard, at least it's consistent with what we find in section 4 of this bill, which is equally vague and general.

Section 5 simply says: "The Lieutenant Governor-in-Council may make regulations." That applies to section 4, which tells us what the regulations are for. Nowhere in this bill is it specifically stated, nor did the minister this morning specifically state, precisely how these moneys are to be paid. Presumably he knows, and presumably he expects that that will have to vary from year to year, and therefore it will not be present in a bill. If that's the case, it would be extremely useful to this opposition to have tabled on the floor of the House the anticipated or draft regulations that the minister expects will follow this bill. It is impossible for an opposition to examine this bill with any skill at all unless the regulations which are at the heart of the mechanical centre of its application are known to us. If we don't know that, it's extremely difficult to calculate the exact payments the minister will make. Accordingly, it's very difficult to debate in anything but an extremely general way the extremely general provisions of this bill.

The minister alone will write the actual regulations. The minister alone will prescribe them to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which will presumably pass them without any considerable debate. The minister alone will determine the cash that's available to municipalities.

It's typical of this minister, Mr. Speaker, that he

[ Page 4764 ]

should like to have so much power. He gets up this morning and gives a speech about how they respect the municipalities and they respect their autonomy, and then they bring in the notorious section 28 of Bill 42 which allows him to rewrite personally any municipal or regional bylaws in the province. It is, to say the least, a bit of a contradiction. To say a little More, it's a bit of a paradox that he could on one hand tell us in this bill how much power they want to give municipalities, and in another bill, tell us how much power he's willing to take away from them personally.

We're concerned about the fact that because of this minister's present unwillingness to at least table the draft regulations in the House, his promise of a 17 per cent increase may not actually be met.

We're concerned that he personally will have the authority to write those regulations without any reference to this Legislature. Given the amounts of money involved and the key and crucial nature of local government in this province, it seems to us that this Legislature should have an opportunity to review those regulations, at least in draft form. The regulations, as they will exist, quite specifically we will be more valuable to municipalities than this bill itself. They will tell them more than the bill does. The regulations will provide more information than the bill provides, and we think we should have that information too.

There is one final concern. This Social Credit coalition is notorious, present and past, for overestimating its revenues. They are notorious for overestimating their expenditures, and indeed on balance it's clear....

AN HON. MEMBER: Underestimating!

MR. BARBER: Forgive me. Let me start again. I should read from my notes a little more closely. What I meant to say was that the Socred coalition now, and the Social Credit government in power before, are notorious for underestimating revenues and overestimating expenditures. Indeed, the notoriety has preceded them wherever they go.

At the conference of municipal leaders across the country, the subject is often heard wagging on the tongue: "Good god! If this government continues the present practice of underestimating revenues and overestimating expenditures, how are we going to know year by year what the actual amount available to us will be? Can we trust their figures and estimates? If we can't trust those figures, can we actually calculate what will come to us under the revenue sharing formula?" If year after year they conspicuously underestimate and overestimate in that way for obviously political purposes in order to declare a surplus just prior to the election, can they be believed when we are to be provided information about the actual revenues and the likely revenues in the coming year of the particular government? To say the least, it will provide a confusing situation for municipal governments that have to determine whether the estimated revenues of this government can be believed and the actual expenditures can be believed as they're calculated in the budget.

Those, Mr. Speaker, are our concerns. Reviewing them very quickly, the paradox and the converse also applies. In a poor fiscal year for the province, it means poor revenues for municipalities.

Secondly, the minister promises a 17 per cent increase in revenues, and at the moment we don't see it. Indeed, on the last year for which we have complete figures provided by the government itself, there would have been a small loss in the neighbouring of a million dollars had this formula been in place them.

Thirdly, we want a guarantee from the minister that no municipality or regional district will actually lose a nickel the first year this programme comes into power - that not one of them will actually lose anything when this bill is passed.

Finally, we're concerned about the fact that not having the regulations at hand, it's impossible to debate the practical application of this bill. The whole heart of it is contained in regulation, and none of those regulations is present.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to congratulate the minister for keeping a promise. Indeed, as reeve and mayor of Saanich, and as president of the UBCM, he repeatedly argued for this over many years. I think it's just excellent that at last in power he's had an opportunity to put in a bill that he obviously believes in. I think that's very good. I hope it works. I hope that the minister is able to provide figures which guarantee an increase, hopefully in the range of 17 per cent or more this year, for municipal government.

I hope that the government is able as well to keep another promise that they made in the campaign, which was to remove the property tax altogether for senior citizens in this province. This bill will not provide for that. No other bill that they've brought forward will provide for that either. Hopefully the minister will be able to encourage his fellow members of the coalition to honour that promise as well. If so, we too would be delighted to vote for that bill.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak very specifically to the principle of the bill. As I see it the principle in this bill is not so much a matter of dollars - I think that dollar support to municipalities, and the increased dollar support to municipalities, has been in place for certainly three or four years - it is the principle that municipalities have long asked for through the UBCM and indeed, all across Canada at tri-level conferences - a share of revenues, a share of

[ Page 4765 ]

taxes, and tax points. They've often argued at tri-level conferences for share of personal income tax, so that is what is happening here today.

I think it should be stated very clearly that this is not a matter of great concern one way or another to taxpayers. It is a matter of a moral victory for municipal government in terms of the fact that they now have what they have long asked for. The matter of dollars and cents, I think, was settled long ago during the period of the previous government, by consultation and co-operation between the government of the day - for instance, their assistance in getting a better deal for British Columbia by assisting the provincial government of the day in their fight with the federal government, which was resisting an increase in the price of natural gas, That is the principle.

I found it a little bit out of character with the mood which has prevailed in the House in the last few days that the minister rejected out of hand any offer of co-operation when the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) offered to send over the figures which have given him cause for concern. He just said: "No, I don't want them because they're inaccurate." That, Mr. Speaker, was petulant and it was in direct contrast with the type of co-operation that has gone on in this House in the last day. There is a great deal of concern by people as to the conduct in this Legislature, and it's that very type of pettiness that causes things to snowball in terms of personal feelings in this House. I hope that the minister would reconsider that.

I don't know if he was here for some of the debates of some of the other ministers yesterday. I know he got in just shortly after question period yesterday. Maybe he's a little bit tired from a time change, a bit of jet-lag or something, in coming back from Quebec, but I would hope that the minister would give a little bit longer shrift to the very considerate remarks of the second member for Victoria.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what I would like to say, in supporting this. We aren't talking about a matter that is going to be of major impact in terms of taxation. The level of financial support to the municipalities was rectified during the previous government by various measures - for instance - by recognizing the inequities of only basing per capita payments on the latest census figures in growth municipalities. Where census took place only every five years, there were times in which growth municipalities were out of whack by maybe 40 or 50 per cent.

The fact that the previous Social Credit government had frozen those figures for a number of years was another thing that was rectified. This will be granting to the municipalities the thing which they have long asked for. It is more a matter of principle with them than it is dollars and cents. It is what they want, and that's why the official opposition is supporting it.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I'll try to get away from the sin of which I have been accused by the popular media - that I talk too much in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: And the back bench obviously approves the idea that I should talk less. It's not so much that I talk a lot, Mr. Speaker, but I try to talk on most of the issues. When you only have one voice on behalf of your party, it's rather important that you try to....

AN HON. MEMBER: This isn't back bench.

Interjections.

MR. WALLACE: This bill, in my opinion....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the hon. member for Oak Bay has the floor. You would never know it from the conversation that has just been taking place.

MR. WALLACE: You could have fooled me, Mr. Speaker.

This is one of the outstanding bills of this session, because the principle of the bill is sound and it has evolved from co-operative discussions over a long period of time, particularly between provincial governments in the past and municipal governments.

I would also like to make it plain that it meets an election commitment of some magnitude; in other words, it was one of the main planks of the election campaign. While all of us on this side of the House very quickly criticize the government for some of the important commitments it has not kept, I think it's only fair on this occasion to acknowledge that this is an election commitment of some magnitude and it has been met in exactly the way that people anticipated in light of the discussions which took place at election time. So if we sometimes enjoy hammering the government for the things they have not followed through on, we must, at least on this particular bill, acknowledge that this is one very important election commitment they've kept.

Further than that, it seems to me a very great deal of thought has gone into the different components of the principle, which will try to establish both flexibility in the programme and justice, whether it's a small or a large municipality. I was further reassured by the minister's willingness to come right out in the course of his remarks and say that there are two

[ Page 4766 ]

circumstances which the municipality should be aware of. He didn't go into great detail and I think that was wise.

He pointed out that those larger municipalities, which might get a fair share of their money from relative-expenditure grants, must not use this to bring in gold-plated plans of one kind or another, and they must not cut back on taxes at the expense of essential services. While I don't want to be misunderstood in my remarks, I have often thought that municipalities sometimes do become a little strident and maybe at times even unreasonable in their demands as to what they feel they should receive from the provincial government.

One of the basic pillars, as I see it, in the principle of this bill is that it provides a guaranteed share of an amount of revenue which will be calculated on a particular formula. Now the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) quite rightly raises the fact that we don't always agree as to exactly what government revenues are, nor do we find too much common ground in the budget debate in discussing the anticipated revenues of government. So we recognize that. But I think, again, in fairness, I have never seen a government in this province - certainly never a federal government - where anybody comes close to agreeing on estimated or anticipated revenues. Politics would be pretty dull if, on something as basic as fiscal policy, revenue and expenditure, we ever came close to agreement, and we never will.

I recognize the concern of the second member for Victoria, but on the other hand, the municipalities are now being given a formula which is clearly spelled out and which gives a guarantee of one point of personal income tax, one point of corporation tax, and 6 per cent of revenue from renewable and non-renewable resource taxation. While I can appreciate the municipalities wondering what happens in the lean years, I frankly have to say to the municipalities: "You can't have your cake and eat it as well." If they want a revenue-sharing formula, surely inherent in the principle of revenue sharing is the acceptance that as the provincial government goes, so go the municipalities. They stand to do well if the government continues to sponsor a healthy economy with rising revenues, some of which will be no gain at all because it will be due simply to inflation. I am just not too sympathetic to the cry: "What do we do in the bad years?"

Again, the second member for Victoria does have a point that if a provincial government proves to be feckless in its management of the economy and revenues drop, then indeed the municipalities, under this formula, will have to do some belt-tightening, but so will everybody else across the province. It's not just the municipalities which have to tighten their belts in the lean years. It is a democracy, and if the municipalities don't like the way the provincial government's managing the economy, then they can help turf them out in the next election.

I can understand some of the concern that the municipalities may have about the fact that in the good years they'll have access to larger amounts of provincial revenue, but in the bad years it might not be so good. There's too much in our modern society where people want it both ways. I'm not just talking about revenue sharing; I'm talking about the fact that they want the best social programmes but they don't want to pay a little more money to cover the cost of these improved programmes. Here we have an improved cost-sharing programme between the provincial government and the municipalities which, in my view, meets the greatest cross-section of need as exemplified by the five or six different components that the minister outlined in his introductory notes. I like the principle of relative population emphasis for 80 per cent of the grant, and also the fact that there is fair recognition that municipalities with a small assessment base might not do so well, and therefore the minister has mentioned the adjustment that can take place under these circumstances.

There is one area where I'm not quite sure if it will be as secure in its effect as I would like. I'm referring to the part of the formula dealing with the relative expenditure grant. In the richer municipalities, there might be the danger that they would use this almost as an incentive to spend. It would seem to me to create, to some degree, the possibility that the richer, more stable municipalities might choose to spend more money and embark on expensive programmes. I don't necessarily mean they would be -inessential programmes or gold-plate programmes, but they could be expenditures of substantial sums of money, perhaps over a shorter period of years, which would be embarked upon because tile larger percentage of total expenditure that they're involved in would mean a larger expenditure grant under the principle of this bill. I'd be interested to know on that point whether the minister feels that is a reasonable concern.

One of the other points that I think is worth mentioning is that the Union of B.C. Municipalities is extremely pleased with the principle of the bill and the way in which it is to be implemented. One area of contention that has been frequently mentioned over many years is the need for continuing dialogue and exchange of opinions between the UBCM and the government of tile day.

I understand that the minister has been diligent in trying to meet frequently with UBCM and their representatives. One of the things that is missing from this bill is some kind of assurance or some kind of guarantee that there would be an annual review of the effect of this legislation with UBCM.

Now I know that that is a relatively small point compared to the very large positive steps that the bill

[ Page 4767 ]

is suggesting, but I think it is another way in which the minister is giving a guarantee regarding the money. The formula would also be giving a guarantee as to his own good faith or the good faith of this government. If this formula is perhaps not as successful as anticipated, the UBCM can be assured of at least one important annual opportunity to meet with the minister and discuss the ramifications of the bill we are now discussing.

The point has been raised that since the guarantee depends on a percentage of provincial revenue and because we are not always able to agree on revenue or anticipated revenue, there might be concern of the municipalities on that account. I just say again that I appreciate this government's initiation of quarterly financial statements.

I would like to ask the minister if the concept of predictability by the municipalities as to their share of a specific amount of revenue.... To what degree does he feel that this can be clearly defined in the quarterly financial statement? As the government gets experience with its quarterly financial statements, perhaps there can be more detail of revenue source and more specific information, which would surely give municipalities an opportunity every three months to see where tile provincial revenues are headed. They can do their own calculations as to what their possible revenue share will be.

Just to sum up, Mr. Speaker, in my view it is one of tile most gratifying and progressive bills we've seen in this session of the Legislature. I think it will create a better bond of confidence between the municipalities and the provincial government. It responds after many years to a sentiment that the municipalities have expressed.

My only sense of disappointment is, as I say, that the municipalities seem to have no end to their expectations of the provincial government. Even though there are immense benefits to them in this bill, the only sour note that I've detected is that they want some extra guarantee as to what happens in the lean years. I just find that a pretty selfish and exaggerated response by the municipalities, because as I have said earlier, there's no way in life that you can have your cake and eat it as well. The government is responding to a commitment that it made in the election. It's a positive, progressive answer-, it meets the great bulk of the requests made by the municipalities.

I don't want to use too strong a word, but I think it's a little disappointing that in the face of all the positive aspects that please the municipalities in this bill, they seem to want that additional guarantee that when the economy falters.... And it might not be the fault of the government of the day. It's all very well to say: "Well, if the government fouls up the economy, why should the municipalities suffer?" But there might well be times when tile economy falters and it is not the fault of the government of the day. Surely in these cases the municipalities will have to tighten their belts just like the rest of us.

With these thoughts, Mr. Speaker, I can give very happy and strong support of this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the minister and I had an exchange before we had the official exchange. I like the minister and wish to assure him that regardless of where his ship of opportunism takes him, I wish him well. I may have lost an election, Mr. Minister, but I never lost my principles. Frankly, I believe my principles will last longer than the memory of any particular minister in the government. Having said that, any further comment on individuals' choices of political party should be, I suppose, left to history.

But when the minister interrupts his former colleague, that's what I find a little bit difficult to understand. You may think it's a joke, but I don't think your former colleague thought it was a joke that the day after you used to make speeches attacking Social Credit, you ran across the floor and joined them. I didn't see it as a joke. I didn't see it as the lessening of the stature of that member. And that member shouldn't apologize to this House for the amount of time he takes. He can take as much time as he wants. Would that the back bench of this government would speak for 10 per cent of the time that that member does. We'd get some idea if there was any philosophy.

Related to the bill, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. We're not welcoming a millennium, we're welcoming a change in attitude of the former Social Credit administration toward sharing of taxation revenue, and that's good. I think that we have to examine the sources of revenue and the consistency of revenue to understand whether or not municipalities are going to get a fair shake or not under this legislation. It's one thing to talk about sharing revenue; it's another thing to talk about how much revenue there is to share. While I respect tile classic attitudes of the member for Oak Bay saying that if there are lean years everybody has to cut back, what I disagree with him on it the definition of "everybody."

Before we launched into this particular debate about sharing revenues, we made sure of whom the revenues were going to be shared from. Before this risk was taken by this government, we protected those vested interests who should be sharing revenue. We protected them very, very well.

In two instances alone, by March 31,1978 - the end of this current fiscal year - $60 million in taxation revenue that should have been collected in this province will not have been collected prior to this bill coming into effect. It's protecting those people with vested interests in making sure that whatever little pie there is to cut up under this magnificent

[ Page 4768 ]

government, it's now smaller because of $60 million in two direct moves by this government. There are many, many more, but I'm only going to focus on two that will show how $60 million has been drawn out of the pot and that the ordinary taxpayer, while he may get the impression that more money is available to him.... The fact is that those who have vested interests and those who are protected by that kind of government will not be called upon to give any of their fair share.

What are those two bills? What are those revenue-depleting avenues deliberately followed by this government to ensure that when this bill comes into law the slice of the pie is narrower? First of all, there are the coal royalties, and the very fact that the policy of the former administration of moving the coal royalty from $1.50 to $2.50 a ton was never implemented by this government. It was accepted by industry and understood by the taxpayers of this province that the coal industry of this province should pay its fair share on the current market, but they were never called upon to do so.

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about general revenue we must understand that the depleting resources that the minister mentioned as a source of revenue - and he touts it as a great source of revenue - are leaving British Columbia, especially in the non-renewable energy field, every single day without paying a fair share. When the minister tells us that this is an opportunity for the municipalities and the local taxpayer to get a break, let me tell you they're to get a break after the big corporations and the wealthy have been protected.

Let's examine what's happening here, Mr. Speaker. Before we came to power, coal was paying 25 cents a ton royalty. That's all. It was a straight giveaway. We got the royalty up to a dollar, and that was fought every step of the way by Social Credit. We got it up to $1.50. On April 1,1976, that coal royalty was to go to $2.50, and that money was to be returned and shared with the municipal taxpayers.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Who did I tell that to? To the coal companies.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: My dear friend, would you stake your seat on that statement? Are you saying that the coal companies did not know that royalty was to go to $2.50 on April 1,1976?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you're addressing me.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Don't make those statements without backing them up, Mr. Member. I challenge you. I will give you evidence that we did tell the coal companies. Once you have that, will you step down?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the member has got budworms on the mind.

AN HON. MEMBER: At least he's got a mind.

MR. BARRETT: "At least he's got a mind, " says....

AN HON. MEMBER: Not like some of his other colleagues.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he's a little bit bugs, I guess.

Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to argue which one has got a mind and which one hasn't got a mind. We're going to be debating mine legislation later on where we will see the contortions of this government. We'll discuss that at that time.

But the facts are that the mining industry was well aware. In the announcement made in Fernie, and in the audience when the announcement was made, was one Edgar Kaiser, Jr., who understood exactly what my announcement was. As a matter of fact, he had a fit. I'm sure my announcement added money to the Social Credit coffers, be that as it may.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: The crypto-Social Crediter over there is mumbling away.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. BARRETT: What's the matter? Are you nervous or something? Are you going to get up in this debate? Stop interrupting me. You're throwing me from my train of thought. That member's vicious interjections display his intense awareness of this bill. What's the number of the bill we're debating? Do you know? Just nod your head by so many numbers.

MR. SPEAKER: The bill, hon. member, is No. 58, Revenue Sharing Act.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we're dealing with revenue sharing and the absence of revenue from certain sectors of the economy.

By March 31,1978, $24 million that should have been collected from coal mining operations in this

[ Page 4769 ]

province will not have been collected by that government. As a consequence, $24 million, all of which could have been given to the municipalities, is let go by that government. Then they come in here and say: "Oh, now we're going to share resource revenue." The fact is that $24 million in coal royalties have been excused by this government. They will not be shared; they will not be collected. I want to know if there is any citizen in this province who has got that kind of drag with this government, who says they'd like to be forgiven their taxes, too. Oh, there is a group of citizens I'm coming to now who have also been given that benefit. They don't include anybody in the press gallery, perhaps no one in the public gallery, but they include 11 - at least I I -MLAs over there, Mr. Speaker. While they talk about resource sharing and taxation sharing, I I Social Credit MLAs will not be paying their fair share.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Jack Webster.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he's not a member here.

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that $35 million in taxes that we formerly collected from millionaires in this province in succession duties will not be collected now. From April 1,1977, to March 31,1978, the millionaires in this province will be excused of $35 million in taxes, and then that minister has the hypocrisy to come in this House on a quiet Friday morning and announce to the people of this province that this magnificent government is going to be generous and share with the taxpayers, additional revenue.

It's okay to share additional revenue when you've taken care of those who got you in office and made sure that they don't have to pay a fair share of taxes. When you've protected them by legislation, then you come in and say: "Now what's left of the pie we're going to split up a bit more." That's hypocrisy. Within the timespan that we have witnessed this government in office, in these two legislative moves alone you can see $50 million that has not been collected from the wealthy and from the corporations who are dealing in non-renewable resources in this province. This money has not been collected - or shared; it has been protected and given back to the same vested interests. Is there any reason why the coal companies can't pay that dollar more a ton? None whatsoever. They're selling the coal at $55 a ton to Japan. They don't pay the equivalent of a sales tax of 5 per cent or 7 per cent, and yet we have the pious statements of the minister saying: "We're going to share more revenue."

Mr. Speaker, it's a good thing it's Friday. It's a nice quiet day when we slip this kind of legislation through and the people of this province will somehow get the impression that this good, businesslike government is giving them a fair crack - $59 million that should be collected and shared back to the taxpayers of this province will not go back to the taxpayers. After they've protected the wealthy and the corporations, then they will go back and say: "Look how good we are. We're now adding your tax dollar up. Instead of it being $1, it's now $2, but we're going to tell you how to split it better."

Every single family in this province, Mr. Speaker, since the election of Social Credit - that is, every single family made up of a husband, a wife, and two children - has contributed a minimum of $720 more a year to this government's revenues as a direct result of their taxation policies. If you live on the coast, my friend points out that every single family, made up of a wife, a husband, and two children, who requires to use the ferries, contributes an additional $1,200 a year under Social Credit out of their revenue. You've taken out of the pocket of every taxpayer of this province a dramatic increase in revenue while you've left the millionaires free of $35 million in taxes and you let the coal companies $24 million off the hook in two years. Those are just two items alone. If we go into the area of natural gas, where this government is still selling natural gas to the United States at 'less than what Texas is charging, then you'll find that the people of this province are being given a real shell game.

There's no need of me going over the details of the whole Petroleum Corporation, which established for the first time in this province revenue sharing for the municipalities, or the fact that Social Credit was selling natural gas at 32 cents per thousand cubic feet to the Americans while Texas was selling it to other Americans at $2.25. There's no need for me to go through all that again. But it should be remembered that once we got that price up to a dollar, we said to the federal government that we were willing to enter a new sharing agreement, saying that the local taxpayer would have a rebate of one-third of anything over a dollar that we collected on that natural gas.

We got that natural gas up to $2.80, Mr. Speaker. I think that to this date, it's only $1.95 under Social Credit. You think that Woodward's or Eaton's or someone else figured out the $1.99 Day? No way! This government has the $1.99 Day on natural gas, only they sell it to the Americans at that price. Liquefied natural gas will be coming within a matter of 18 or 24 months to California from Indonesia. It'll be selling in California at $3.50 per thousand cubit feet - from Indonesia to California consumers. I venture to say that by that time we might get our natural gas price up to $2.25.

We are still giving away natural gas to the United States under this government for at least 30 per cent less than its current market value, simply because this government protects the international oil

[ Page 4770 ]

companies, protects the millionaires by not charging succession duty and refuses to collect the additional dollar on coal. It comes in today and says "we're now going to share your money with other tax collectors." It's a little bit of hypocrisy to come in here and talk about natural resource revenue. It's a little bit of hypocrisy to say that "we're going to split up the pot a bit more." When you come into the House and throw away your jewels, which don't belong to you but belong to the people of this province, and throw them right out of the window to anybody who wants to come along - Kaiser; Cominco; the millionaires who won't have to pay their fair share of succession duty; the international oil companies, which are still getting natural gas far too cheap out of this province - it's just straight dumb business. But it's good politics if you rely on a specific area for your campaign funds.

Mr. Speaker, I don't want any municipal administration to get their hopes up high today out of this legislation. I don't want any local homeowner or taxpayer to get the impression that somehow they're going to get a tremendous break on their taxes now with this sharing. These are just crumbs off the table; the cream is gone. These are just crumbs off the table that are going to be used as a little bit of dressing. That's what crumbs are used for: dressing. The turkey's gone, but we'll get the dressing.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, there's another backbencher who interjects, one of those self-made back-bench millionaires who hasn't said a word yet on this legislation.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, he's got stomach trouble!

MR. BARRETT: Stomach trouble? Well, I don't want to attack any....

Mr. Speaker, when I sit down the minister will close the debate and that'll be it! Not one of those backbenchers will get up and say a single word - not one of them! They'll all do what they're told to do by that vicious Whip they have - the Whip who controls them and keeps them in line.

MR. SPEAKER: The Whip has absolutely nothing to do with the principle of the bill which we're debating. Now please get back to the principle; you seem to have an ability to stray from it every second or third paragraph.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for informing me that the Whip has absolutely nothing to do with the principle of this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: I don't blame him.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that on this quiet Friday morning we're given another shell in the Social Credit shell game. I've given two examples of how $59 million in taxes that should have been collected will not be collected as direct policy of Social Credit. The millionaires have been relieved of their [illegible] responsibility. The coal companies have not been asked to pay that additional dollar that has been due since April 1,1976.

Mr. Speaker, this is a "big business" government; it is a millionaires' government. It is a government that has been conditioning itself to protect vested interests and vested interests alone. The fact is that the average British Columbian has either become confused or put off by politics in this province, simply because when they voted for this government, they really believed they were going to get something different, something new and something unique.

It is a proven fact that your policies have cost a family of four a minimum of $700 a year and a maximum of $1,200 a year, because of your taxation policy. You are taking money from the people and giving them a little bit back and telling them what good boys you are, while you've excused the millionaires and the wealthy corporations from a fair share. It's a matter of record. It's not a matter of conjecture or argument, it is simply a matter of record. Millionaires don't pay inheritance tax any more; coal companies are not paying that additional dollar under this government, and we are selling our natural gas far too cheaply to the United States.

That's fair enough, if that's your policy. If I'm wrong, and you really are going to collect from the millionaires, then we didn't pass the legislation.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Don't mumble under your breath, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker. If I'm wrong, tell me that we did not pass the inheritance tax amendment this session. Did we? Am I wrong about that?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Are you speaking to Bill 58, or is this a party debate?

MR. BARRETT: I'm talking about your statement of revenue sharing. I'm speaking about Bill 58 and your comments that we share revenue.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You speak about Bill 58. This has been a philosophical late-night show, and it hasn't been very good.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, did the minister not say that we are going to share in revenue? Is that what he said? Revenue sharing? Where does the revenue come from? From the people. Where did it

[ Page 4771 ]

use to come from? Some of it from the millionaires. Is that money now available, Mr. Minister, to share? Is it or isn't it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Have you read the bill, Dave?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister's statements. He said we're going to share in revenue. How can you share in revenue when you're not going to collect any more?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Have you read the bill?

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, that's very good. They can talk all they want. The fact is that if you don't collect the revenue, it's not shareable, and you're not collecting it any more from the millionaires, you're not collecting it from the coal companies, you're not collecting it in a fair price for natural gas. You're asking the people of this province to take part in a shell game, in increased taxation from ordinary citizens, and then you say you're going to give some of it back.

Mr. Speaker, you know and I know that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and this is all part of a Social Credit shell game. The rich get richer, and the working people and the people on pensions in this province will be asked to pay more. It's proof again of the old adage: Social Credit is the only party in the world that gets money from the rich and votes from the poor, with the promise to protect them from each other.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member for Dewdney.

MR. BARRETT: One of the millionaires.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): Mr. Speaker, I cannot sit down after hearing for the fourth, fifth and sixth times different honourable members in this House stand up and say that our party has been told to keep quiet, that our party has been told to be silent and not to speak. I want to tell you this much right now, that no one in this party - and I say it with the full effect of all the honour at my command - that no one here has ever been told to keep quiet, and no one will ever be told to keep quiet. The only difference is that in our party we recognize a good bill when we see one. That is the difference, and this is a great bill.

We talk about revenue sharing, and we talk about the millionaires. I'd like to know who they are. There are certainly none in this House. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: When did you go broke, George?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Where are the car dealer millionaires... ? I want to tell them this, and I have to remain silent on this point, because there is one.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bill Bennett?

MR. MUSSALLEM: If this is one, then we're all millionaires, but we are all millionaires in this province. We're millionaires because we live in the finest province in Canada, and Canada being the best country in the world makes us all millionaires. So to say that we are millionaires is quite correct, but not in cash. That's what they are referring to. They keep saying our revenue sharing bill is for the benefit of millionaires. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you of many letters I have received, and one just a short time ago from a Mrs. Davis, in Hatzic prairie, who lost her farm because of the policies of the previous government. She lost her farm because of her succession duties, and there are many of them. They say: "This wasn't possible." This is possible.

That bill is for the little guy. The millionaires can afford to pay their taxes. It's the little people who are being hurt, and that's why the bill is in.

What I want to say to you now is ... and I would not have risen, Mr. Speaker, except to point out that this party has never been asked to keep silent. We'll never be asked to keep silent, any of our members. I say this because invariably when they stand and speak they point their finger at the Whip and say: "The Whip has told them, " or words to that effect. I'm telling you this, and I tell you now, the Whip has nothing to say. Everybody here is free to speak as they please, and they do so. Let us bury this nonsense once and for ever. Anybody can speak, but why speak against a bill that's No. 1, first class, a great and honourable minister?

AN HON. MEMBER: Well done, George!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the several speakers in debate on revenue sharing, although, as in his pattern, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) spoke about everything else except revenue sharing with local government. Were you in the House, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, when I made my opening remarks? I don't recall seeing you at that particular point. I must conclude that perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition hasn't really read the bill and accompanying information. The fact is that for the first time in the history of British Columbia a provincial government is saying to local government: "You're not going to have to wait until the budget speech. You're not going to have to plead for the good feelings of the Minister of Finance or the Treasury Board of the province."

[ Page 4772 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You didn't participate in the debate, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) . Do you want to speak?

MR. BARRETT: Calm yourself and speak to the Chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The interjections are interesting. The hon. member has nothing to say in the debate but he speaks most frequently from that sitting position, Mr. Speaker.

For the first time, the local government jurisdictions of British Columbia will be in a position to know their revenues as quickly as the provincial government knows them. They will be able to share with us in the projections. That is what we sought to provide and that is what is being provided in this legislation.

For the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , the total of the grants is assured. The shared revenue is based on provincial revenue received. The hon. second member for Victoria somehow suggested, as he has on other occasions, that there will be discretion given to this minister or to some other Minister of Municipal Affairs to decide who gets what and how in terms of money to the municipalities. But that is not the case, and I think the hon. member knows that.

We could have spent a great deal of time tossing more figures back and forth. In the remarks made by the leadoff speaker for the official opposition, there were a lot of millions mentioned, some of them in context and some of them out of context. I don't think the purpose of debate in principle is to quote endless figures. I want to assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that in putting the formula together and in working on the regulations which are now in draft form.... I don't think that it is common to table draft regulations. It wasn't done during the NDP years.

MR. BARBER: Maybe it should be.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, I see. Different strokes for different folks.

We looked back very carefully, Mr. Speaker, over the past several years to determine two things: first of all, what money was transferred from provincial to local government; and what money would have been transferred if this particular formula hadn't been in place. In every instance, with the exception of 1972-73, where they were pretty close, the money under this formula would have been significantly higher. So we have looked backward to check our figures and to check the formula, and we have projections over the next several years which certainly reassure us as to the strength of the formula and the importance of it to local government.

Mr. Member, don't somehow suggest that this is money to a municipality with no benefit to taxpayers. The member for Oak Bay alluded to this briefly too, but it was the second member for Victoria who somehow suggested that these are two different things. A municipality is not just a mayor and its council; a municipality is the people who live there and pay for the services, the people who pay the bills. Of course this revenue-sharing programme is going to be of assistance to the local property taxpayer. That's the whole reason of the legislation -to transfer more money, and to transfer money fairly and equitably from provincial to local governments.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Oak Bay for his endorsation of the bill. I share his concern with respect to some municipalities which would like to have it both ways. It is not possible and there has never been any suggestion that it would be. This is revenue sharing, and the key word is "sharing." As we have good growth years, we will be able to share more with local government. As we have slower growth years on a cyclical basis, of course, there will be less money to be shared. The formula is in place. We've had lengthy consultation with the UBCM executive, with other members of the UBCM, mayors, alderman and administrative people about this particular piece of legislation.

The member for Oak Bay sought reassurance that there would be annual or more frequent consultation review on this particular programme. I offer that assurance without hesitation. I don't think it would be sufficient to try to do it just once a year. Particularly through the balance of 1977 as the regulations are provided and as the thing is being set up for next year, we would want to meet with them as often as necessary. I would have to consult with the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , of course, but I would hope that the material contained in the quarterly review would be of some assistance to local government in computing where they stand with respect to the formula.

There will have to be adjustments, of course, following the end of the fiscal year. I didn't indicate that in my opening remarks, but that certainly goes without saying, because for every dollar which is available under the formula, that dollar will have to be distributed. But it might not be distributed until the close, obviously, of the fiscal year in which it was received by the province. So we will require that kind of consultation and we will benefit from that consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and with individual mayors and senior administrative people in case there's some minor flaw in the formula. But a great deal of research has gone into it and I'm satisfied that it is complete. It is unique.

Mr. Speaker, as one member observed, I am just

[ Page 4773 ]

back from a meeting in La Belle Province, in the city of Quebec, with other Ministers of Municipal Affairs, all of whom expressed great interest in our revenue-sharing legislation. We left with them supporting material and also a copy of the bill.

Well, what do you know, Mr. Speaker? We even have here a letter of August 2 from the....

MR. WALLACE: Rene Levesque?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, no, I did not meet with Monsieur Levesque. I met with Mr. Tardif, the Minister of Municipal Affairs of Quebec, who was certainly very kind and very hospitable and very pleasant.

"The Ontario NDP caucus" - would you believe that, Mr. Speaker? This person is a research associate. "Several members of the New Democratic Party in the Ontario Legislature have expressed an interest in this piece of proposed legislation. Municipal revenue sharing is an area where we are doing a great deal of work right now and your proposed legislation was most interest." I wish we had had that kind of helpful and constructive comment from the Leader of the Opposition, rather than the rerun of the rerun of the rerun of the 1975 election campaign. You're going to have to change your material, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. It is getting stale; it's getting really stale, The people of British Columbia are going to start forgetting your name.

But I'm straying from Bill 58. Mr. Speaker, I particularly thank the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) for his constructive comments and for the various points that he made, and the other members for their participation too. I believe that it's an important bill and certainly we're looking forward to putting it into operation as quickly as possible for 1978. Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Bill 58, Revenue Sharing Act, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 84.

MINERAL LAND TAX

AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Bill 84, Mineral Land Tax Amendment Act, 1977, might better be described as the "goofed-up NDP legislation clarification Act."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ohhh.

HON. MR. CHABOT: This Amendment Act clarifies the ambiguities that existed in the former Act. While not supportive of the original Act, this government nevertheless has a responsibility to clarify the original intent of the legislation, which was hazy indeed.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

The mining industry, upon introduction of the Mineral Land Tax Act and the Mineral Royalties Act by the former government, launched a suit in the supreme court to test the constitutionality of these statutes. However, this suit was withdrawn upon introduction of the Mineral Resource Tax Act.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Could you have the minister table his motion? We'll take them as read and get on with it. (Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's quite obvious that there are members in the opposition who are not interested in hearing the facts. It's quite obvious by that facetious point of order that was raised by that third member for Vancouver-Burrard.

At the moment several mining companies have launched a joint action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, not on the constitutionality of the Act but to seek interpretation of the wording of the Act and regulations with the view to nullifying its effectiveness. Several appeals are also before the Mineral Land Tax Review Board. Basically the appeals to be heard before the Mineral Land Tax Review Board are the same as those that will be before the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which is tentatively set for February 13,1978. This amendment will clarify the intent of the Act. This clarification does not deny the mining companies the right to proceed with their actions. Had we wished to do that, legislation could have been introduced to extinguish actions for recovery of taxes paid.

AN HON. MEMBER: What nonsense!

HON. MR. CHABOT: As previously indicated, the legislation was poorly drafted, ambiguous and needed clarification of the intent. I might say that three months prior to the introduction of this Act, I indicated in a speech to the Mining Association of British Columbia that I intended to introduce remedial legislation to correct the ambiguous aspects of this Act. From that day on I've not received any objections from any mining companies in this province.

Beyond the clarification aspects of the legislation,

[ Page 4774 ]

a change has been introduced which results in a more orderly administrative procedure in the forgiveness of the mineral land tax where the land is used solely for agricultural purposes. At the moment the procedure is cumbersome, costly and time-consuming. This change will result in an automatic tax write-off by the computer for suitably classified land subject to periodic verification. This change will result in a considerable saving of time on the part of this ministry's personnel and applicants that have had to previously apply for the forgiveness of this tax.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, it occurred to us to allow the minister to make his remarks before rising on this point of order, which I believe is a most grave and constitutional one. The minister has indeed said this morning what we understand to be the case, which is that there is a matter presently before the courts.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, it's not presently before it.

MR. BARBER: Did I misunderstand you?

HON. MR. CHABOT: I gave the date....

MR. BARBER: The minister has informed us that this matter before the courts....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

MR. BARBER: Well, I listened to him very carefully. I'd be happy to hear clarification from the minister.

But the point of order that I'm raising, Mr. Speaker, is precisely this. It occurs to us that it is wholly improper to bring in a bill of this nature when a matter of that kind described by the mining companies in the reaction to this bill is indeed before the courts in various forms.

I ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and indeed would welcome clarification from the minister of his own statements this morning introducing this bill as a matter to clarify a previous bill. Because there's something before the courts. I would ask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the propriety of introducing this bill at all until the matter before the courts is wholly settled. It may well be that there is no propriety whatever in introducing this bill at this time or any time in the near future, as these matters are before the courts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the authorities clearly state that the sub judice rule is not applicable to legislation before the House, otherwise legislation would not be able to proceed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Wrong again!

MR. NICOLSON: It says: "Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order subject to an appeal to the House without debate. In explaining a point of order or practice, he shall state the standing order or authority applicable." Would the Chair tell us the authority?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, we will do that for you. It will take us some time to find these authorities but we shall do it.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Closing the debate.... (Laughter.)

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): I know, Mr. Speaker, that the minister is rather anxious to close debate, because it was obvious when he introduced the bill that his heart really isn't in it. But this isn't the first time that we've had this kind of legislation in the Legislature of British Columbia. It happened one time before under a Social Credit government years ago when the same kind of ploy was used in the suit from the stockholders over B.C. Electric. That was the first time that this happened - legislation to avoid having people of this province have their day in court. As a matter of fact, that first time, there was an editorial in The Province on March 2,1972, referring to the Social Credit Party and the then government saying: "We voted for Dr. Jekyll and got Mr. Hyde." I think that this bill could be properly intituled We Voted For Dr. Jekyll and Got Mr. Hyde Amendment Act, 1977, because that's exactly what we have here: a party that says one thing when running for office and does exactly the opposite when they get into office.

What the minister has tried to do, Mr. Speaker, is say that what he is doing has something to do with the principle behind the legislation itself that was brought in by the New Democratic Party, which is completely misleading. I'm sure it's not deliberately misleading,

The minister, of course, is most often misinformed when it comes to technicalities. What the minister is saying is that the rules are going to be changed,

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, no. It's a clarification.

MR. LEA: On Saturday, March 17,1962, another editorial in the Vancouver Province appeared. It was entitled: "Changing the Rules in Mid-game." We have exactly the same kind of situation, Mr. Speaker, as we had in 1962, when the then Social Credit government, not liking what they felt were going to be the conclusions of court, decided to change the rules in midstream so that the courts would have no choice but to come in and make a decision favouring

[ Page 4775 ]

the Social Credit government of that day. That's exactly what this Social Credit government of today is trying to do also.

In the editorial, "Changing the Rules in Mid-game, " from 1962, it said: "We don't know if a government can be held in contempt of court, but the B.C. government is most certainly in contempt of the rules of common decency and fair play. In the middle of B.C. Power Corporation's court suit to nullify the BCE takeover legislation, the government has brought in a bill aimed at removing any question of constitutionality in the BCE case." Again, by the minister's own admission, Mr. Chairman, we see exactly that kind of course of action taking place again. In other words, yes, the people did vote for Dr. Jekyll and, yes, they did get Mr. Hyde in the form of not only the Minister of Mines but also his entire government.

Mr. Speaker, to point out to you a little bit of the hypocrisy. . . . I'll point out a little bit, but when you add all the little bits together, Mr. Speaker, you have an entire full picture of complete political hypocrisy and immorality in politics in this province. That's what you have - complete hypocrisy. The government says one thing while running for office and does exactly the opposite when in office.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Are you going to vote for it, Graham?

MR. LEA: Definitely not. We are totally opposed to this hypocritical legislation going through this House. What did the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) say about this kind of legislation when he was on this side of the House, not in the Social Credit Party but in the Liberal Party? The Attorney-General said, on page 3040 of April 18,1973:

We've seen many very restrictive statutes come into being in this session, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is only fair that any individual who has suffered a loss as the result of a governmental action has at least the right to his day in court against the government, the same way that his government has its right to a day in court against any citizen.

MR. BARRETT: That's when he was a Liberal, and he used to be a Tory, and he used to be something else.

MR. LEA: That's exactly right, Mr. Leader of the Opposition. There is the hypocrisy, because what the Attorney-General pushed for when lie was in opposition was that people would not have to ask cabinet for the right to sue the Crown. That's what he asked for when he was a Liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: My, how the policies change.

MR. LEA: That is exactly right. Now we've got a government that doesn't have the guts to bring back the old system of making people ask cabinet if they may sue the Crown. What they are going to do through the back door is something they haven't got the guts to do through the front door. What they're going to do is say: "Yes, you have the right to sue the Crown, but if it looks like you may win then we are going to change the legislation itself in a retroactive manner. There's no point in you suing the Crown because if we don't like it we'll change the rules in midstream."

On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, what you have is a government that is full of political hypocrisy, a government that hides behind what? Hides behind hypocrisy? No, they are proud of it. They're proud that they're hypocrites. They were proud of it when they joined that party, Mr. Speaker, and they are going to prove it to the people of this province. What they're saying is: "No, we are not a coalition. We're exactly the same as the Social Credit government of 1962, who used hypocrisy in dealing with the people of this province and in dealing with the courts of this land."

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has now completed the cycle - he is Social Credit. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has completed the cycle - he is Social Credit. The Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) has completed the cycle. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) started at that end of the cycle in the first place - he was in the wrong party.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now back to Bill 84.

MR. LEA: That's what we're talking about -hypocrisy. What did the Minister of Mines - the sponsor, the author of this bill - have to say about this kind of legislation when he was in opposition?

MR. BARRETT: What date?

MR. LEA: It was April 5,1973. He said:

I'm suggesting in this bill that there be fair compensation and that there be fair play and that people's rights to enjoy land and to enjoy property be respected and that if they are injuriously affected they have access to the courts.

Interjections

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he say that?

MR. LEA: Yes. He said: I don't think it's good enough to set up some sham form of procedure or sham form of appeal without people having the right to an independent judicial

[ Page 4776 ]

body such as the supreme court of British Columbia.

That's what he said. That's what this bill is asking for, said the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources when he was in opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, play it again, Graham.

MR. LEA: "I don't think it's good enough to set up some sham form of procedure or sham form of appeal without people having the right to an independent judicial body such as the Supreme Court of British Columbia."

HON. MR. CHABOT: They still have that right.

MR. LEA: "That's what this bill is asking for. . .

HON. MR. CHABOT: They still have that right.

MR. LEA: ". . . that where an over-zealous government might move to interfere with the rights of enjoyment of land or property, they have the right of appeal to the courts of this land."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Hear, hear! That's good stuff.

MR. LEA: The minister belongs to a party that practices political hypocrisy.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you spell hypocrite?

AN HON. MEMBER: L-e-a.

AN HON. MEMBER: C-h-a-b-o-t.

MR. LEA: So what we have ... We have a government....

HON. MR. CHABOT: A point of order.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, he's all upset.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Well, I think you would be too, if anybody used that word against you.

Would you have the Leader of the Opposition withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker? I don't think it should be necessary for me to bring that to your attention, either.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, one moment please. A personal attack against another member is never in order, hon. Leader of the Opposition. I'm sure you are quite aware of this.

MR. BARRETT: That is correct. I spelled it wrong. It's W-i-14-i-a-m-s Social Credit hypocrisy, that's what it is.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's out of order, hon. member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Withdraw, dumbbell.

MR. LEA: I would like, during the course of this debate talking about a government which will bring in retroactive tax legislation to avoid shareholders of companies seeing and having their day in court ... I would like to see, before this debate is over, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) rise in his place, like he did when he was a Liberal lawyer on this side of the House with thumb in vest and glasses folded neatly, to talk about the rights of people to their day in court. I would like to hear some of those old speeches from the Minister of Labour when he was a Liberal, talking about fairness. He talked about the Social Credit Party and the hypocrisy of the Social Credit Party. I would like to hear some of those old speeches from the Minister of Labour, today on this debate or possibly on Monday, before he decided that the party which he talked about, the party which he and his party then talked about being political hypocrites, the party which he later joined, the party which he now represents as a cabinet minister in the province of British Columbia.... Let's hear about legislation which he will take his place in this Legislature and vote for - retroactive tax, legislation on the resources of this province.

And what about the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) ? Is he having another week of illness, Mr. Speaker? Where is he today when we talk about retroactive mining legislation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The presence of the Attorney-General has nothing whatsoever to do with this bill.

MR. LEA: Oh, yes. He is a member of the government that is sponsoring retroactive tax legislation on the resources of this province. It's political hypocrisy and it's happened before in this province, by the same party in 1962, on the B.C. Electric takeover. It happened then; it happened now - same party, different players, same faces. The mask of hypocrisy is at work in this province - a party that goes to the people of this province and says "we will be fair." It's a party that says to the people of this province, to the people in this country and to the people of the world: "Invest in this province, because we are a government that will pass rules and stand by them for the term of that investment."

What is the mining company saying today? What are the mining companies saying today about the Social Credit Party and its government? Are they saying that it is fair?

[ Page 4777 ]

But before getting to what people are saying about this government, let's get to what the members of that government are saying about themselves. The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) when he was in opposition - what did he have to say about changing the ground rules midstream in terms of the resources and the extraction of those resources from this province? On page 24S6, April 10,1973, Mr. Phillips:

Anybody who knows anything about business, Mr. Speaker, knows that if you're going into a long-range programme of developing something that may last for years and years and years, you have to know the rules before you start.

Even in the short game of poker, you have to know the rules before you start; and you know that happens, Mr. Speaker, if you have ever played poker. You know that no one can change the rules in the middle of the game, because if you try, why, the other players get very angry. They get very angry indeed.

Developing a mine that's maybe going to be in production for 20 or 30 years is a gamble. It usually involves a lot more money than is on the table in a poker game.

Yet by this bill, Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to take unto himself the right to use his discretionary powers maybe in the middle of a game....

The Social Credit Opposition, when they were over here, said that even if there was a possibility that we would maybe change the rules in the middle of the game, they would vote against legislation that even left that possibility.

MR. BARBER: What are they doing today?

MR. LEA: "What are they doing today?" says the member. They are changing the rules in the middle of the game. They are changing the rules so that the shareholders of various mining companies in this province will not have their day in court.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what that minister is trying to do is say that he and his government have had to change the rules in midstream because of legislation brought in by previous government. Whether the previous government brought in good or bad legislation is not the point. The point is that those were the rules that we brought in and said that we stood for, and the mining companies knew that. Whether they liked it or not is not the point, and they didn't like it. But they knew the rules; they knew what the government was saying. They knew those were the rules that they'd have to live with, They knew that those were the rules with which they could go to the money and say: "We'd like to borrow some money. We'd like you to invest in the province of British Columbia. Here are the rules that the New Democratic Party brought in. Would you lend us the money based on those rules?" But now, how can mining companies go to the money markets of the world and say: "We'd like to borrow some money. Oh, by the by, we'd just like to tell you what Social Credit did so you'll feel better. They brought in retroactive legislation over taxation of the resources"?

MR. BARRETT: It's okay because they're free enterprisers.

MR. LEA: Well, I don't think moneylenders care what you are. They care what you do. They don't care what you call yourself and they don't care what kind of names political parties call each other. What they care about are the rules that that political party lays down in legislation. Now the minister has come in here and said that the rules are going to be changed, but it was because of the hazy, fuzzy legislation that the NDP brought in.

What do the mining industries say? You know, it wasn't that long ago that a magazine in New York - I think it was "Baron of Beef" - said that things were a lot better now in British Columbia with the Social Credit under the son of ....

AN HON. MEMBER: ... daddy.

MR. LEA: The son of daddy - where is the boy?

MR. NICOLSON: Playing tennis.

MR. LEA: Anyway, this is April 17,1977. It says: "B.C. Mining Industry Knocks Government Legislation." Mr. Speaker, maybe we wouldn't be looking at that headline today if that minister had had the intestinal fortitude to go to the mining company and tell them exactly what he had in mind, but he didn't. What he did, by his own admission, was stand up and tell them yes, there will be some changes, and he said he hasn't heard anything from them since. They thought they were going to be changes for the better. They didn't know that he was going to come in and bring in retroactive legislation denying them their day in court. They didn't know that, did they, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, they did.

MR. LEA: Oh, they knew that. The minister says yes, they did. The minister says that lie told the mining companies that he was going to change the rules so that they would not have their day in court. That's what he said. He said he talked to them about doing that.

[ Page 4778 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: That's not true.

MR. LEA: He says now it's not true. What did the minister tell the mining companies?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sit down and I'll tell you.

MR. LEA: What did the minister tell the mining companies? He already told us what he was going to tell them, and told them. He told them that there would be changes and amendments to this Act that they would love and enjoy, and they haven't even contacted him since. Do you think for one minute, Mr. Speaker, that if he had told them that he was going to bring in this kind of legislation, they wouldn't have contacted him? Maybe it would have been with rifles, but he would have at least heard from them.

My lord! How could the minister stand in this House and tell us that he told the mining industry that he was going to bring in Bill 84, which would have at the end of it section 9, which says: "Sections 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6, are retroactive to June 15,1973, and shall be deemed to have been in force on, from and after that date"? Did the minister tell the mining company that he was going to bring that in? Did the minister tell them that it was going to be 1962 revisited? Did he tell them that? Did he tell them that he's used the power of the Legislature to thwart people's rights in court? No, he did not tell them that,

HON. MR. CHABOT: What a smokescreen! It's just unreal. You're just trying to cover up for a bumbling, idiotic, incompetent government. That's all you're trying to do.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it is not my job to cover up that incompetent, bungling government, and I'm not trying to. Why that minister would think that I was trying to do that is beyond me. Mr. Speaker, that minister no more wanted to bring in this legislation than fly to the moon, but he knew that if he didn't, he wouldn't be the minister of anything. He was told by that government to bring in this legislation, He was told to do that because since they formed the government, the mining industry has gone downhill, and that angers this government. They don't care about world economy, they don't care about the London Mineral Exchange on copper. They couldn't care less. What they're telling the mining industry is: prosper, even under adverse conditions and retroactive legislation, so that we as a political party and the government, will look good. We don't care about economics; invest so we will look good.

The mining companies take a look at the recession we're in, brought about mainly by the taxation policies of this government, and say: "How can we go out in the world and get dollars to invest in a province where the economy has been thwarted by the very government that says they're going to help us?" They can't.

Mr. Speaker, we have a bill here that does a number of things. It stops people from their rightful day in court, number one.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense! Nonsense!

MR. LEA: The minister says "nonsense!" He brings in a bill, retroactively to do just that, and then says "nonsense!"

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense!

MR. BARRETT: He knows the verdict in advance but go to court, anyway.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, aside from knocking those kinds of civil rights aside for political opportunism, what they have done is challenge the mining companies to shape up or ship out, for their political gain.

They are not happy. They can't understand that the mining companies can't go out and borrow money to invest in British Columbia, when there's a government that is showing no leadership at all in economics. None at all. How can they go out to the people of this world to borrow money when they have a government that is so stupid, Mr. Speaker, that they bring in tax increases that actually put us into a further recession than we need be? How can they say that we are economic janitors, when they are pushing us into the economic broom closet in British Columbia? How can they do that? They can't! How can they say that the people are happy and ready to work, when every time they make a speech they blame the downturn in the economy on the working people of this province, and not on their own mismanagement and bungling of the economics of this province? How can they do that?

How can they tell mining companies to go to New York and London, or down east, or wherever, to borrow money to invest in this province when we have a government that may bring in retroactive legislation, changing the rules in midstream? How can they expect mining companies to go out into this world and ask for investor confidence in this province, when they won't even communicate with the mining industry as a political party, because they know that they've ruined the economy of this province, and are afraid to go to industry and say: "What can we do together to get it moving again?"

They are so arrogant that they won't even speak to industry about improving the economy. They cower in their offices in Victoria hoping that there'll be a world upturn so that they can slide back into power,

[ Page 4779 ]

even though they and their economic efforts have dragged us down, and they have.

There isn't a Conservative, a Liberal or an NDPer who would have brought in this stupid, arrogant, economic legislation and policy that this government has. The only party in the world, the only group in the world, who could bring in such stupid legislation is a government made up of people of diverse philosophy, and diverse ideology, people who run into each other head-on, and bring out nothing but a hodge-podge of economic sense.

AN HON. MEMBER: Chaos!

MR. LEA: Chaos is right, Mr. Member. How can this government expect the mining companies to recover, move forward and prosper in this province when they can't even get investment because of the stupid, petulant actions of a government that is angry at them, because the industry won't do exactly what they want at exactly the right time?

Yes, I believe the mining industry would like to be healthier. I believe that the mining industry would like to expand and put more people to work, and make more profits, but how can they with a minister and a government who won't even give them an even break, and a chance to start on the road to recovery?

The people in this province know now that it wasn't the NDP's legislation that brought about a recession in the mining industry. They realize that now because all they have to do is take a look at the London Mineral Exchange. They'll see, from following copper prices, that any sixth-year student in public school could say: "Yes, the economy in the mining industry in British Columbia corresponds exactly to the price of metal on the London exchange."

If you'll take a look at that exchange today, you'll find the reason that we're in a slump. It's exactly the same reason that we were in a slump in 1975. Yes, there were problems between the NDP and the mining industry. The problem was basically that we didn't get together enough. That was the real problem. The problem was that we didn't sit down and talk with each other about the direction we both mutually wanted to go in: one of prosperity for British Columbia, but one where the people of this province would get a fair shake on the taxation policies of this government. That's what we wanted to do.

I don't believe that the mining industry is interested in coming into a province and investing their money where you have a government that says one thing but does another. They're better with a government that says one thing, and doesn't; better still with a government that says; "let's talk about it, " and then does one thing and sticks with it. But a government that won't even talk to them and then brings in this legislation....

Mr. Speaker, this government we have, when they were in opposition, spoke about the Mineral Land Tax Act and said it was a horrible bill that would be the ruination of the mining companies and the mining industry in the province. Yet now, sitting on that side of the House, even though they say they are in principle against the bill, they're going to bring in retroactive legislation to make sure that the principle of the bill even goes a step further so that the courts will not have one chance of deciding on the old principle.

Mr. Speaker, it is the height of hypocrisy on three accounts. It's the height of hypocrisy because they're doing through the back door what they don't dare do through the front, and that's in terms of allowing citizens to sue the Crown. They're disallowing them their day in court. It's hypocrisy.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and all of the Liberals on that side of the House, when on this side fought so that people could have the right to sue the Crown. Now that they're in government, they've abandoned that principle. They've abandoned it and sold out for political gain. That's what they've done.

Mr. Speaker, this principle they've abandoned through retroactive legislation should do more than bring crimson to the face of the Minister of Labour, it should bring him to his feet. It should bring him to his feet to try and defend his dual position, because you can't stand on this side of the House and say one thing, and move to the other and sit there crimson-faced, wondering how you're going to make out and whether you can get away without speaking during the course of debate. That's what the Minister of Labour is doing. He hopes that somehow reporters and the public will not notice his crimson face.

The Attorney-General somehow hopes that it goes unnoticed that he is not standing in his place during this debate defending the principles of people having the right to their day in court. Where is he? Where is that other Liberal? He's holidaying in Norway. He is not here to defend the principle he once defended so stoutly in this House. Where are they? They're all crimson-faced or away. But are they going to take their place in this debate and defend retroactive tax legislation on the resources in the mining industry? I doubt it.

The Premier couldn't defend it. I think that even though their principles may be mixed up, the ex-Liberals are articulate. It's just as well the Premier is away for the government's sake. The Premier orders this kind of legislation and then makes a run for it. Every time that there's controversial legislation in this House, and the minister's on the hotseat for the hypocritical actions of that government, the Premier finds it very convenient never to be here. He's always away, It's the same old theory: when the wagon's on fire, the Premier's somewhere else getting the wagons

[ Page 4780 ]

to circle. He sets up another line of defence somewhere else while the minister burns and goes over the bank burning. That's what's going to happen to this minister.

How can that minister remain in his position -how can that minister be the Minister of Mines - and go to the mining companies now and say: "Let's talk"? What's he going to talk about - ground rules for the future? Is he going to -go to the mining companies and say: "Let's talk about legislation in terms of taxation on mineral resources for the future"? Is he going to go to the mining companies and say: "How much money would you need to start up a copper smelter? Where can you get the money and what about the ground rules?"

What's he going to say to them when they say to him: "But, Mr. Minister, how can we talk to you about ground rules when you change them by retroactive legislation?" They will say: "We were in court; we were on our way to court when you changed the ground rules, when you pulled the rug out from under us." What's he going to talk to them about? Are they going to want to talk to him at all? Is that why he was brought in from the back bench, Mr. Speaker - to do this? Was he brought in from the back bench... ? He wasn't put in the first draft, Mr. Speaker; he was kept out of the cabinet. He was kept out and brought in when the Liberals wanted a sacrificial lamb from the Socred benches.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, back to the principle of the bill.

MR. LEA: The Liberals wanted a sacrificial lamb for Bill 84 and they've got it, They've got the member for Columbia River, who's just a plain country boy who came down here, by his own admission, a plain country boy, and those city slicker lawyers have stripped off the old shoes from the old country boy and they're sending him back barefoot to Columbia River in political exile.

He's so afraid of lawsuits that he won't even go to Calgary for a suit any more. He's so afraid of suits, he won't even come in dressed.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Now back to Bill 84, hon. member.

MR. LEA: That's what happened, though. The Liberals wanted a Socred sacrificial lamb in that portfolio and they got it. So if there are any other Socreds left in the back bench, stay there; it's healthier. If the Liberals want you up here, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get the dirty, sticky stuff - the dirty, sticky stuff of telling people they can't go to court to get their rights. You're going to get the dirty, sticky stuff of having to go to the mining industry and saying: "Are you fellows going to support us next election? Oh, forget that retroactive stuff, sure. What's a few million between friends? Isn't it worth all that kind of money to keep your friends in power? Isn't it worth it?"

Mr. Speaker, "Bennett Pulls a Switch in the British Columbia Electric Case." A change in the B.C. Electric Takeover Act designed to wipe out B.C. Power Corporation's court bid to get more money. . . ."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, this is not relevant to Bill 84.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, it's exactly relevant. We're talking about the precedent for this bill. The precedent for this bill was a Social Credit Act in 1962, when the Social Credit government brought in legislation into the B.C. House to thwart the shareholders of B.C. Electric to their day in court.

You know, one of the ironies is that one of the highest officers in the B.C. Electric Company of that day now sits in this Social Credit government as a cabinet minister. What position did that minister take in 1962 when he was with B.C. Electric? What position did the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) take then?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the original part of your statement may have been relevant, but certainly the hon. Minister of Energy and a position that he took at another time is not.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the position of cabinet ministers in the past surely has some relevance to what they should be doing today. Should it not be known that there's hypocrisy on that side of the House? Should it not be known? Should the voters in this province not know that they're dealing with hypocrisy not only in the government but in individuals? Should they not know that a member of B.C. Electric who fought the Bennett government on exactly this kind of legislation now sits over there and will vote for it? Would a government that says: "We'll do one thing, then do another" - vote in Jekyll and get Hyde.... Shouldn't everybody in this province know that we have a government full of hypocrisy, a government that will say anything and do anything for political opportunism? Should we not have everybody in this province know that?

I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) , the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) , the mining companies and the NDP, regardless of the wide spectrum of political ideology and philosophy, are going to stand together on this bill and say to the government: "We're not talking about whether the NDP legislation was good or bad." The principle of this bill is: should people have their day in court or not? That's the principle. This government and this

[ Page 4781 ]

minister are going to try and muddy the waters by saying: "We're trying to tidy it up. We're trying to tidy up legislation that we voted against and don't agree with." They voted against it. They don't agree with the legislation, they say it's bad for the mining companies; it's bad for the economy of British Columbia. But they're going to make it stronger. Is that not hypocrisy?

How can they hold their heads up in the mining community? The mining industry says: "We didn't agree with you, but at least you guys were honest with us, We didn't agree with what you did - not all of it - but at least we knew where you stood." What do they know about those guys? They don't know. A minister who is going to take the flak for the Liberal shenanigans of political hypocrisy - a Social Credit member of this Legislature taking the flak for the Liberal, downtown, city dudes. That's what we have.

Here is a minister who so much wants to remain in cabinet that he will bring in a bill that strengthens a bill that he voted against in the first place; a minister who brings in a bill that denies people their right to their day in court. No Social Credit rank-and-file member would agree with this legislation - not one.

MR. BARRETT: Great freedom fighters.

MR. LEA: Oh, you may get a few Liberal members around the Vancouver Club who agree, but I'll bet not too many. Do you know something, Mr. Speaker? I'll bet you that only the personal friends of those three cabinet ministers from the Liberal Party over there will agree with this legislation. I can't imagine people who are the vanguard of our economic community wanting this legislation to go through on the principle that people should have their day in court.

Not only the smallest individual in this province should have his or her day in court, but also every small shareholder who has invested in those companies should have his or her day in court.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Twist, twist, twist.

MR. LEA: Every citizen should have his or her day in court and no citizen should have that day in court subverted by retroactive legislation - no citizen.

MR. BARRETT: You're not God over there.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, there are people over there on those government benches who cannot sit silent during this legislation.

There's the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) , who in 1961 was with B.C. Electric and fought this very kind of legislation with the old Bennett administration. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) , who comes from one of the fairest movements in this land - the credit union movement - can lie sit there and not speak during this legislation? Does his portfolio mean that much?

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) will turn crimson and not speak. He will talk a lot to his seat mates in a very low voice because he even feels embarrassed among them. The embarrassment is so acute that he even feels embarrassed among the sheep that he joined. That's how acute his embarrassment is. Look at him, Mr. Speaker, looking across here with his crimson face wondering whether he can get up and tell the minister that he is going to back him on retroactive legislation that he really didn't like when he was a Liberal on this side of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, all hon. members will have an opportunity to speak in debate.

MR. LEA: I know, and I'm trying to make them take that opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Only one member can speak at a time.

MR. LEA: I'm trying to get them on their feet so they can stand up here and talk about those glowing Liberal principles. Oh, isn't it nice to have principles? The only principal they ever came in close contact with was during their school years, and it was spelled differently. They left their principles behind when they made that long march to the government benches. They left them behind. And this bill proves it,

What about the hotliner? What about the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) ? Let's go back and get some of his tapes from CJOR when he was talking about all of those freedoms that people should enjoy. Oh, but then he slipped for a moment when he lost the federal election and said that people in this province loved to be conned and bribed. He slipped for just a moment.

MR. KING: Who was he running for then?

MR. LEA: Conservatives. What about the mayor of Surrey?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment please. May I quote you from the 16th edition of May, page 400? "For the same reason, no charge of a personal character can be raised, save upon a direct and substantive motion to the effect."

Would you kindly continue on the principle of Bill 84?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I think your direction is well chosen and well timed but I think you will agree

[ Page 4782 ]

with me that it is part of my duty as a legislator to try and get other legislators to speak their mind in this debate, especially those who took a different position yesterday and the day before yesterday -like the crimson-faced one and the mayor of Surrey, ex, who fought for freedom, fought for fair play, fought for people to have their day in court.

What about the back bench? What about the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) ? That strong-voiced person, fighting for freedom: is he going, to speak? And what about Omineca? Is he going to speak? Now he's from a mining community, Mr. Speaker. What's he going to say to them? Is he going to say: "Yes, I stood up and voted for this legislation."? Or, Mr. Speaker, is he going to be in the House when the vote is called.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

MR. COCKE: What is he going to say in Granisle?

MR. LEA: What's he going to say? You know, Mr. Speaker, what they are going to do is stand up and vote for this legislation, and they're going to run and hide. They're going to run and hide. As the minister burns and they take their wagons and run them into a circle on the other side of the mesa, and protect themselves ... as they let that minister go down the tube all by his very lonesome - because he's Socred.

What we say in this party is: "Let every citizen have his or her day in court." This Act precludes that day in court. The minister said he brought it in so they couldn't have their day in court. He said: "I hope they go home now." He, said he's no Santa Claus. I'll say lie's no Santa Claus, because he sure didn't bring good news, even though he came down the chimney. That's where he's going to burn. He's going to burn in the hearth along with other Social Crediters as the Liberals dance their way through the dance of hypocrisy.

Mr. Speaker, let them have their day in court. Take this legislation back to your office and think about it, because the future of this province means more than the political future of your political party or our political party. It means more. I believe you've been caught up in the power game - power at any cost - and this province can't afford it. Give them their day in court.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please, before you start. Hon. members, I understand that while I was temporarily out of the chair, a point of order was raised concerning the bill being out of order because it would be sub judice. I believe the hon. member who was taking my place at the time pointed out that it did not apply to bills.

1 wish to give you the citation from Sir Erskine

May, in his 16th edition, at page 400. 1 am quoting from the middle of the page: "This rule does not apply to bills." So it is not out of order for this bill to be debated at this time.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, earlier on today we debated a bill where it was very reasonable to talk about the positive, constructive and favourable nature of the bill. If ever we had a contradiction to that fundamental approach in another bill, this certainly has to be it.

This particular bill, as has been very clearly pointed out by the spokesman for the official opposition, has the most undesirable of all aspects of legislation, which is agreed in all democratic jurisdictions around the world, and that's the element of retroactivity. Not only is this bill committing the breach of our cardinal principle of the parliamentary system, retroactivity, but it does it by four years and two months. It may be that the minister will not get into the Guinness Book of World Records with -this bill but he certainly can be looked upon as the rajah of retroactivity.

The gall with which this minister speaks outside the House has to be looked at several times to be believed. The Globe and Mail of August 17,1977, states:"The current Social Credit government~ has introduced legislation that would abolish the NDP's Mineral Royalties Act, and Mineral Land Tax Act, and the companies have contended that the land tax Act did not include provisions for retroactive assessments, as did the royalties Act." This, Mr. Speaker, must surely rank not only as the most arrogant statement that any minister has made, but he made it in the most off-hand way. "Mines Minister Chabot said there was a strong possibility the government would have lost the court action initiated by the industry."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. WALLACE: Today we've heard the minister try to say "Nonsense!" when accused of denying the mining industry their day in court. Days before that he's quoted here in The Globe and Mail as saying that the government might well have lost the court case, and that's the reason we've got this legislation.

MR. KING: Is that the truth?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, this is the most arrogant and unprincipled use of power, and it wouldn't matter - at least not to me - whether it was mining legislation or highway legislation or health legislation; we're dealing with a fundamental principle of the democratic system, and that is that you don't move the goal posts using the total authority in your

[ Page 4783 ]

hands.

We could argue for years about what is good or bad taxation legislation, whether it's mines or taxpayers or land or anything else-, that's almost beside the point in debating this bill. What we're debating here is four years and two months of retroactivity; and it's a complete and total arrogance towards one of the most fundamental ideas of the democratic form of government. To add insult to injury, the minister gets up and admits that this government's opposed to the principle of the bill in the first place. And we've got the recorded votes in the Journals of second reading, third reading, when they were in the official opposition, and they voted against the bill.

You might be interested, Mr. Speaker; there have been several quotations from the original debate. There's another interesting one on page 2921 of April 16, , when the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , talking about a part of the bill, says: "This government treats with a very cavalier attitude legitimate contracts signed by anyone, and the government has no concept of what a contract's all about."

Mr. Member for Langley on that date went along and said: "Mr. Chairman, once again the official opposition cannot go along with this kind of legislation. We sincerely wish that the government would finally get in its head that a contract is a contract, and it cannot or should not be broken."

Well, we're seeing breach of contract at the highest level with this bill. We're seeing a government which says: "We don't like this bill. We don't think it was a good bill, and it was an unfair taxation bill to the mining industry. But we've already got $39 million out of your pocket. Although the bill is bad and we don't agree with it, and although the legislation is such that we're going to lose our case in court, we'll fix you, Buster. We'll just make it retroactive by four years and two months. We'll be very good-hearted because we'll save you the expense of going to court." Big deal! What an insult!

The minister has the additional gall.... He says: "We haven't heard from the mining industry." Does he not read the newspaper? I'm going to have to bring him up to date. There's an enormous headline from The Province of August 17. The minister says he hasn't heard from the mining industry. Let me tell him what Mr. Harvey Parliament, the president of Newmont Mines, who is also head of the Mining Association of B.C., said. He said he views Minister Jim Chabot's amendments to the Mineral Land Tax Act with grave concern. He goes on to make the point: " 'Retroactive tax legislation has never been a part of our parliamentary tradition ' Parliament said, following a meeting of mine executives. He said that the executives decided to continue with the industry's court challenge against the government."

You've just pulled the rug out from under them for any kind of justice whatever in their cause by changing something and making it retroactive for four years and two months, and you know that's wrong. You are putting yourself above the courts by amending a bill which you've admitted several times you don't agree with in the first place. What kind of hypocrisy is that?

How often have we heard about the importance of the government of the day inspiring confidence in the mining industry or the confidence of the mining industry in the government? How on earth can you suggest for a moment that this kind of legislation could create any kind of confidence? On this kind of basis, I wouldn't have any confidence in tomorrow's dawn if that's the kind of logic or screwed-up logic that you're bringing to this particular subject.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: There will be ample opportunity, hon. members, for everyone to have their turn in the debate. At the present time, the member for Oak Bay has the floor.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, one of the very fundamental issues that was fought by the present government when it was in opposition was the whole question of taxation of the mining industry as a very integral part of the total tax picture of this province and a very integral part of economic prosperity in the provision of jobs. Frequently the mining industry pointed out that under the NDP legislation it had an effective tax rate of somewhere between 62 per cent to 100 per cent. The mining industry - quite rightly, in my opinion - protested a level and type of taxation which did not compare, for example, with manufacturing industries.

If I were to choose to take up a great deal of time in this House I could recite chapter and verse of speeches from all those members over there, railing against this particular bill and others. We even have them admitting today - and we've got all kinds of clippings - and the minister has admitted that they were opposed to the bill originally anyway, and still are. But they want to amend it to make sure that it still takes the $39 million from the mining industry which they said should not have been taken in the first place. If ever I've heard or read or debated a bill in this House in the eight years I've been here that is a complete sham and a mockery, I don't know what it is.

He has the audacity to stand up in public and say: "We're not going to be Santa Claus." There's one thing about Santa Claus - he doesn't come down the chimney and take back things he already gave you. Scrooge would be a much more appropriate title for the minister on this occasion. It's got nothing to do

[ Page 4784 ]

Santa Claus. It's too bad, Mr. Speaker, that we don't have these immortal words in Hansard. I notice the minister did most of his talking about Santa Claus, and many other elements in this bill, outside of the House.

MR. BARBER: It's safer for him that way.

MR. WALLACE: No, Mr. Speaker, this bill is a very sad bill, as I say, particularly coming this morning right after one of the best bills that this government has brought in this session. Maybe that's the whole strategy, of course - that you bring out the good bill and then, as soon as your image is high, you bring in the worst bill. This has got to be one of the worst that this government has brought in.

Politicians, Mr. Speaker, occupy their low image in the eyes of society today because they're full of doubletalk, and if ever any bill or action of this government, or any other government, demonstrated doubletalk, this one is No. 1. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we're debating the principle of this bill, but I can't imagine that this bill has any principle. It's completely devoid of principle.

MR. BARBER: No, that's the minister.

MR. WALLACE: No, the minister's the king of doubletalk. Speak out one side or one way here when you're in the official opposition. But when you become the minister on the other side, just change the ground rules; move the goal post.

AN HON. MEMBER: Change your party label. Abandon your principles.

MR. WALLACE: The fact is that this tax or this bill was wrong in 'the first place, and it was opposed by all the opposition parties, including the Conservative Party. If it's such a badly written bill and if it imposes an unreasonable and excessive amount of tax on the mining companies, repeal the bill and stick to some kind of consistency in the position you've taken over mining legislation. Repeal the bill! Mr. Speaker, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis presents the annual report for the year ending December 31,1976, for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Mr. Williams moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:01 p.m.