[ Page 7277 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7277

Mr. Barber –– 7278

Mr. Stupich –– 7283

Mr. Hall –– 7284

Mr. Hanson –– 7285

Ms. Brown –– 7286

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in moving second reading of Bill 15, Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982. Certainly revenue-sharing is a program that is familiar to all members here. This program was introduced a few years ago by this government and has been extremely well received by local government. Over the last few years revenue-sharing has tremendously assisted municipalities, and hopefully it will continue to assist local government for very many years to come.

As a matter of fact, from 1975 to 1981 the revenue-sharing program increased the revenues available to municipalities from provincial funds by 160 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: An increase of 160 percent in revenues to municipalities. It has been of tremendous assistance to local government. Lately there has been some controversy because of a reduction in the unconditional portion of the revenue-sharing program — in the way it assists municipalities. Yes, that is true, and unfortunately it has some considerable impact on various communities. We didn't hear a great deal from the municipalities, but that is human nature, of course.

Over the last number of years, increases were up as much as 25 percent annually, but this year, with a reduction in the unconditional portion, there has been a fair amount of comment by both the UBCM and some local government, and understandably so. I don't fault them for that. I can appreciate their concern. If we had untold resources available to us and if the economy world-wide, continent-wide, countrywide were what we would like it to be, then naturally additional moneys could be put into the program; that would be the preference of every member of the House, regardless of where they sit. But that isn't the case.

There is some impact from some of the changes this bill provides in that we have transferred the sewer program into revenue- sharing, as well as the restructuring program and the underground-wiring assistance program. The underground-wiring assistance program, a relatively small program that has been with the Ministry of Finance for a number of years, has not been used to any extent, and I think local government will welcome the fact that it has now been moved into an area where, hopefully, they will have more input into how it might be used or improved upon. I think most communities everywhere, despite the tremendous help given to communities throughout the province with the downtown revitalization program, still look towards a means by which further moneys could be made available to utilize a program that would see a one-third contribution provincially, a one-third contribution from the municipalities and a one-third contribution from the utility companies to bury the ugly wiring that exists in towns otherwise being made very attractive through the various efforts of the business communities and the local councils. So I think the fact that this program, which was previously separate, is now a part of revenue-sharing could, in the long run, be a tremendous assist to local government.

Similarly, the sewer assistance program, being a part of revenue-sharing, is one that initially has a negative impact on the unconditional grant portion of the revenue-sharing program but, once more, in the long haul is one that would not only give municipalities an opportunity to have a greater say into how these moneys might be best utilized, but also has the promise of being a program for which the cost or the amortization, which really accounts for the total moneys in the fund, might be reduced. We had done some projections several years ago that indicated that the sewerage assistance program would in fact reduce in total cost starting about the year 1981-82. As a matter of fact, the peaking had been estimated to be at $42.6 million, and after that peaking there could possibly be a gradual reduction over the years ahead in the total cost of this program. That unfortunately hasn't happened; I'm still hoping it will. But the projection that established the $42.6 million peaking in 1981-82 was based on the belief that somehow interest rates would remain where they were approximately two years ago, and of course that hasn't happened.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The federal government policy with respect to interest rates has had a very negative impact on the total moneys required for the sewerage assistance program. If these interest rates can be brought down, as they should be and certainly as must be the case if the economy of the country is to survive or return to one of growth, then this will have a very positive impact on the sewerage assistance program portion of the revenue-sharing fund and, again, in the long haul, would provide for more unconditional moneys to municipalities.

It is similarly so with the road program. The road programs certainly are impacted by high interest rates and the cost of doing business because of that. A federal program, of course, that has an impact on the sewer assistance program is the community services contribution program, which for two years provided $40 million that was applied in the way of upfront grants of 20 percent. That was discontinued by the federal government. In turn it had a negative impact on the sewer assistance program.

The one very positive thing, however, is the removal of the social assistance cost from municipalities. Here we had a program that was escalating as more people chose British Columbia for their home and as further programs were being developed to assist people in need. The programs paid for by municipal contributions included: income assistance, day-care subsidies, health-care services, residential care for the handicapped and maintenance of dependent children. This program was growing at a much faster rate than the sewerage assistance facilities program. As a matter of fact, in 1978-79 this particular program was costing $24.4 million, of which the municipalities with a population of over 2,500 were required to pay on a per capita charge. In 1979-80 this government reduced the charge from the 10 percent to 7 percent. The municipalities, one after the other over successive years, had been pressuring the provincial government to

[ Page 7278 ]

try to have that charge removed. It was argued that elected representatives at the local level have no direct control over the human resources program, and therefore they could not be accountable to their taxpayers for it. I agree with that, and I've always agreed with that. I've always been an advocate for getting that charge removed.

In the fiscal year 1979-80 we were successful in getting government to reduce the percentage from 10 percent to 7 percent. I think the government is to be commended for that. Certainly no other government before it had reduced the percentage, except way back in the 60s, when, in fact, it had been reduced once. Otherwise the charge had been a continuing charge of 10 percent to municipalities. The government reduced it to 7 percent, and it has been 7 percent for the fiscal years 1979-80 and 1980-81 when it went to $28.5 million, and in 1981-82, when the 7 percent represented $31.3 million. Now, through the actual elimination of the social assistance charge — and a chargeback, however, in the revenue-sharing program for this particular fiscal year totalling $70 million — the percentage is down to 2.7 percent. Of course in 1983-84 there won't be any charge at all. As a matter of fact, had the total payments required towards the social assistance by municipalities remained at 10 percent, the charge for the year 1982-83 would be $62.3 million. This elimination of social assistance program through using the Revenue Sharing Act as a vehicle is, I think, a tremendously positive step that should be well regarded and appreciated by municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned initially, I would certainly have to agree that the unconditional program has been affected not only by the changes in the program, which provide for the removal of social-assistance charges, the bringing in of the sewerage program and the undergrounding and the restructuring program, but also by the growth of other conditional programs, where the demands, because of increased water-assistance programs in the various municipalities, have changed the figure required for it from about, I think, $50 million in 1980-81 to about $29 million in 1982-83, which of course eats into unconditional moneys. Similarly, of course, a few years ago the Highways program was increased, which once more took money from what might otherwise have been unconditional moneys. The housing growth grants have remained at $10 million, but these, again, are moneys that could otherwise have been made available to unconditional moneys. So with these changes in the long term, there certainly could and will be a tremendous benefit to local government.

Mr. Speaker, I can certainly speak very positively about the future of revenue sharing. I move second reading.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, the minister may be able to speak positively about this bill, but no one in local government can and no one in local government has. This is the bill that was described by the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, quote: "fraudulent." I propose to read into the record later in this debate a most extraordinary press statement issued by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities under the signature of Mayor Jim Tonn, its president, in which that union — a distinguished, democratically elected and representative body — attacks in the most stunningly damning language the policies of this minister and the misleading information contained in the budget speech. I propose to read into the record, in its entirety....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, "misleading" is unparliamentary. We cannot allow any imputation of misleading statements to another member, and I would ask the member to be cautious in his language and be parliamentary.

MR. BARBER: I'm most cautious, Mr. Speaker, and the term itself is not misleading, because I do not attribute that to any individual. What I have done is describe accurately what the Union of British Columbia Municipalities itself has said about the particular bill we are now debating and about the budget speech which anticipated it. This is entirely in order, with respect, Mr. Speaker.

This is a bill which gives with one hand and takes back with two hands. This is a bill which, giving with one hand and taking back with two hands, will significantly impair the ability of municipalities to do their jobs properly and to do their jobs prudently in the fiscal year we have now entered. In the world of civil fraud, an approach like this is usually described as a bait-and-switch operation. The government opposite has some experience with civil fraud. May I ask the assembly to cast its mind back to the famous cases involving B.C. Rail and the previous Social Credit administration. They have some experience with the law surrounding civil fraud. Mr. Speaker, this bill, having been described by the president....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, before we get into the debate too far, I think it would certainly assist me in answering the hon. first member for Victoria if he could speak to the bill as opposed to getting involved with BCR or whatever he feels....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that your point of order?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: My point of order is that this is irrelevant and doesn't pertain to the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. All hon. members are reminded that we must be relevant in debate. We are on Bill 15. If we can speak to the principle of that bill, it would be most parliamentary and the House would appreciate that.

The hon. first member for Victoria continues on Bill 15.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And continues in order.

This is the bill that was described by the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities as, quote: "fraudulent" — end quote. Now I understand why the government may be unhappy to have that fact....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. member for North Peace River rises on a point of order.

MR. BARBER: On what point of order this time?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The Chair will decide that.

MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we have heard this term "quote" now used over and over again for that member to use or abuse the rules of this House to keep using a certain term, namely "fraudulent, " over and over again. Just to say "quote.... I could draw an analogy that, quote, somebody called him a name, and could use it here, and would that be in order?

[ Page 7279 ]

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, my colleague has been continually interrupted in his speech by the method of the government members and the government supporters getting up and using — and I'm going to say it — fraudulent means of interrupting his speech. It's quite proper to use that word, and it's quite proper to use it in the context that the member is using it. I think that we should all be very, very unhappy about the way this House is being run this morning.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Chair has advised hon. members that it is unparliamentary to use, in one form, words which you would not be allowed to use in the original form. I'm sure all members are aware of that. If we could please maintain order and parliamentary language, which all members are aware of, I'm sure this Legislature would be well served.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the word is being directed at a bill, not at a person. It's being directed at a policy. It is not being directed at anyone, and therefore it is quite in order.

MR. BARBER: I'll start again. This bill gives with one hand and takes back with two. It is a bill which, in most damning language, has been attacked by the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities as "fraudulent." Within the field of civil law as it deals with fraud, this bill could be described as a bait-and-switch operation. This bill resulted in a most damning indictment — if I may say it, the most damning indictment the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has ever issued against any government at any time. They are extraordinarily angry about what was said in the budget speech and what turns out to be revealed in this bill; because, needless to say, the two are utterly inconsistent. That is the nature of the bait-and-switch operation we see here.

The bait was that somehow they would be relieved of welfare costs. The switch turns out to be that they are being relieved of $63 million in unconditional grants. The bait-and-switch operation in this bill is utterly unacceptable to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and it is unacceptable to us. The simple fact is that unconditional grants have dropped from $162 million to a measly $99 million this year. The switch is incorporated in the minister's comments: "Don't worry, you're saving something on welfare costs."

For the record, the minister — I hope inadvertently — misinformed the House this morning. He said that it was only in the sixties, and not again until 1979, that the provincial government reduced the municipal share of welfare charges. This is completely and provably false, but I'm sure it was inadvertent. The fact is that during the regime of the New Democratic Party the charges were reduced from 15 percent to 10 percent. During the regime of Social Credit, they were dropped by only 3 percent, from 10 percent to 7 percent. Now, in this bill, the minister proposes to reduce them further.

It is regrettable that once again the misinformation to which we have been so often subjected we now find ourselves being subjected to again. The truth, the fact, the provable record is that during the government of the New Democratic Party in this province, welfare charges against municipalities were reduced from 15 percent to 10 percent of the total cost. It is regrettable that the minister failed to mention this in his speech, and through that failure, inadvertently left a false impression. I don't know why he would do this — perhaps someone in his department forgot to tell him. Perhaps he forgot that he knew it all along when he was the mayor of Surrey. Nonetheless. the fact is provably on the record that our administration reduced those charges from 15 percent to 10 percent. For him to pretend otherwise is to pretend a false thing. Perhaps he will correct the record when he gets up to wind up this debate.

This is a bill which sees the total amount for revenue-sharing cut from $252 million to $235 million. Why this minister would claim that was progress or that it constitutes improvement, I don't know. Once again, though, an inaccurate impression is left.

The impression the government would like to leave is that they're doing a favour to municipalities. The fact is that this bill will hurt the homeowner, hurt the taxpayers, and hurt the ability of municipal governments to plan prudently and competently in a time of recession — a recession caused, in part, by the inept policies of Social Credit itself.

As a result of this bait-and-switch operation, municipalities have had less than three weeks to revise their budgets for the forthcoming fiscal year. As a result of this bait-and-switch bill, municipalities are required to raise millions upon millions from the homeowner on all of three weeks' notice. They find that unacceptable and so do we. Alderman after alderman, mayor upon mayor, and, of course, the Union of B.C. Municipalities itself, have aggressively and angrily denounced this bill and its author. I'm not surprised that he's sensitive to this criticism, because one of the most striking aspects of the criticism of this bill has been that many of the municipal critics are, of course, Socreds. For instance, one thinks of Alderman Stusiak in Burnaby, a well-known supporter of the Social Credit Party. Attacking the bill in the extraordinary angry language that he used, it is no wonder this government is so sensitive to the charges that have been levelled against it. They cannot deny the simple fact that these charges come from members of their own farm team in local government.

Mayor Jim Tonn, the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, is, to say the least, no New Democrat. To say the least, he is not a supporter of our side in this House. When someone like Jim Tonn attacks the bill in the very angry way he has attacked it and attributes the motives he has attributed to this government, then it is no surprise and no wonder that Social Credit is so unhappy about the course of this legislation.

Let me reiterate — to be simple and plain and clear — this bill will result in a cut from $162 million to $99 million in the unconditional grant portion of the revenue-sharing program.

In regard to the whole program, it results in a cut from $252 million to $235 million. The minister claims that somehow this will be made up by a reduction in the charges for welfare levied against municipalities. This is, as usual with his statements on these matters, partly true. However, once again, he omitted to tell the whole story. When you examine the bill, you discover that there is a difference between the calendar and the fiscal years upon which, respectively, municipalities and the province develop their revenue projections and construct their budgets. By the time these allegedly beneficial projections become law, municipalities will have continued to pay at the old rate for anywhere between three and six months. When it is to their advantage, Social Credit makes certain things retroactive. When it's to their political benefit, they're prepared to do all sorts of things retroac-

[ Page 7280 ]

tively. But in this instance they are not. In this instance, municipalities will continue to pay and pay at the old rate far longer.... The minister shakes his head. Sit down, he says. The same minister, who inadvertently misinformed this House on the issue of the cut from 15 to 10, now claims....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair must once again intervene, regrettably. Please, we cannot be unparliamentary and we cannot impute an improper motive to another member of this House. I would caution you....

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, which is more unparliamentary: to foist off incorrect information or to point out that it is incorrect?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we may have a difference of opinion in this House, but we cannot impute an improper motive to another member of this House. I think I made myself quite clear. I'm sure the hon. member is aware of that. If we can continue in a parliamentary manner, the Legislative Assembly would be most appreciative. Please continue.

MR. BARBER: In regard to his motives, I said they were inadvertent. In regard to the facts, the record is clear. I think it is more parliamentary to speak to the provable facts in this case — that our administration reduced the grant levy from 15 percent to 10 percent — than it is to allow that misinformation to be continued to be believed by a few innocent-minded folk opposite. I don't know why the minister left that out of his speech. He's the same minister who tells us that railcars were bought that couldn't fit on the tracks. When it turns out that they could fit on the tracks, he simply ignores it. But that is another matter — also of historical record.

Municipalities will continue to pay at the old rate because that feature of the bill is not retroactive in any fashion at all. They know that. It is another reason why they are so angry about the bait-and-switch operation that this bill represents. I said I would read into the record — and I propose to do so now — the entire text of a most remarkable statement. It's the most damning statement ever issued by the Union of British Columbia Municipalities against any provincial government. Let me remind the minister that the author of this statement, Mayor Jim Tonn, the mayor of Coquitlam, is no New Democrat. For him to attribute political motives to this statement would be to say a false thing. I quote from a press release of April 14, 1982:

"'The 1982 provincial revenue-sharing program for local governments is politically fraudulent,' says UBCM president J.L. Tonn. 'Since the revenue-sharing program was first introduced in 1977, the government has strongly emphasized that its main aim in the program has been to ensure that 80 percent of all funds generated by the program are distributed to local governments on an unconditional-use basis. As a result, in 1981 the program provided $162 million to municipalities and regional districts on an unconditional basis, with a further $51 million being used for several "conditional grants," such as assistance in providing water services, road improvements, housing-start grants and several others.'"

To continue to directly quote Mayor Tonn, the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities:

"In 1982, despite the fact that the yield of the full program has topped that in 1981 by an additional $22 million, the provincial government has changed the format of the program to include in it several programs which up to now have been totally paid for by the province itself, notably $50 million to assist local governments in repaying sewer costs. When this amount, together with the $3.5 million of other previous government costs, has been transferred against the Revenue-Sharing Fund, the net effect is that the government has skimmed over $26 million from the municipalities, reduced the amount of unconditional grants from $162 million last year to $99 million in 1982 — a reduction of 39 percent — and reduced direct unconditional grants to almost all municipalities by approximately 40 percent. Larger municipalities, particularly those over 2,500 in population, are hardest hit.'"

The press release continues:

"'Included within this financial numbers game,' said Tonn, 'is the partial recognition, after years of local government requests to relieve the property tax payer of his part of the province's social assistance costs.... But here again the provincial government skimmed off a further $17 million out of the Revenue-Sharing Fund to lessen its responsibilities. There is no doubt that the government has welched on its earlier commitments for local governments to distribute 80 percent of the Revenue-Sharing Fund available for unconditional distribution. When coupled with the government's recently announced restraint program over municipalities, the result will inevitably be one of two choices. Either municipalities will have to make up the loss in direct unconditional grants by taxing the property-owner higher than ever, or, if that can't be done because of the restraint program, then they will have to reduce their services to the taxpayer. In either case the property- owner loses. This 1982 grant program,' Mr. Tonn concludes, 'is a classic example of this government's ability to juggle figures, to shunt attention away from their own financial inadequacies and to load the blame onto local government and the cost onto the local taxpayer.'"

This is the single most damning indictment the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has ever launched against any provincial government. To summarize this statement: they describe the program as fraudulent; they say that the government has welched on its previous commitment that 80 percent of the revenue-sharing moneys would be available for the purposes of unconditional grants; and further, they attack the government for its ability to juggle figures and to shunt attention away from its own financial inadequacies in order to blame local government.

Mr. Speaker, no New Democrat could attack Social Credit more effectively or more reasonably than has the Union of British Columbia municipalities in this particular statement which has now been read, in full, into the record. However, other people have had a few other things to say about the bait-and-switch operation that this bill represents. Let me briefly read a few of their comments into the record.

"Surrey Alderman Bob Jacobs has urged British Columbia municipalities to declare war on the provincial budget after cutbacks in provincial revenue-sharing grants have forced Surrey council to slash more

[ Page 7281 ]

than $2.4 million from the 1982 municipal budget. Alderman Jacobs said: 'They're passing off extra costs to municipal taxpayers, and we're the pawns that have to face them with these cutbacks.'"

That is what one alderman said about this particular bill.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Yes, he used to be a friend of the Socreds and a friend of the soon-to-be-former Minister of Municipal Affairs. The Williams Lake Tribune, in an editorial on April 22 of this year, described one of the moves by the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a "power grab." The Williams Lake Tribune is hardly a supporter of the New Democratic Party, and it is in a riding that has hardly ever voted New Democrat. Again, it is disinterested political opinion.

In the Prince George Citizen of April 20, Mayor Elmer Mercier of that city said that revenue-sharing cuts mean a 19 percent tax hike for that city. It means they have to find an extra $1.6 million in new revenue or they have to chop that from vital expenditures and programs for citizens in that city. According to the mayor of Prince George, that city has already pared its 1982 budget to the bone, and there is nothing left to cut. He says: "Every municipality in British Columbia will be hopping mad, and you can bet it will be a hot topic on the floor of the UBCM convention." Mayor Mercier, for the record, is no supporter of the New Democratic Party. If he ever was a supporter of Social Credit he is no longer, because he has seen through this bill which has been oh, so accurately described by the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities as "fraudulent."

Alderman Vic Stusiak of Burnaby, a well-known supporter of the Social Credit Party, accused his own party's government of playing a "shell game" with this particular bill. I quote from the Vancouver Sun of April 20:

"Burnaby Alderman Vic Stusiak accused the provincial government Monday of playing a shell game in announcing it had increased this year's revenue-sharing grants to municipalities. Stusiak said the provincial government was being 'devious and fraudulent' while Alderman Doug Drummond" — who is, by the way, a supporter of the New Democratic Party, to make sure the record is correct — "lambasted Municipal Affairs Minister Bill Vander Zalm for making the 'dishonest' announcement."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am sorry but the statements made outside the House are made outside the House and statements made inside the House cannot impute dishonourable motives to another member. I would ask the member to withdraw that statement against the minister.

MR. BARBER: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it, especially on behalf of the alderman who made it, in the Vancouver Sun of April 20.

To continue to quote Alderman Drummond:

"'I am furious that they take council members and the citizens they represent as fools who would go along with this.'

"Alderman Stusiak said the new deficit will probably have to be made up by taxpayers. He said council has met its objective of holding down tax increases on single-family homes but commercial and industrial taxpayers could face increases of more than 30 percent. 'Public-sector revenue is down and the province is playing a shell game and passing on the costs to us,' he said, 'but it is too much to pass onto the people.'"

This is Alderman Vic Stusiak of Burnaby, a well-known supporter of the Social Credit Party, describing this bill as a shell game.

This bill is supported by no one in local government. The minister has not been able to cite one elected person across British Columbia apart from himself who supports this bill.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: You do. Are you an alderman? He is the only guy who supports it. He can only quote himself. There isn't a mayor, alderman or regional director in the province he's been able to quote who supports this bill. Do you have one in Columbia River? Can you name one? Can you trot one out" Alderman Wenger perhaps? You know the name — the gravel-pit farm.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Get back to your cave.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Shall we proceed to Bill 15.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; the minister and I will.

Let me quote the Vancouver Sun, in this case April 17, although I would rather quote this afternoon's edition.

"The provincial government's controversial new municipal revenue-sharing program will increase Vancouver's budget deficit this year by about 50 percent, the city finance department estimates. In a report to city council, city finance directors say the way the provincial government provides municipal grants and pays for welfare costs will mean a loss in revenue of $7.1 million for the city. That, plus the $15.9 million deficit the city had already budgeted for, will put Vancouver in the hole by a total of $23 million."

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to blame us for the $15.9 million deficit already budgeted?

MR. BARBER: No, we are going to blame you for the extra $7.1 million. We're honest about it: you didn't cause the $15 million, but you've caused the $7 million, and if you were honest you'd admit it.

However, this government cannot find any support from any locally elected person in favour of this bill. Not a one — not a single individual.

Mr. Speaker, in the Vancouver Province of April 16 there is an article entitled "Cutbacks Worse Than Feared, " subtitled, "Victoria Figures 'are Misleading.'" The article goes on:

"B.C. municipalities will be hit even harder than they first thought by provincial government cutbacks and revenue-sharing grants, and many civic officials are furious.

"'I've been swamped with calls,' said Union of B.C. Municipalities president, Jim Tonn, mayor of

[ Page 7282 ]

Coquitlam. 'They're just livid, and so they should be.'"

He says he's been swamped with calls from municipal officials who are just livid about the cutbacks and about the misinformation which they've had to put up with in the explanations offered for those cutbacks.

Let me repeat: no matter how the minister cares to describe it, the unconditional grant this year is cut from $162 million to $99 million. The total program is cut from $252 million to $235 million. The benefit of the welfare assistance is limited as the result of the distinctions between the fiscal and calendar years among the province and the municipalities, and they know that too. The benefits by no means are made retroactive for that program. If they were, the minister might be able to claim that this is somehow beneficial in the calendar year we're now partway through. But even he can't claim that, because he knows that's not true.

In the Times-Colonist of April 16, a newspaper which in the 115 years it and its predecessors have been in business has only once endorsed the New Democratic Party — on virtually every other occasion it endorsed some right-wing party or another — there is an editorial entitled: "The Legerdemain of the Socreds."

"To Municipal Affairs minister William Vander Zalm goes a tin medal for the understatement of the year. The provincial government's sharing of revenue resources 'isn't as good a deal for municipalities this year,' he said this week. To Finance minister Hugh Curtis goes a resounding raspberry for practising yet another sneaky bit of bookkeeping which has helped solve his own budget-balancing problems at the expense of B.C.'s municipalities and residential taxpayers."

The moment of rare candour that the minister stumbled into when he made his comment in early April, he has stumbled out of this morning. This morning he would have us believe that this somehow is good for municipalities, and whatever negative features may be there are the result of the monetary policies of the Liberal government. As usual, the minister only tells part of the story.

In a not yet famous statement that was made by the Premier to a first ministers' conference in Ottawa, I believe some five and a half years ago, Social Credit then strongly endorsed the monetarist policies of the national administration. They strongly endorsed what Bank of Canada governor Gerald Bouey was doing then and is doing now in order to bring down, he thinks, inflation by a tight-money policy. Social Credit wishes now they had never published that document or made that statement, because what we know from it is that in the Premier's own words they support the high-interest policies of the Liberal government. The Premier himself went to Ottawa and publicly endorsed the high-interest policies of the Liberal administration. Now today, Mr. Speaker, they pretend they never made that statement; they pretend today they never endorsed that policy, and the minister this morning pretended that he is now opposed to it. Well, he can't have it on this issue — or any other — both ways. He can't approve it in Ottawa and denounce it in Victoria, because to his horror we read the Ottawa documents, we remember them and from time to time we read them back into the record. For the minister this morning to stand up and denounce the high-interest policies of the Liberal government as being one of the causes of the cutbacks in his own program, and not to remind us that his own Premier endorsed those very policies a few short years ago, is to do something that's not entirely credible.

MR. BRUMMET: Did you sign the Waffle Manifesto, by your convoluted reasoning?

MR. BARBER: No. Were you there in 1933? Did you sign the protocols of the learned elders?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) not interrupt the proceedings, and would the first member for Victoria continue to address the Chair.

MR. BARBER: I will, Mr. Speaker. I like addressing you. You listen.

Alderman Robin Blencoe, the finance chairman of the city of Victoria, who is, for the record, a New Democrat, described the changes to the revenue-sharing program in British Columbia as "a kick in the teeth for municipalities."

AN HON. MEMBER: Socialist!

MR. BARBER: Is Jim Tonn a socialist? Is Vic Stusiak a socialist?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: But you will discard their comments, will you?

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair, please.

MR. BARBER: Will they? How honest is it for them to do that, Mr. Speaker? How politically honest is it for them to ignore criticisms that Socreds put forward identical to those which New Democrats put forward, and pretend that only New Democrats are attacking them? It's not honest; it is not politically honest for them to do so. The government of Gracie's Finger and the Eckardt commission is at it again, being less than honest — in this case, about legitimate criticism from local government about the the bait-and-switch operation of the revenue-sharing program this year.

Alderman Blencoe, who is a New Democrat, says that the cuts to his municipality mean a shortfall in the Victoria city budget of $1.2 million this year. What that means is a tax increase of 19 percent for the city of Victoria if they cannot make further cuts as the result of the cuts imposed on them by the Municipal Affairs minister. The provincial government is directly responsible for a cut in the city's budget of $1.2 million in terms of their own revenue projections. For the minister to pretend otherwise is to pretend a false thing; for the minister to say anything else is to say something that he cannot prove or substantiate in any way at all.

Let me say again, Mr. Speaker, the government's own figures indicate that unconditional revenue grants are cut from $162 million to $99 million — a cut of 39 percent in one year. It is no wonder that municipalities are so angry; it is no wonder that when they remember what was in the budget speech and now see what is in this bill, they describe the difference between the two as a shell game; they are being victimized by the people who play that game. The people who play that game in this province traditionally have been Social Credit — they are most certainly Socreds this year.

Other people have attacked this bill, other people have denounced it, though none so well as the president of the

[ Page 7283 ]

Union of British Columbia Municipalities. I wonder whether or not the Socreds, in their desperation to evade and avoid the political heat this bill has called upon them, will find some way to make people believe that Jim Tonn is part of a vast socialist plot. I wonder if they will find some way to ignore his comments and his damning criticism by pretending that Jim Tonn has somehow turned pink overnight. If they can do that, then they can make the people believe anything. If they can get away with that one, they can get away with anything at all. I don't think they can. I know they'll try; I predict they will fail. They'll fail because they should fail; dishonest policies deserve to fail. Misleading announcements deserve not to be believed, and bills like this deserve to be defeated,

This bill represents the fiscal trickery of Social Credit that the people of British Columbia have always understood. The government that managed to trick people into thinking the Columbia River Treaty would cost nothing, when in fact it has now cost more than a billion dollars, is the same government that would have us believe this bill will cost the local taxpayer nothing at all. The simple fact, and the truth, is that this bill will cost the homeowners a great deal. It is a cut of $63 million in the unconditional program. In the whole program itself, it is a cut which has been described as fraudulent by the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. This bill is completely unacceptable. This bill has no business being on the floor of this House. This bill pretends to do one thing and in fact does something altogether different. Moneys that used to be provided from another source for sewers and underground transmission lines are now coming out of the Revenue Sharing Fund. This means, for people who are practical, a cut in the revenue-sharing program this year. This bill provides some small relief for municipalities who formerly had to bear welfare charges. However, it is not a retroactive provision; it will only benefit them for part of this year; and for the minister to have earlier pretended otherwise is to pretend the wrong thing.

The only good aspect of this bill is that it will, at least later on in the year, provide some benefit for municipalities in regard to the welfare charges. The bad thing about the bill is that they are losing unconditional grants, they are losing in the total money, they are losing funds that previously came from outside sources for sewers and for underground transmission lines. That's four losses against one win. That's what we describe as giving with one hand and taking back with two. That's what in the field of civil law would be described as a bait-and-switch operation. A bait-and-switch policy is an illegitimate policy, and you have no business advancing it.

You have no right to attempt to misdirect the attention of municipalities by telling them to their face you're doing one good thing, when behind their back you're doing three bad things. The government has no business whatever being all smiles up front and telling them what they'll save on welfare when around behind their back they're stabbing them with knives called cuts in unconditional grants, cuts in moneys available from outside sources for sewers and underground transmission lines, and abandonment altogether of the former policy that 85 percent of the revenue-sharing fund would be committed to unconditional grants. They smile to their face and say: "Look what we're giving you on welfare." Then they sneak around behind their back and plunge in the knives marked cuts in unconditional grants, cuts in sewers, cuts in underground transmission lines and abandonment of the 80 percent unconditional grant policy. No wonder this bill has been attacked by local government. No wonder the Union of British Columbia Municipalities has damned it from beginning to end in stunning and striking language. No wonder this bill deserves to be withdrawn. No wonder this opposition will oppose it. And no wonder Social Credit will be defeated at the next election.

MR. STUPICH: I would like to join my colleague, the first member for Victoria, in opposing the bill now before us. It has been said that figures don't lie, but liars figure on occasion. I would like to quote from the press statement issued by the minister's office at the time this bill was released. The statement starts out by saying there is a $21 million increase in revenue-sharing for 1982. Presumably it means 1983 or at least 1982-83. The fiscal year of 1982 ended March 31, 1982. I would not think the minister is suggesting at this time that the fiscal year ending March, 1982 would be $21 million higher than the year before. So let's say we are dealing with the forecast for the year ahead.

In saying there is an increase, the minister is comparing apples and oranges. The actual estimates for 1981-82 totalled $252.5 million; the estimates for 1982-83 total only $235 million. Apart from all of the points made by the member for Victoria, that shows a decrease of $17.3 million. The second paragraph of the statement from the minister's office explains this by saying that part of the increase is based on 1982-83 projections of revenue, the rest on prior year adjustments. In other words, the minister is comparing the estimates for 1982-83 with what actually happened in 1981-82, and saying there is an increase because 1981-82 proved to be significantly lower than the estimates presented in this House a year ago. One wonders how the estimates for 1982-83 are going to compare with what actually happens in 1982-83.

The figure of $235 million presented to us in the estimates for 1982-83 may turn out to be significantly higher than the actual realization. Once again, we will have this statement before us. There will be a comparison of estimates along with the actual figures for the year before, rather than comparing estimates with estimates or actual with actual. Therefore the minister, in saying there is a $21 million increase, is not telling us what is really happening. He is comparing estimates of one year with what has actually happened in the year before, and is also anticipating that revenues in the year coming may be substantially higher than they actually will be if the experience of 1981-82 so far and of 1982-83 really turns out to be as bad as many people are forecasting.

The elimination of social assistance costs will also deliver significant additional financial benefit to municipalities. The minister, in opening the debate on this bill, told us that the municipalities eventually are going to come out further ahead. He said it had been estimated that the cost of the sewer assistance program, for example, would come down. He admitted that it hasn't come down, although he said it hasn't come down in line with his expectations because of the high interest costs, but he is sure it will come down in the future and the municipalities will therefore be better off. I wonder what crystal ball he is using in saying that the cost of interest will come down or that the cost of sewer extension programs will come down. Certainly every cost imaginable going into those programs, the cost of materials, the cost of labour, is going up; as far as we know, the cost of interest isn't going to change but every other cost is bound to go up. It would seem to me that the cost of the sewer assistance program is going to do nothing but go up year by year. The cost of every one of these programs being turned over to the municipalities, as far

[ Page 7284 ]

as I can see, quite apart from what happens to interest cost, is almost certain to increase year by year. I wonder how the municipalities are supposed to be better off under this new program, unless the minister is right in assuming that as long as his government is in office, the cost of social assistance programs is going to keep going up faster than all of the other programs. For his forecast to be right that the municipalities will be better off, he has to be saying that the cost of programs accepted by the municipalities is going to go down or remain steady, but the cost of social assistance programs is going to go up, because of the increasing unemployment that we're going to experience in the province of British Columbia as long as his administration is the government in the province of British Columbia.

So many of the programs they have brought in this year are going to do nothing to reduce unemployment. Many of them will, in fact, increase unemployment. As unemployment increases and as people go off unemployment insurance rolls and go on social assistance programs of one kind or another, certainly the cost of those programs will be much heavier. Had the municipalities continued to share them, then indeed the program announced by the minister would be a better one for the municipalities. But what an attitude to have — to say to the municipalities that their one hope of being better off under this program is that the cost of social assistance in the province is going to go on increasing.

Is that the kind of government that we want in this province, Mr. Speaker? Do we really want a government that is so pessimistic about the future of the province that they are prepared to do nothing to improve it — so pessimistic about the future of the province that they assume that it is inevitable that the costs of social assistance programs are going to increase much more rapidly than will the cost of positive work such as sewer assistance programs, sewer extension programs, water programs and underground wiring? All of those programs that would be doing something to reduce unemployment and would be doing something useful in the province are going to be cut back. The one program that's going to go on increasing in cost is social assistance programs, and because that's what's going to happen as long as this government is in office, the municipalities are going to be better off.

We don't accept that pessimistic picture of the future; we believe things are going to improve. We believe that after the next election there's a very good chance that they'll improve sooner rather than later. If that is the case, the municipalities would be much worse off under the program announced by the minister, and because they are going to be much worse off, we can't support the bill before us now.

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, this act to change the Revenue Sharing Act is really an act just simply to save money for the government. It, as many people have already said in the days that have passed since the minister introduced the act, simply gives with one hand and takes with another. Our lead-off speaker, the first member for Victoria, has dealt with the reactions from those elected members of all our municipalities that have made statements, both individual statements and past resolutions, and they are just about unanimous in their condemnation of this bill, Mr. Speaker. It's a fairly rare occasion to find such a heterogeneous lot as our elected municipal politicians unanimous in opposing a bill to do with the passage of money from a central source to the municipalities themselves. But they are opposed to it, and for some very good reasons.

They can recognize a little bit of flim-flam when they see it. They can recognize that while in this bill there are some increases.... Mr. Speaker, every one of those increases was carefully catalogued by the minister, my good friend from Surrey. They're all carefully catalogued in the bill by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, but the deductions are also in the bill. They were carefully, in a lot of Haig-speak, unmentioned. They were carefully muted. They're also there. The totals are available and have been read into the record. They show a net decrease in assistance by this provincial government to all our municipalities. That's the effect of the bill. That's a fact. There's a net decrease and a cut.

In order to fully understand this bill, I want to tell you what's happening in my riding, the riding I share with the author of this bill — Surrey. I'll be telling you what's happening in the city of White Rock during the committee stage of the bill. When all the teaming and ladling of the moneys referred to in this bill are finalized, the net effect on Surrey is $2.45 million less from the province. That's a low blow for the minister's own riding. He knows better than most of us the immense problems facing that municipality. He used to be the mayor of that municipality. He was an alderman in that municipality. He knows better than almost anybody in this chamber the problems that are faced by the kind of municipality Surrey represents — a burgeoning, growing municipality coming out of a rural situation into a modern, urban situation.

What's going to happen in Surrey now? They're going to cut $1.65 million from the capital program. Those measures that will be cut include the purchase of drainage right-of-way. That's a fairly esoteric subject to some of our city-dwellers, Mr. Speaker, but coming from the floodplains, you will know what that means. This minister knows what it means. You do away with drainage rights-of-way now, and for every dollar you save, you know what it means in the future: trouble with a capital F — floods expenses; trouble with a capital C — compensation; trouble with a capital M — money; and trouble with a VDZ. That's the real trouble. I'll leave that one alone, because I never get personal in this chamber.

No more of that kind of program this year. Newton indoor pool. I've seen pictures of the minister diving into the deep end, time and time again. He loves to get his picture in the paper. I'm usually seen slightly to the left of him, smiling. He won't be diving in the pool at Newton. He's cut it out. We'll have to wait for two or three years to have our pictures taken, at which time not only will the pool have cost more money, but I don't think he's going to be in the picture.

We're going to have to cut the renovations of the library building. We're going to have to cut community hall renovations. We're going to have to slow down on the purchasing of essential industrial land for our industrial land program. We're going to have to cut back on the purchase of the firehall land.

Safety and protection against flooding and fire. There must be a biblical reference somewhere that I can think of to assist me in that. A dollar saved now, flood and fire later. There's got to be some kind of reference we can make, but I'll leave it for the historians to think about.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Revelations. Yes, that's right, Mr. Member for Mackenzie.

[ Page 7285 ]

MR. HALL: The point is that whatever we save now by the cuts.... It's going to be less now than it's going to be in the future. What a time to save money in those essential items that are going to come out of that capital budget! On top of that, the municipal council advised me that they're going to have to cut $830,000 from the general revenue operating program. The economic development staff will have to be reduced. They will be decreasing the parks and recreation budget by $150,000. It's a great thing to be known as the minister responsible for cuts in revenue-sharing that will make his own riding cut out the parks and recreation budget to the tune of $150,000. One thing that is going to happen in Surrey because of the $830,000 cut is that there will be fewer Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

Interjection.

MR. HALL: Fewer RCMP; that's not particularly good. It's the fastest-growing riding in the province. It's the most dangerous place in the province to drive. It has the worst accident rate in the province and fewer RCMP.

The Public works budget is cut by $250,000. We've cut $70,000 from your favourite subject, Mr. Speaker, the safety retention-detention ponding and drainage facilities.

In the spring and fall you can't pick up a paper without reading about the flooding problems in Surrey and White Rock. We're not only cutting it out of the capital program; we are now cutting it out of the operating program as well. It's all because of this flim-flam act, Bill 15. Those are the examples in Surrey. We don't need to belabour this point; it’s simple. We don't need to have a filibuster on this bill, Mr. Speaker. It's a bad bill. It's simply designed to save the government money. It's couched on incorrect fiscal information. It's going to twist the municipalities — that good old-fashioned word. It's going to twist them. I can't support it. I don't think anybody who has the good health and good wishes and good faith of the municipalities can support it either. It's another example of confiscation. It's another big government stick. I'll be voting against it, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HANSON: Over the last few days in the House we've seen how the government has been drawing money from health and education. It's going to find its way into that capital sinkhole in the northeast of British Columbia, the northeast coal project. Here we have a new innovation in terms of fiscal mismanagement. The quality of our water is going to suffer as a result of this bill. Let me clarify that. This bill repeals the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act, which was established by the NDP to allow municipalities and regional districts to make a call on provincial government money for the provision of sewage-treatment facilities.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I'd like to read a comment from Hon. Mr. Rogers, Minister of Environment. He made a speech to the chamber of commerce in Victoria on November 21, 1980. By way of background, Victoria is the only major urban area in the Pacific Northwest that discharges its raw sewage effluent directly into the ocean. We have lost the capacity, in our adjacent marine waters, for the growing of shellfish, for recreation and for bathing. Under the program for the discharge of effluent, our sewage goes directly into marine waters untreated. We have a series of outfalls from the Saanich Peninsula, extending around the southern end of Vancouver Island and into Esquimalt at Macauley Point, that take that raw sewage and discharge it directly into the water, untreated. Most visitors are shocked to hear that. That does not occur in Washington state. Most interior towns either have land discharge — they will use it as a fertilizer on the land — or it is treated and then discharged into a waterway. But not here in Victoria.

I am standing in my place on this bill, and I want to focus specifically on the repeal of the Sewerage Assistance Act. The bill repeals that act which would oblige the provincial government to contribute towards a treatment plant for Victoria to the cost of 75 percent of the cost of the debt charges in excess of 2.5 mills. In other words, the local community would pay the 2.5 mills and then the 75 percent in excess of that would be paid for out of general revenue by the provincial government under the provisions of this act.

The government is wiping out this act so that if Victoria or the Capital Regional District, in their wisdom, decided to call upon the provincial government to enter into a sharing formula to provide treatment facilities here so that we could have clean water — we could have bathing in our adjacent marine waters — that request would be competing, directly out of general revenue, with northeast coal and the other monumental projects that the Social Credit government has underway. Let me just read what the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Rogers) said in 1980. He said:

"It is true that the provincial government has one of the most generous sewage assistance grant programs in Canada through its sewage facilities assistance act. It is administered by Municipal Affairs. The provincial government provides 75 percent of the cost of sewage treatment facilities over the 2.5 mills level, in effect paying almost 75 percent of all major costs. Last year, in 1979, the provincial government paid out over $25 million to B.C. communities. This was in addition to $15 million from federal grants which have now been discontinued."

In his concluding remarks, he said:

"As we move into the 1980s, environmental issues will become increasingly important. I am sure you will see stricter legislation to control pollution and a more cooperative approach to developing solutions to waste-management problems.

"Let me summarize my position and that of the ministry with regard to sewage disposal in metropolitan Victoria. First of all, we must get on with the task of completing the major long outfalls without any further delay. We must have a good monitoring program to establish the effectiveness of the long outfalls. We must ensure that land is set aside in the event that a monitoring program indicates that further treatment is required."

Let me stop there, Mr. Speaker. If the program of this area is unsuccessful — in other words, if the long outfalls are not successful in bringing the coliform level in our waters below 200 coliform per 100 millilitres of water.... That is the bathing standard. If those long outfalls are ineffective in bringing that to that level, what the Minister of Environment said in November 1980 is that land would have to be set aside for a sewage treatment plant. That land and that plant would have to be built, within the provisions of this act, with 75 percent of the funding coming from the provincial government.

[ Page 7286 ]

Let me read you what the old act says — the old language. It says in its provision for grants to the municipalities: "The minister shall pay" — not may pay — "to the municipality annually, or in the case of an electoral area or specified area, the following amount of money...." — which was 75 percent over and above the 2.5 mills. What does the language of the new act say in terms of grants? The minister may pay — totally discretionary. In the old act, if the city of Victoria came to the Minister of Municipal Affairs with an application for a sewage plant here in Victoria, the old language said the minister "shall pay," and the new law says the Minister "may pay." The difference is that the new one is entirely discretionary.

The new one competes directly with northeast coal. The new one competes directly with downtown Vancouver's Stadium, B.C. Place, etc. It comes out of consolidated revenue, Mr. Speaker. There is no separate fund for the quality of water — for clean water for Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia and the tourist capital of British Columbia, our beautiful Victoria. It is a major blow, as my colleague for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) often states. The major environmental priorities are clean water, clean air and productive land — the life-sustaining resources of our province. The life-sustaining resources of Victoria are also our marine waters which are terribly polluted. We have adopted — and I say "we" in terms of our community — an approach to try to deal with the problem in the most cost-effective way, in the most immediate way, by trying to use the large volume of the Strait of Juan de Fuca waters as our treatment plant.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the solution to pollution is not dilution. It is treatment. It is utilization in some innovative fashion. It is to put it into a plant to withdraw the water and use the organic material for fertilizer. Or, if it is contaminated in some way that makes that unacceptable — which is unlikely because we don't have a heavy industrial base here — it could be used to produce electrical power. It could be burned along with hog fuel, wood chips and other wood waste, to produce electrical power that could be put into a grid system here for the benefit of our own community — locally generated hydroelectric power.

I agree with the Minister of Environment, who said in 1980: "The environmental issues are going to become increasingly important in the 1980s, as we try to adapt our increasing population and our increasing pressures in the modification of our own environment...."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think perhaps most of this debate is more appropriate under the estimates of the Minister of Environment, and I would much prefer that we direct our attention to the bill before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister makes a valid point, hon. member. Possibly we could return more to the scope of the bill before us at this time.

MR. HANSON: What I am trying to do in this debate is point out to the minister that this act, as he repeals the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act, is going to have a tremendous negative impact on the environmental options available to this community.

The proposals for treatment crosscut political lines in this community. A close friend of the present government, Mr. Robert Wright, a former Victoria alderman, was an advocate of treatment in his latter days as an alderman in this community. The only difference was that he felt that the federal government should contribute. Obviously that is extremely difficult in terms of negotiations. But we do have an existing statute that would provide the appropriate facility to deal with the problem here in Victoria. The future option for clean water is disappearing in this act by the repeal of the obligatory contribution of the provincial government to meet the request of a local municipal administration or regional district for the necessary funds to provide the land and plant to carry out that processing for clean water. That statute is being repealed and what is put in its place? Nothing. So the municipality would make an application to that minister for a project for clean water and have to compete with northeast coal, where the funds of general revenue are flooding like a massive hemorrhage to meet the open-ended infrastructure costs of northeast coal.

I think it's unfair, Mr. Speaker. These people have their priorities all wrong. I'm in agreement with my friend from Port Alberni, who says that unless we have our life-sustaining resources of clean air and clean water and productive land.... What else matters if our environment is uninhabitable? If we hurt ourselves economically by damaging the natural economic strengths of our beautiful environment that attracts people from all over the world, that makes Victoria such a beautiful place to reside in and to visit, what do we do? Don't we do a great injustice to our grandchildren and to subsequent generations? Aren't we living off our grandchildren by damaging those life-sustaining resources, by repealing a piece of legislation that would provide for clean water? If the local community wanted it, they could ask for it under that statute.

This is just one of the many reasons why I'm having to vote against this bill — and for all the reasons articulated by my colleague from Victoria (Mr. Barber).

MS. BROWN: I am just going to deal with the damage that's going to be done to Burnaby as a result of this bill — and I'm not even going to do that in detail, because Burnaby is a fortunate municipality. There are three people on this side of the House representing Burnaby. By the time the three of us are through with the minister, I think he's going to have some understanding of the reasons why we can't support this legislation and why he really should amend it.

I want to start with a quote from the Vancouver Sun of Tuesday, April 20. This is from Vic Stusiak, an alderman on the Burnaby council.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Well, I think he should hear that again. Maybe I should tell him a little bit about Vic Stusiak, too, because I think that Vic Stusiak would like him to know, first of all, that he is not now, nor has he ever been, a member of the New Democratic Party. So I'm certainly not quoting a groupie, Mr. Speaker — not until now, anyway. Vic Stusiak is also the person who on city council supervises the budget that Burnaby has to deal with each year, and he really prides himself on being a very hard-nosed, tough person who brings down a very lean budget and tries as much as possible to live within the budget. I think the minister will agree with me that Burnaby is not the kind of municipality that goes into a lot of deficit financing. There are not a lot of overruns as far as Burnaby is concerned. I think the minister will agree with

[ Page 7287 ]

that. Burnaby tries — unlike the minister's own office, which was over by $25,000 last year. Burnaby does not follow the example set by the minister at all. Part of the reason for that is that Vic Stusiak really puts together such a lean budget.

Anyway, it says: "Vic Stusiak accused the provincial government of playing a shell game in announcing it had increased this year's revenue-sharing grants to the municipality." It went on to say that the government was being devious and fraudulent — and I'm quoting; those are not my words; those are Vic Stusiak's words — and suggested that as a result of the new changes as outlined in this act Burnaby was going to end up with a deficit unless it had increased the taxes certainly on the commercial and industrial tax base in the riding.

One of the things, Mr. Speaker, that's really bad about this legislation is that the new kinds of costs which are going to be imposed on the municipality were introduced so late. Now the minister knows as well as everyone else does that the municipality tries to get its budget together quite early. It tries to observe the guidelines and not run into a deficit situation. In doing so, what Burnaby actually did was to lop $2 million off the budget. It really pared it down and cut out some essential things. For example, it spent less on capital works this year than it did in 1981; it actually went down in terms of that expenditure.

In a number of other areas you will find, if you look at their treasury — the summary of their expenditures for '81 and their final recast for this year — that they tried to lop $100,000 or even more off the treasury. They cut the capital works reserve by something like half a million dollars. By paring here and paring there they lopped $2 million off their budget and went into the year quite confident that they were going to be able to come within the guidelines. Lo and behold, Mr. Speaker, a quarter of the year is gone, operating on that budget, when the minister brings down this new hammer which places four additional financial costs on the municipality. Of course, the municipality is not some amorphous body; what it is made up of is taxpayers. So what we are talking about is four additional costs that are going to be levied on the taxpayers of Burnaby, primarily on the commercial and industrial base, as Stusiak said, but the homeowners too are going to have to deal with this.

The first thing, of course, to follow my colleague from Victoria, has to do with the sewage. Burnaby is now going to have to come up with almost $1 million to deal with that — $964,000 was the figure which I got from the department. That's an additional $964,000 they're going to have to find, over and above the $2 million they've already cut from their budget, in order to deal with this additional cost which has been imposed on them by the minister through this piece of legislation.

In addition to that, and what I want to speak in more detail about.... I guess I can refer, in passing, to section 4 of the act where the minister made his brilliant statement about relieving the municipalities of the expense of welfare. Suddenly the government was going to take onto itself this great expense, and the municipalities were going to be relieved of it and so should be grateful ever after. Let me tell you what that did to Burnaby. Burnaby received $10,071,201 in provincial revenue sharing from the government last year. The amount of that that went into paying for welfare was $2,037,153. What they anticipated was that the government would probably give at least the same $10 million, or, if they were going to be deducting the welfare cost, at least $8 million. That way they would have broken even with last year. Not even a cost-of-living increase or an inflation factor was built in. They would have been in exactly the same position as they were last year if the government had given them $8 million, which would have been the $10 million with the $2 million of welfare costs deducted.

In fact, what Burnaby gets this year from the provincial government is $5,758,912. In other words, Burnaby has been shortchanged by the government to the tune of over $4 million. I want to give those figures again in case the minister is writing them down. The 1980-81 revenue-sharing grant was $10,071,201. The social assistance paid out of that was $2,037,153.

AN HON. MEMBER: Give me those figures again.

MS. BROWN: The social assistance figures again? First, $10,071,201, and subtract from that $2,037,153.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do you subtract?

MS. BROWN: Because that is what Burnaby spent on social assistance last year. This year the government has agreed to take over that cost. The government is now going to pick up the tab for the $2,037,153 of social assistance costs, which means Burnaby should have received in the vicinity of $8 million at least. However, what Burnaby really received was $5,758,912, and Burnaby wants to know what happened to the balance.

I am using the figures I received from the treasurer at Burnaby, so if they are wrong certainly the minister can deal with that. Maybe he is being maligned by the municipality of Burnaby and maybe he can straighten that out; but according to my calculations, Burnaby has been swindled of $4,312,289. Burnaby wants to know where that money is and Burnaby would like to have it back.

But that's not even the worst. Over and above that the minister, through this piece of legislation, has visited four additional expenditures on the people of Burnaby. I think I should tell you what they are: sewerage, undergrounding, mobile homes and municipal boundaries.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're wrong again. It's the second time you've been wrong.

MS. BROWN: I gather, from speaking to the people at Burnaby, that the cost they are really concerned about is the one having to do with sewerage. That figure, if the minister wants to write that one down too, is $964,000. I want to bring to your attention the fact that Burnaby had to go and recast its budget as a result of this piece of legislation. The initial $2 million that it had lopped off the budget didn't apply any more now that it found out that it was getting less than it anticipated and that it was going to have to deal with this additional cost for sewage on the ground of mobile homes and municipal boundaries.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're wrong on all the figures.

MS. BROWN: I hope I'm wrong. I hope the minister is correct in saying that I am wrong. Nothing would make me happier than to be able to go to Burnaby and say: "This is not correct. The minister is going to give you the same $10

[ Page 7288 ]

million you had last year or, indeed, will give you at least $8 million."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Where are you getting this bad information?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, what I have been told when discussing this matter again with Vic Stusiak, the alderman who is responsible for supervising the budget in Burnaby, is that, first of all, there is the problem of them not getting this information until they had been a quarter of the way through spending their budget. In other words, 25 percent of the money that they have budgeted for this year has already been spent. So they are going to be even deeper in the glue as a result of this piece of legislation visiting this additional cost on them. He is saying that, in fact, to balance the budget it may be necessary to increase taxes on single-family homes as well as the commercial and industrial tax base by something in the neighbourhood of 30 percent. I don't want to reflect on a vote that's already gone, but I want to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the industrial and commercial tax base that the municipality used to have to use in deferring its education expenses has also been confiscated. Burnaby does not have that to deal with any more.

I'm referring to Vic Stusiak, an alderman, who, I told you, is not now and has never been a member of the New Democratic Party, and I'm quoting him. As I've also said, he is the person responsible for supervising the budget, and I discussed this with him. I am quoting him.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're attacking him.

MS. BROWN: No, I'm not attacking him; I'm attacking your government, Mr. Member who is speaking from someone else's seat, Mr. Speaker, if you will notice.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the minister is still listening or not, but if I could get the minister's attention I'd like to tell him what Burnaby thinks it may have to do in addition to raising those taxes by 30 percent. They are looking at having to do things like closing fire halls, cutting back on the use of community centres and swimming pools, and postponing or eliminating capital works programs.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, that's already been done. One of the things that Vic Stusiak — if I can quote from him again — said is that the council is going to have to ask the staff to accept a reduction in wages and forgo a salary increase for 1983. He is already deciding that that is something he is going to have to do in order not to have to cut back on programs and to avoid having to eliminate jobs. The unemployment situation, as you know, is already horrendous throughout the province, where we have something like 200,000 people looking for work.

In addition to all those things, Burnaby is having to look at the probability of having to close fire halls, certainly cut back on the use of swimming pools, community centres and to postpone or even eliminate any plans in terms of their capital works. As I pointed out to you earlier, the capital works part of their budget, anyway, had been drastically reduced for last year because they maintain that that seems to be the only way they could pare off the $2 million that had to be dealt with in anticipation of meeting the guidelines.

The end result is — and I want the minister to take down this figure and see whether it is his or not — that they are anticipating that when they are through doing all these things, they are still going to have to come up with a $2.7 million loss. That is what they are looking at as a result of this piece of legislation, Bill 15, the Revenue Sharing Amendment Act and other initiatives outlined in the budget. Not for the life of us can we see or understand why the government should be proud of this, bragging about it and saying that it is going to benefit the municipalities, because it isn't.

I don't know whether the increase in UTA costs is covered in the act or not. Maybe my colleague can tell me.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Oh, that is a different act. I can just mention in passing that that is something else that Burnaby is having to took at — the increase in the amount of money they will have to give to the UTA to defray the cost of transportation. All this comes out of the same pocket. We're not talking about a lot of different pockets; we are talking about the same taxpayer having to come up with the money to meet all these costs. We are talking about the homeowner who, through taxes on their home, have to come up with the additional revenue to meet the loss of something in the neighbourhood of $4 million as a result of this revised revenue-sharing with the provinces. We're talking about the commercial and industrial people in the riding who are going to have to come up with additional taxes in order to do this. These are the same people who are going to have to come up with additional taxes to deal with taking on responsibilities for sewage, undergrounding, mobile homes and the boundaries. These are the same people who are going to have to deal with the increased costs of education as a result of the industrial and commercial tax base being taken away from them. We're not talking about spreading the costs throughout a number of different pockets. We're talking about the same taxpayers.

I also want to point out that Burnaby is a municipality that has a large number of small businesses. It's not a place with large multinational corporations that pay large amounts of taxes. We are a community of small businesses. What we're doing is taxing the small businesses almost out of existence. At the end of the year when we look at the bankruptcy rate in Burnaby, it's going to be pretty horrendous. One of the comments Vic Stusiak made to me was that he is anticipating that a large number of people are just not going to be able to pay their taxes. He's saying that there's going to be a severe increase in non-payment of taxes from the small-business sector. It is a community that is made up almost exclusively of small businesses. This is really an additional sledge-hammer that's being voted on them.

In speaking to him I said: "Well, they're getting services, so I guess they shouldn't be that concerned about having to pay the taxes." He pointed out to me that they really weren't getting that many services, that the small-business community didn't use the community centres and swimming pools, and a number of the other services they use they paid for themselves. They're paying a lot of taxes but they're not getting that many services, as far as he's concerned, and in addition they're going to face an increase in their taxes in order to meet the shortfall. At the end of it, we're still going to end up with something in the neighbourhood of a $2.7 million loss on the taxpayers of Burnaby, thanks to the government.

[ Page 7289 ]

I think I will repeat the figures for the benefit of everyone on the government side and in the galleries so that the world can understand the disservice that is being done to this little municipality of Burnaby, the defenceless little municipality of Burnaby, by this piece of legislation, this amendment to the Revenue Sharing Act.

The municipality of Burnaby, Mr. Speaker, is having $4,312,289 withheld by the provincial government. I know the Minister of Municipal Affairs came up with a figure for the cost of social assistance; he said that according to his calculations, social assistance this year will cost Burnaby $2,729,880. Is the Minister listening, because I'm refuting his figures. The minister's figure for the cost of social assistance for Burnaby welfare is $2,729,880. I presented that figure to the treasurer and he informed me that based on their expenditures to date — that is, based on the cost of welfare for the first three months — your figures are wrong, Mr. Minister. He anticipates that you're out by about $700,000, that in fact the real figure is in the vicinity of $2,037,153. He has the actual cost for the first three years and he's projecting this. It could be, however, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is anticipating that there are going to be more people on welfare than Burnaby's anticipating. It could be that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is aware of pending government policy which will result in more people being on welfare than Burnaby is anticipating. We've taken that into account. However, if the government's policies are consistent and there are going to be the same number of people on welfare for the rest of the year as there have been for the first three months, then what we are looking at, Mr. Speaker, is a cost of $2,037,153. Burnaby is being short-changed to the tune of $4,312,289. In addition, Burnaby is being asked to assume full responsibility for the cost of sewage, undergrounding, municipal boundaries and mobile homes. The cost of sewage alone is going to be almost $1 million. It is anticipated that it is going to cost $964,000 at least. In order to meet this shortfall, it is anticipated that Burnaby is going to have to increase taxes on commercial and industrial taxpayers to the tune of about 30 percent. Also, there is going to be an increase in taxes on family homes.

This is what Social Credit is doing to the municipality of Burnaby.

Mr. Speaker, in addition, as I said, we have to remind ourselves that the Social Credit government has also confiscated the commercial and industrial tax base from the municipality in helping it meet its education costs. We can't forget that. We mustn't forget that, in fact, 55 percent of that tax base is now going directly into the provincial coffers, right out of the pockets of the taxpayers of Burnaby. They're going to be deprived of that in terms of meeting their educational costs. We must not forget, even though we cannot debate it under this particular bill, the additional amount of money that is going to have to go to the UTA to defray the costs of public transportation. I'm not debating that issue under this bill; I'm just asking us to take all these things into account when we think about the burden on the taxpayers of Burnaby, a community of homeowners and small businesses.

This government likes to refer to itself as the friend of small business. Well, thanks to this government the small businesses in Burnaby are going to be overtaxed. Some of them are going to be taxed out of existence. For that reason, I cannot support this bill,

Ms. Brown moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:59 a.m.