[ Page 7313 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 31). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 7313

Employee Participation Enhancement Act (Bill M204). Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 7313

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

Mr. Levi –– 7313

Ms. Sanford –– 7316

Mr. Cocke –– 7319

Mrs. Wallace –– 7320

Mr. Brummet –– 7322

Mr. King –– 7323

Mr. Mussallem –– 7327

Court of Appeal Act (Bill 2). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 7327

Education (Interim) Finance Act

Royal assent –– 7327

Appendix –– 7328

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Introduction of Bills

AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Hewitt presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Agriculture and Food Statutes Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 31 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION
ENHANCEMENT ACT

On a motion by Mr. Ritchie, Bill M204, Employee Participation Enhancement Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 15.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

MR. SPEAKER: The member for Maillardville Coquitlam. [Applause.]

MR. LEVI: That's enough. You'll throw me completely off my stride. I was really going to move in and attack the minister in a most vicious way. Now I will just modify my thoughts about this and speak only about how a minister presents a bill and with what thrust he does it.

I listened to the minister present this bill yesterday. Unfortunately he's not a great speaker and he didn't speak very long. He didn't have very much to say about this incredible act of demolition that he was wreaking on all the municipalities. However, one thing that did catch my eye was his ability from time to time to be a stranger to the truth and the facts. I was just want to go over that, particularly because, when I was a minister and he was a mayor of a municipality, he and I had at the whole question of whether the municipalities should continue to carry the burden of welfare costs. We used to meet about this, not only individually but also in a group. The minister said yesterday: "The UBCM and the municipalities one after the other over successive years have been successfully pressuring the government to try to have the charge removed." This is the per capita charge on the municipalities. Remember the minister made quite a lot of hay out of the fact that this revenue-sharing bill, this amendment was going to relieve the municipalities.

He then went on to say: "It was argued that elected representatives at the local level had really no direct control over Human Resources programs, and that therefore they could not be accountable to the taxpayers for them." I agree with him. That was a position that I took and that he took on the other side of the table, because we knew that local municipalities were not interested in the business of having to share costs and use up their valuable revenues on welfare costs. He then went on to say: "I agree with that and I always have agreed with it, and I myself have always been an advocate of getting that charge removed." That's quite true, Mr. Speaker. In 1976. shortly after he became minister, he was so keen to get it removed that he immediately increased the per capita, and got himself into a lot of hot water. Yes, he put it up.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No.

MR. LEVI: See, he says no. I told you, Mr. Speaker, when I started my speech, that we cannot have this minister constantly being a stranger to the facts. You did, you put it up, but you've forgotten. Yes, I know, he's sitting there now and he's got to think: "Well if I did, why did I do it?" Then he's going to say: "Because the previous minister had an overrun and I had to find the money." That wasn't the case at all, because in that last fiscal year that ministry underspent its budget by $40 million. So why you had to put it up I don't know. but you did put it up. You took it from $130 per capita to $155. It went up. That's okay; the minister has forgotten

Later on in his speech yesterday he said: "In the fiscal year 1979-80, we were successful in getting the 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 has reduced the percentage, except way back in the sixties." Here we go again. The minister is wandering away from his knowledge of the facts. He knows that's not true. We've got to know that.

If the minister didn't know, certainly his colleague the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) knew. The only trouble is that you guys are trying to save so much money. Page 50 of the background papers to the 1982 budget is headed: "The Municipal Share of Social Assistance Costs." Ironically enough, although I don't know why, it's in a black box, which was the kind of thing that was looming for the municipalities. In the box, the Minister of Finance says the following: "The share of costs borne by municipalities is set by the Minister of Finance each year." That is true. In our government that happened, but it was also done in consultation with the Minister of Human Resources. "Municipalities were required to contribute 15 percent of the costs of shared programs in the years from 1971 to 1973. The ratio was reduced to 10 percent in 1974, reflecting the transfer of responsibility for social assistance programs to the provincial government."

I don't think the minister heard what I just said. I think he's looking at the racing form, so I'm going to read it again. The Minister of Finance said: "The share of costs borne by municipalities is set by the Minister of Finance each year. Municipalities were required to contribute 15 percent of the costs of shared programs in the years from 1971 to 1973. The ratio was reduced to 10 percent in 1974, reflecting the transfer of responsibility for social assistance programs to the provincial government."

I hope that when the minister gets up to close the debate he'll correct the errors. One has to understand something

[ Page 7314 ]

about the approach that the government has taken generally with respect to municipalities and the social-assistance system. It's a big factor for the municipalities. It's one of the reasons that the previous government looked at revenue sharing. After all, some of the costs start at $21 million and go up to as high as $35 million. That's a great deal of money for municipalities to provide. It was never quite understood, Mr. Speaker, when they introduced the cost-sharing that those kinds of discussions were not had with municipalities. Bear in mind that there was the Canada Assistance Plan. It was a cost-shared, revenue-shared program with the provinces. As an afterthought, they tacked on the municipalities without any real consultation. There was no logic to it. It was quickly realized that there was no logic to it, and the quicker we could get out of it the better.

It will be good if the minister is going to do what he said in his speech — that in two years the municipalities will not be paying any more for capital costs of social welfare. However, we're not always sure that what a minister says in his statement in introducing a bill will become policy. It's really a question of what can happen in terms of the revenues of the province.

For years the municipalities have been the subject — or the victims, I think is more accurate, Mr. Speaker — of chiseling. They've been chiselled constantly by the provincial government. A good example of the chiseling that goes on with the provincial government and the municipalities might best be dealt with in the fiscal year ending 1977. That was the year when the minister, who is now the Minister of Municipal Affairs and was previously the Minister of Human Resources, was so keen to demonstrate to the public of British Columbia what a good bloke he was and he knew how to save money that in that year he underspent his budget by $108 million. You'll remember that that was the great ideological debate between those people over there and us over here in terms of what you spend money on. Interestingly enough, in the year that he saved $108 million, he still took $32 million from the municipalities. That is chiseling of the first order.

Here was a minister who underspent his budget by over $100 million, and he still could not turn to the municipalities and say: "Now is the opportunity for us to forgo that per capita cost, and we could save you $32 million." He didn't do that. They just scooped it all into the treasury and talked in a bleating fashion about the possibility that the municipalities would be relieved of the social welfare costs. From 1976 until now the bill that we are dealing with.... By 1984 — they will have been in government nine years, if they are still around in 1984 — we can expect that the burden will be lifted from the municipalities.

The minister has not really explained all the complications of this bill. He gets up and mutters a little bit about sewers and drainage. He doesn't give us any facts. All we got were a lot of inaccurate facts about when the government decided to start relieving the burden. That is not terribly difficult to understand, because we can expect almost anything from that minister, who usually has his mouth going three times faster than his mind.

I just woke Mr. Speaker up. But it is the case that if your mouth goes faster than your brain you're in terrible trouble.

Let me give you an idea of what we're up against with a minister like that, who is not prepared to look at the facts, not prepared even to read his own colleagues' publications. I can remember when he first became a member of this House. He made some of the most outrageous statements which were not backed up by fact. I had a great deal of difficulty because I was his predecessor. I can remember when he actually once made a statement — this is to do with the veracity of that minister, his ability to understand what the facts are — that 10,000 dead people in this province got Pharmacare. He actually said that. We are dealing now with his veracity. He doesn't remember now, because five years afterwards it is all hazy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. In the minister's estimates the administrative responsibilities of the minister are subject to debate, but under the principle of a bill it is only the principle of the bill that is under debate.

MR. LEVI: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, except that I already gave an example of how the minister made a statement in the opening address of his debate by stating a series of facts that were in direct contradiction to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, who published in the background papers. We have to understand to be able to evaluate. After all, when a minister makes a statement, we are entitled to evaluate whether we can have the trust that this will in fact happen. You have often admonished this. When a member makes a statement in this House, he is responsible for the statements he makes.

That minister made a statement yesterday which was in complete contradiction to a statement made by the Minister of Finance. I'm simply laying what I think is the basis for us to have a great deal of skepticism in terms of that minister, because we have to constantly bring him back to what the reality is. And having done that.... He then continued to make a great number of statements which were not in accordance with the facts. We're entitled to point that out, Mr. Speaker. Besides, we're not dealing now, nor would we deal under his estimates, with that particular program.

You know, we used to get those kinds of bombastic statements when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was in his palmier days in opposition. He was so bombastic he would just take off, make a statement and then run for cover and let the minister he'd ask the question of go and find the facts, which didn't exist. I'm still looking for all those juveniles in the Empress Hotel. As a matter of fact, I think they're going to name a room "the Juvenile Room, " and we're going to put the minister's name underneath it in memory of he who thought but was not right.

The important thing is what the minister has really told us. He's told us that we are going to relieve the municipalities over a period of two years from that onerous cost in terms of the welfare program. All he's done is point away. The municipalities are of the opinion that they are not going to be better off at all. When I had discussions with people in the municipality where I live and who I represent, the municipality of Coquitlam.... One would have thought that they would have greeted the amendment to revenue cost-sharing with joy, because they were going to get a greater amount of money than they had previously. The reality of their situation is that they are going to have a shortfall of over $800 million, and they've now notified some 14 people on their staff that they're going to be laid off.

How can it be that what the minister represents as a positive program can have such a negative effect? My colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) said yester-

[ Page 7315 ]

day that they take away with two hands and they give back with one, and that is the difficulty of understanding the intent of this bill.

The revenue-sharing process which did take place initially under the previous government is an interesting concept, Mr. Speaker. It was more interesting when it was talked about some eight or nine years ago, because at that time we basically left the municipalities' tax base in the hands of the municipalities. Now, of course, we've had an example where the government has moved in in one respect on taxation.... We will not now reflect on another bill.

The great argument about revenue-sharing at the municipal level always goes to the fact that municipal services should be provided by local taxation, and people services should come from general revenue. That's still the basic issue in terms of what money collected locally should be spent on what services.

It's true that because of the nature of some of the local services, such things as water facilities and things related to housing grants or some major road grants needed to be shared from the general revenue. That's what revenue-sharing is all about. We initially had a per-capita grant — $35 per person — which represented the transfer of money to the municipalities. But what we do not have, what the minister has not embarked on, is the rationalization of the actual local financing that needs to be done. That is a man who, when he was a local official — the mayor of Surrey — argued very vociferously with a member of government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't get personal.

MR. LEVI: I'm paying you a compliment. My god, he even misses it if you're throwing him a bouquet. That's the trouble: we're not in the barn, we're in the garden. Bill, look at the tulips.

Those were the arguments they used to make, arguments made by local mayors, aldermen, GVRD: the government has to rationalize the whole financing system. They have the power; they're simply creatures of the provincial government. Sure, this was to be a basic program in terms of the present government: we are going to ease the burden on local taxation; we're going to rationalize it. But they've done things which are so complicated and in some respects so mixed up that we have the officials of the Union of B.C. Municipalities attacking the government. I'm not going to go into it; my colleague the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) made some detailed statements about it. Particularly the mayor of my municipality, Coquitlam, who is the president of UBCM.... Why have they reacted in such a hostile way towards the statements by the minister and this legislation? He sees it as a great gift to the municipalities, and they only see it as creating tremendous shortfalls in their revenue, resulting in the creation of unemployment.

The government has still failed to come to grips with some of the realities of what needs to be done in the financial assistance that municipalities have. This does not provide it. The minister spent about ten minutes explaining the bill, and that's very unfortunate. Because if he had the confidence in the bill that evidently people had out there.... They thought, here is an opportunity for some different kind of formula; he'll explain it to us and we'll understand it. Well, everybody who knows anything about municipalities finally read between the lines, turned around and attacked him — his old friends. Not personally — we're not dealing with personal matters; we're talking about an antagonism between the provincial government and the municipal government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Why take half an hour to say what you can say in ten minutes?

MR. LEVI: Why take a half hour? You've never been up here Mr. Speaker, why does he keep interrupting me when I'm interrupting him?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's never been in opposition.

MR. LEVI: That's not true, my friend; he was always in opposition. When he was a mayor, he opposed everybody. He had a terrible time taking a shave in the morning; he got into the most difficult arguments with himself. He's a very antagonistic guy.

MR. SPEAKER: Back to the bill, hon. member.

MR. LEVI: Here he is today. He brought the bill in; it was going to be the Social Credit government's great gift to municipal financing. He spent 10 minutes, rewrote a little bit of history, which was convenient, contradicted his friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), sat down, put his finger into his mouth and said: "The wind looks okay, what do you think?" He's heard what we think over here.

Part of the reason that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in this House is that the minister never even took the trouble to explain the bill. That's the art: if you're going to be a minister, explain the bill. Don't be afraid to stand on your feet and talk about the implications, and then we can have an intelligent debate when we come to the committee stage. On the basis of what he said in his very short speech, how can you have an intelligent debate?

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Well, he doesn't; he's forgotten everything about what it was like when he was mayor; what it was like when he had to sit opposite that horrible Minister of Human Resources when he was a mayor and he wanted more money and we were looking at ways.... He's forgotten all that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This is the third reminder. Please return to the principle of the bill.

MR. LEVI: It's the fourth reminder, Mr. Speaker, but who's counting?

Let's go to the revenue-sharing itself. The revenue-sharing budget for 1979-1980 was $141 million, which covered a large number of programs. That revenue-sharing budget itself has gone up in very small amounts — in many respects not even keeping up with inflation. That's one of the skepticisms that exist out there: how much money is going to go into the budget? If you look at it in 1979-80, it was $141 million and then there was.... It was based originally on an estimate of $138 million. They found $3 million more.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't mumble now. Talk so we can hear you.

MR. LEVI: That's good. When he responds he's going to be able to answer all of these questions that we've posed and

[ Page 7316 ]

he'll give us the correct answers. He'll correct those statements which are wrong, and he'll give us the correct answers to the facts.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's right.

MR. LEVI: Now we've got the minister's interest, Mr. Speaker, and it's important to be able to get his interest. He has a short attention span, so it is important.

I hope that the minister will get up, take a look at his annual report for 1979 and go through the revenue-sharing explanation given on page 11 — it's a good breakdown of the program — and tell us exactly what is going to happen in respect to the revenue-sharing amendments and how they are going to benefit the municipalities. That's what we need to know. If we can have some understanding of what's going on there, he may be able to convince one or two people in this House. But his greatest difficulty is that he's got to convince the people in the municipalities, the people that he deals with in policy discussions, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. He has fallen far short of that, and on that basis how can he really expect that he's going to be able to get the support he needs? If he can't get the support out of the municipalities — and it's quite clear that he's not going to get it — then he's certainly not going to get it over here. That's an important part of it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't have any difficulty in voting against this — mainly because of the lack of factual material, which the minister has failed to produce, and also because he has not really exhibited any of the confidence that he should have in the legislation that he's bringing in by giving more detail, more specific policy direction. In fact, since he has been the Minister of Municipal Affairs — except for high-flown statements about policy — he has never really got down to detailing those policies.

In closing I want to make one observation. As he looks at local financing in municipalities.... He was one of the most ardent critics when he first went into the government, that somehow we had to loosen up the municipalities to aid development in the municipalities so that they would have more revenue and they wouldn't have the great need they still have to get cost-sharing from the provincial government.

Well, what has he done? Since they have been in government, since 1976, there is absolutely no indication that any of the hurdles towards development of municipalities have been removed or that the process is easier for development. Essentially that bears on the whole question of revenue. In terms of the new revenue-sharing process, he's in the position now.... He hasn't addressed the very problem that he identified several years ago: that if you could make things run more slowly in municipalities, then there would be more revenue and we wouldn't be dealing with a bill like this. He has completely ignored that; it's something that doesn't interest him any more. Yet he had a great deal to say about it.

Mr. Speaker, I can't support this, on the basis of all of the reasons I gave — particularly that there is no factual information from the minister which helps us to make that decision.

MS. SANFORD: I wanted to take part in this debate, too, because the five municipal councils in the constituency of Comox are very, very unhappy at this moment with the Minister of Municipal Affairs and this particular piece of legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not true.

MS. SANFORD: Not true, says the minister.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We're good friends.

MS. SANFORD: Well, I would like to assure the minister that I spoke to the municipalities yesterday...

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I was there the day before.

MS. SANFORD: ...and they indicated to me that they are very dissatisfied with this kind of revenue-sharing and the kind of decreases they're going to be facing next year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't just phone. I went there.

MS. SANFORD: Interesting, Mr. Speaker.

What has happened is that, compared to last year, each one of the five municipalities within that constituency is facing a significant decrease in the amount of money they will receive this year from the provincial government. That does not make them very happy. They are expected to provide the same level of service. If they are going to provide that same level of service, the only thing they can do is to raise municipal taxes.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, no. That's NDP thinking: raise taxes.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, somehow they are magically going to come up with the difference in what they received last year compared to what they are going to receive this year. Take into account that there are going to be additional increases in costs as well. This money is somehow magically going to appear and is not going to come out of the taxpayers of the constituency of Comox. I don't know where the minister thinks this money is going to magically appear from. One of the administrators told me yesterday that it represents a 30 percent increase in taxes in the area where he lives.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Not true.

MS. SANFORD: This happens to be the administrator who handles the budget for that particular municipality. The minister keeps saying it's not true. We have the minister saying that this is going to be an increase over last year, but it represents a significant decrease to each one of these municipalities. Let me give you some examples, Mr. Speaker. Last year the city of Courtenay received $514,705 through revenue-sharing. Do you know what they are going to receive this year? I'll repeat it; the minister wants to take these numbers down. City of Courtenay, $514,705; this year they will receive $380,355, a decrease of 26 percent. These are figures I received yesterday from the Courtenay administrators. They are the people who prepare the budget for the city of Courtenay.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What was that last figure?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The minister will have an opportunity to reply when he closes the debate on the bill. Interruptions are out of order.

[ Page 7317 ]

MS. SANFORD: He likes to interrupt, but I don't think he likes to hear what we have to say over on this side of the House. He does not want the people to know that this revenue-sharing formula that he's come up with in this piece of legislation is bad news for the people of British Columbia. It means they will pay more, just as most of the announcements that have come out of this government over the last year mean that the people of the province are going to pay more out of their pockets to this government.

This is another way the government is trying to balance its budget and, in the eyes of the public, trying to appear that it manages the finances well. But at the same time, every single licence fee and bill that the people face has been raised, whether it's Hydro, ICBC, medicare premiums, hospitalization or ambulance — you name it, Mr. Speaker. This is another way, through this piece of legislation, that the government is going to be taking money out of the taxpayers' pockets without directly raising either the sales tax or the income tax. They'll go around the province bragging that they brought in a balanced budget and that they didn't raise those particular taxes. But every time the government makes an announcement concerning fees, we find that licences have doubled, fees have increased and user-charges have increased, sometimes as much as 300 percent.

Another example: the city of Courtenay, $514,705 last year, and this year — for the benefit of the minister — it is $380,355, a decrease of $134,350 or 26 percent. This is another example of the kind of confidence this government has in the local level. Yesterday we debated legislation which showed that there was no confidence in school boards, and today the minister is saying that these municipalities don't know what on earth they are talking about.

Comox is going to receive a decrease of $94,951.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Wrong again.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, none of these administrators knows what they're talking about.

MRS. WALLACE: They're keeping a double set of books.

MS. SANFORD: Yes, there must be some kind of financial juggling going on — more financial juggling. We've seen a lot of shuffling of money around by this government in this last budget they brought down. I assume that all these administrators and treasurers have no idea what they're talking about. He's already told me that the administrator of the city of Courtenay doesn't know what he's talking about and that the treasurer up there is all wrong; he does not know what on earth he's saying. I think this is the attitude of this government. They have no confidence in locally elected people, locally hired people.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're purposely misrepresenting.

MS. SANFORD: He chatters the whole time. Listen to him.

I think, probably, that they have this attitude about all locally elected people, whether they're at the school board level, the regional board level or the municipal council level. They certainly feel the same way, I'm sure, about the nonprofit societies, because they've eliminated most of those in my constituency through their actions centralizing authority here in Victoria whether it's through the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) or the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I fear today for the municipal councillors and for the administrators of these various municipal councils. I think the minister is going to be eliminating them in the next piece of legislation he brings in, because he says that all the figures they have provided me with are wrong and that they don't know what they're talking about. Only the Minister of Municipal Affairs knows the facts.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You're twisting it.

MS. SANFORD: I am not twisting it. I'm bringing you the figures I received yesterday from the administrators.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No one can prove them.

MS. SANFORD: Oh, he's going to prove that the administrator is wrong. The next step is to eliminate the administrators.

Do you want to look at Cumberland? Cumberland is going to have a reduction of $13,000 next year. It's a very small community. The $13,000 is money that the municipality of Cumberland will find very difficult to eliminate from its budget. It needs every penny to operate that small community up there. Parksville has an $80,938 reduction this year over last year, under the minister's grand new formula for revenue-sharing. He is very helpful to the communities of this province. Qualicum has a reduction of $75,000 this year over last year.

In places like Parksville, where they are attempting to expand services.... As a matter of fact, this year Parksville will have, for the first time, the responsibility for its policing costs. It has to take that on. It has to cope with the kind of revenue-sharing this minister is providing for them, with a reduction of $80,938 this year over last year. How are these municipalities going to cope? The only thing they can do is reduce services or, in order to maintain the services at last year's level, significantly increase the taxes. That's exactly what this government is hoping the municipalities will do. Either cut the services or increase the taxes, and if they increase the taxes, then the government will surely blame the municipalities for the kind of increases they're going to be imposing, and say: "Oh, look at us. We are managing. We are balancing our budget. Now surely the municipalities can do that" — even though we've cut them back and the increase in costs is skyrocketing every year for the delivery of services in communities.

So this is the grand, new, revenue-sharing formula. It is typical of the shuffling around of money that has been taking place. We saw recently in the budget that the Ministry of Labour's budget was cut in half; a number of other budgets were also cut, in order to develop a new Employment Development Fund. They are so very clever, shuffling that money back and forth, saying: "Aren't we marvellous. We have now brought in a program that is going to create employment." The minister is saying in this bill: "Aren't I marvellous with this new revenue-sharing formula. I can now say to the municipalities: We're having this increase over last year." That is what he said in his press release.

When it comes right down to it, this is what it means: decreases in every municipality within my constituency.

[ Page 7318 ]

They are not very happy about it. I am going to reiterate that. The minister indicated to me that they were indeed happy about what was happening but I can assure him that, as of yesterday afternoon, those municipalities were not very happy about what is happening in terms of this new revenue sharing formula. But again, the government will be able to blame the municipalities for increases in taxes: "They are irresponsible. They don't know how to administer money. Only we do." As a result, I am sure the government will bring in yet more legislation to centralize authority in Victoria and to do away with the responsibilities, whether it be at school board level or at municipal council level.

It is interesting. They have lots of money for northeast coal, for stadiums and B.C. Place and all these other projects, but they don't have money for hospitals or schools or municipalities. Municipalities will have to face this kind of decrease over last year, and this in spite of the fact that municipalities, particularly on Vancouver Island, are growing at a tremendous rate. In Qualicum alone, between 1976 and 1981 there was a 65 percent increase in growth; the place is just exploding. Yet the amount of money that Qualicum is going to get through this new revenue-sharing formula, in spite of that 65 percent increase in growth in the area, is going to drop. It will be $75,000 less under this new formula.

I am concerned about the provisions, now that the sewerage facilities legislation will be eliminated with the passage of this bill. What does this mean in terms of providing the same formula, the same kind of funding and assurance that municipalities had before with respect to sewer construction? The regional district of Comox-Strathcona has been involved in a controversial debate for the last several years about the provision of sewerage facilities and sewage treatment facilities within the regional district of Comox-Strathcona, which serves the Courtenay, Comox and Cumberland areas. I would like the minister to assure me today that the passage of this legislation will not affect in any way, shape or form the funding that the regional district of Comox-Strathcona would have received if this legislation had not gone through; that there will be no reduction in the sharing of the costs of construction of those sewerage facilities.

The people within the regional district of Comox-Strathcona have been quite willing to support a higher level of treatment and quite willing to pay a higher mill rate in order to ensure that we have a clean environment within the regional district of Comox-Strathcona. Initially, the regional district proposed a primary treatment — in fact, it was less than primary — for that area. Following public hearings and a huge outcry in the area, the regional district decided it would go for secondary treatment. As a matter of fact, it was as a result of the pollution control board's decision that they decided secondary treatment would in fact be necessary. The people of the area support the concept of secondary treatment, even though they recognize that this would cost them more money. But they also know that there was in place the Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act, which ensured that the provincial government picked up 75 percent of the capital costs above a 2.5 mill rate set for the area, and they were quite prepared — in fact, quite happy — that secondary treatment was going to be provided so that they would have clean water and a clean environment as a result of this additional treatment. With the passage of this legislation, what assurance is there that those municipalities that are already hard-pressed, because they've had the reductions that I've outlined, are not going to have to pay even more than they originally expected to pay under the old legislation, which had a set formula to ensure that the provincial government assisted in paying for sewage facilities and treatment? Can the minister assure me today that that formula will continue to apply and that there will be no question about accepting responsibility for that kind of cost-sharing for the new sewage treatment plant to go into the Comox-Strathcona Regional District?

There's another point that I would like to raise with the minister, and this relates to his press release. I hope the minister will take note of the figures that I'm going to give him at this point. In his press release dated April 13, the minister said that there was a $21 million increase in revenue sharing for 1982. Right? But he points out that the amount of money that's going to be available is $235 million — revenue sharing for this coming year. Right? But when we look at the estimates of what the minister said he was going to provide last year through this revenue-sharing formula, the figure is $252 million. The 1981-82 estimates originally provided to this Legislature were $252 million.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's all the grants, not only revenue- sharing.

MS. SANFORD: That's all the grants. All right. But that means you must have spent $214 million last year.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Two hundred and fifty two.

MS. SANFORD: That $252 million was actually spent. All right. So the revenue-sharing, this $21 million.... Will that mean that the $252 million that was provided will be increased by $21 million? Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry that we're trying to get this clear across the floor. Last year the estimate for these revenue-sharing grants was $252 million, but this year it's only $235 million. So what we're facing is a general decrease, even though the minister says that there's a $21 million increase.

It's no wonder that, with that kind of figuring, we're seeing the reductions that we're seeing in the constituency of Comox: $134,000 for Courtenay, $94,000 for Comox, $13,000 for Cumberland, $80,000 for Parksville and $75,000 for Qualicum. It's no wonder, because the actual projections for next year are less than they were for last year, even though the minister is talking about an increase. The increase is really a decrease. Ask the municipalities within the constituency of Comox.

This is a decrease over last year, but I'm sure that they're going to be able to blame the municipalities for the increases in taxes and the reductions in service. They will. Oh, yes, I can see that the minister is quite prepared to go out onto the hustings and say those municipalities are irresponsible: they are raising taxes; they are reducing services. He'll be prepared to do that.

The minister suggests the cost of construction for sewerage facilities is not going to increase as fast as the cost of providing human resources services; in other words, welfare costs. What a condemnation of the economic forecasts this government has for British Columbia! We have well over 200,000 people looking for work. Those people whose UIC benefits are running out have nowhere else to go. They have to turn to Human Resources in order to get assistance, so those costs no doubt will be going up.

[ Page 7319 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't single parents deserve an increase in their welfare rates?

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, single parents certainly do deserve an increase in their welfare rates. The people of British Columbia who are looking for work also deserve to have a job in this province, and this government is not providing it.

The minister is saying that so many people are going to be out of work, so many people are going to run out of UIC benefits, that they are going to have to turn to welfare; and as a result the welfare costs are going to increase at a greater rate than construction costs for sewerage facilities. We all know how rapidly construction costs are going up. I think the minister recognizes that this shuffling around of money within the budget is not going to solve the unemployment problems. It's going to mean that we are going to have more and more people on Human Resources assistance. That's why he is saying that the welfare costs are going to go up at a greater rate.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill represents yet another money grab, another attempt to foist onto the municipalities the responsibility and the blame for raising taxes. It means a significant reduction in each of the communities in the constituency of Comox. It's bad legislation, and I'll oppose it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, we wait and wait for one member on the government side to get up and defend the actions of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They're too afraid. They're scared out of their wits, because they have to go home; they have to go home to a municipality or city which has been taken to the cleaners by this minister.

The minister was talking about increased welfare rates speculative talk — and that's what he's going to bring up in closing the debate. He's going to indicate that the municipalities are going to be so much better off, by virtue of the fact that the revenue-sharing has been changed; and because there is going to be an increased welfare load, the municipalities aren't as badly off as they're saying they are. It occurs to me that there has been unanimity in this province. Every region, area, city, municipality, village, or whatever has come to the same conclusion: they are being given short shrift and are being taken to the cleaners for a large sum of money.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the member for Victoria in discussing this bill said that there's a total difference of about $17 million, taking everything into account. In other words, in its revenue-sharing program the government is going to be providing $17 million less to the municipalities, etc.

However, there are other areas. I am sure that my colleague, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, is going to come to some conclusions when he discusses this bill, but I am very suspicious of section 8. That is the whole question of retroactivity again. We have Section 1 in this bill being retroactive — not for a month, not for two months, not for nine months — to April 1, 1980. That is two years and a month. That is a long period of retroactivity. I don't know what the grandfather is in this situation, but the grandfather has a rather long beard. Maybe there was a goof-up back then and they are trying to cover up their goof-up. I can say also that they are trying to circumvent paying some of the bills that they would normally pay. Don't forget that what Bill 15 does is rescind a lot of revenue-sharing legislation. I don't know where it is going to be. Could it be in transmission lines, sewage, somewhere under the Municipal Act? I suggest that this performance is only part of a pattern that this government has shown for the last few years and particularly for the last few months since we've been burdened with tougher times.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

That government wants desperately to hang onto every shred of power they possibly can. Believe me, they do. They are the most dictatorial group that has ever governed this province. Hang onto the power, but dump the responsibility for raising the money elsewhere. We heard in the budget speech this year that there would be no increase in taxes. They have increased everything they could possibly increase. I draw to your attention an area as obscure as the $3 million robbery for public health inspections, dumped on to the local people to pick up the tab.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that it is a case of dumping all the responsibilities elsewhere on every other jurisdiction, whether it be school board, municipal government or any area outside their own domain. That is where they dump the responsibility for raising money, but they hang onto that power. That centralist government that has municipalities in this province so twitchy is a first. We've never seen municipalities, cities and villages feeling the way they do about a government up until now. We have another piece of proposed legislation that that minister has to put forward. So far it is languishing on the order paper and it has been there for some long time. In one form or another it has been there for quite a long time, but in its present form it has been there since last December. That has them twitchy, and then, just to pour salt in the wounds, he comes up with a revenue-sharing formula. What does it do? We know it is pilfering $17 million from local governments. So local governments are going to have to raise that, and then they'll have to win a popularity contest this fall or next fall, depending on when their elections come up. The minister knows. He doesn't care. They're going to be blamed.

The average citizen of village, city and municipality doesn't have a clue what goes on in this chamber. What happens here is almost what happens in a Masonic lodge, for heaven's sake. The only time I ever see anything reported is if it's directly scandalous, or if it's something that happens when people walk by. A lot of things are going on in this particular chamber, have been going on in here for the last number of days, which are very important. The minister knows full well that out there the citizens of Kamloops are not going to blame their member or this government. They're going to blame their own municipal council. And the citizens in New Westminster are exactly the same.

What's happening to the citizens of New Westminster, my little constituency, that gem in all of B.C.? I'll tell you what's happening to them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's about time you did something for your constituents.

MR. COCKE: I'm glad the minister brought that up. He says it's about time I did something for them. I built the Royal Columbian Hospital. The Social Credit government put up a bunch of little.... It was designed, it was built and it came in $3 million under budget. Can you say anything like that, Mr. Minister? Not on your life.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I hope you didn't design it.

[ Page 7320 ]

MR. COCKE: No, of course I didn't design it. Did you design anything? You have designed the destruction of the health system in this province. You have created more chaos....

DEPUTY. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, Bill 15 is currently under debate.

MR. COCKE: The minister wanted to get into a conversation with me, Mr. Speaker. Anyway, we'll be talking to that minister in due course. It will be going on and on.Nobody in this province, with the exception of that Minister of Health, is as unpopular as the Minister of Municipal Affairs. They're two of a kind — peas in a pod.

What has that minister, with this bill, done to the city of New Westminster? In 1981, their revenue-sharing grant was $2,745,926, and their welfare costs to the city were $572,072. That meant the city got a net of $2.174 million in terms of revenue sharing. What happens in 1982 under the provisions of this marvellous piece of legislation that the minister wants us to vote for? If I voted for it, I couldn't go home and face the people in New Westminster, I can tell you I that right now. So I won't be voting for it. In 1982 our grant will be $1.817 million. That's a fairly significant reduction. However, they're picking up the welfare costs for the last nine months of the year. The one thing we've got to remember is that they're not picking them up for the first three months, which is $144,600 that we've already paid. That's not retroactive; that's the one thing about this bill that isn't retroactive. No, they're not going to go back and pick up the welfare costs from December 31 to April 1. Anything they can get out of will be retroactive, but anything that's a charge, no way will it be retroactive.

That totals $1.672 million, so we have a net loss in New Westminster of $501,000 — in a little city like that. It's a city a that really doesn't get very much from this government. For example, it's a city that up until now, in any event, has done all of its own highways. We carry on our streets all the citizens of Mr. Speaker's riding who happen to come through our city, and we pay the whole shot. It's the same thing with Coquitlam people, Surrey people and Burnaby people, who all use our streets with gay abandon. I understand they're going to be using another set of our streets very soon.

We carry the load, and that minister has the audacity to walk into the House and ask me to vote for a bill that's going to cost our municipality, our city, $501,000 net — and Lord alone knows what it is going to cost in the future. He's going to jump up and he's going to say: "Well, welfare costs are going to increase."

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. COCKE: Because we've got the worst government in the history of this province. That's why they're going to increase. Does he not understand that the province has done nothing to alleviate the problems in our economy? They've been running around, cutting here, taxing there, but they've the done nothing definitively.

The Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), who is just walking out right now, has even cut back on reforestation. It's a darned shame, Mr. Speaker. It's a very grave shame that we have to stand up here and fight for every municipality in the province and the members of the government who are the supporters of the government are not getting up and fighting for their own areas.

Will the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) get up and fight for Maple Ridge and Mission and Pitt Meadows? I want to hear it, Mr. Speaker. I want him to put his words on record. I want him to be able to go back home and say to the folks in Pitt Meadows: "Here, I fought for you." Now you are going to lose a few hundred thousand dollars. Folks in Maple Ridge, you're going to have to.... He's going to have to go to Mr. Pelton, who isn't exactly a left-winger, but he's not a very happy mayor right now, and he's going to have to say to Mr. Pelton: "Mr. Pelton, I'm afraid you're being diddled, but I had to speak on behalf of my government." Then you go out to Mission. What are you going to say out in Mission?

MR. MUSSALLEM: Show restraint.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, he believes in restraint. With he restraint that we have seen, shown by this government and some of its ministers, I don't think they believe in restraint whatsoever. I suppose if I were spending my own money, I could entertain with gay abandon — providing I had it — but don't think I should do that with the folks' money. Restraint goes right down the line, Mr. Member for Dewdney, and as far as I'm concerned, they'd better practise what they preach.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you — having researched the entire province and found no area that's coming out on top — that this bill is just another piece of legislation, another piece of government policy that puts the government's hand in our pockets and the free hand around our throat. All the power to his dictatorial government, but all of the responsibilities — or as much as possible — visited on other governments at different levels.

I'll not support this bill, Mr. Speaker, and anybody that goes has to go home to their district, to their municipality, and give an answer as to why they did. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes. I wouldn't want to be a government supporter — a supporter of a piece of legislation that's going to rob the local governments. Not on your life. Not on this day of restraint. We're asking them to restrain and then we dip into their tills. I will not support this legislation.

MRS. WALLACE: Certainly, I too rise to oppose this legislation. I have had some discussions with the local councils in my area and there is no way that I can support what this minister is proposing to do to local governments. When we heard the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, we heard about the real gift that this government was going to give to the larger municipalities by relieving them of the costs of welfare. That was welcomed by the mayors and the councils — for a day or who — until they discovered what it really meant. It meant that while they were having some assistance with welfare payments over a two-year period, there was an immediate reduction in the amount of revenue that the government was prepared to share with them. That was not mentioned in the budget, Mr. Speaker. In fact, what the budget said was that revenue-sharing was going to be broadened. Well, it was broadened, all right, by including in the same fund the sewage assistance and the underground transmission, but that it didn't say was that there was going to be less money for all of those items. Certainly the minister has indicated that some local councils and some administrators don't know or have wrong figures as to what they are going to be getting. I could suspect that if that's the case, he must be keeping a second set of books, because surely what the people that are

[ Page 7321 ]

active in the local governments are telling us about are figures that have been provided by that ministry.

I was surprised to find this in the local Duncan paper — well, not really surprised, Mr. Speaker, but shocked: "Duncan Finances Take Revenue Kick. Duncan property owners likely face higher taxes this year because of a change in provincial resource revenue-sharing that has reduced city income by $100,000. Duncan Mayor Mike Coleman said the change, equal to four mills, 'knocked the pins out from under Duncan's financial structure.'" That's what this minister's great gift to local governments is doing — knocking the pins out from under the financial structure of a local council of a little city like Duncan. "The program's new financial formula will reduce our 1982 grant income from $400,000 to $300,000...." I want you to get that in perspective with the total budget, Mr. Speaker, that $100,000. One hundred thousand doesn't sound like very many dollars down here in this arena where we talk in terms of billions of dollars. It doesn't sound like very much, but when you're talking about a $100,000 reduction in terms of a $400,000 budget, you're talking about a quarter of that entire budget, and that's what's facing the city of Duncan. "The program's new financial formula will reduce our 1982 grant income from $400,000 to $300,000 and make council's job that much harder by placing this burden back onto property taxes."

You know, there is supposed to be some magic place where governments can get this money, Mr. Speaker. This provincial government cuts back the grants that they give them and tells them: "Don't raise taxes." How are they going to provide even the existing services in Duncan if a quarter of their budget has been removed, a quarter of their funding? It's an impossibility, Mr. Speaker. You cannot continue to keep your streets and sidewalks in shape; you cannot continue to provide your various library facility contributions, your recreational facilities, your educational facilities. And they're not that extravagant. They're things that every citizen of British Columbia should have available to him. Yet this government has cut back on Duncan city revenue by $100,000 — a quarter of its income.

Coquitlam Mayor Jim Tonn — and we've heard his name before, Mr. Speaker — is the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities. As president he has seen fit to write to other councils around the province. He wrote to Duncan city council, and he said in that letter: "The provincial government has skimmed over $26 million from its municipalities, reduced the amount of unconditional grants from $162 million last year to $99 million in 1982, and reduced direct unconditional grants to almost all municipalities by about 40 percent."

Tonn accused the government of welshing on commitments to local government to distribute 80 percent of revenue-sharing funds available for unconditional distribution. That was a guarantee. That was a promise made, and now that's down the tube, under the guise of being a broadening and an improvement. That is the part that really bothers me. It is bad enough that this government has gotten itself into such a financial bind that it has to reduce its grants to municipal governments, but when it reduces those payments under a guise of giving them more money, that is the part that bothers me. That is sly and conniving and that bothers me. The letter goes on:

"Municipalities, to make up the losses, will either have to increase their taxes on property or reduce their services to the taxpayer. This 1982 grant program is a classic example of this government's ability to juggle figures to shunt attention away from their own financial inadequacies" — this is not me as a member of the opposition talking; this is not even the mayor of Duncan speaking; this is the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities — "and to load the blame onto local government and the cost onto the taxpayer."

The Duncan council decided at their meeting that they would support the growing protest over the revenue-sharing program. So they should, when they have had one-quarter of their revenue cut by this government.

North Cowichan municipality is a much larger financial operation than Duncan city and they tell me — again, this is from the administrator of the North Cowichan council, who has been provided with figures by this government — that there will be an approximate $420,000 reduction to North Cowichan. I know the minister is going to say: "Well, yes, but there is the welfare cost." That is right. Last year the welfare cost borne by the local government there was $205,000, so if you subtract that from the $420,000, that is a $215,000 cut. Do you know what this government is trying to tell North Cowichan this year? They are trying to tell them that they have already paid $63,000. The government is trying to tell them that in addition to that, welfare costs this year are going to amount to $364,000 or a total of $427,000, as compared to S205,000 last year. I know things are bad but I cannot believe that welfare costs in North Cowichan are going to more than double from last year to this year. Yet those are the kind of figures that that ministry is providing to North Cowichan.

That is the kind of picture they are trying to paint. That is the kind of sly, conniving information that they are providing in an attempt to indicate that they are really such good fellows, that they are really doing so much for North Cowichan. Those are the figures they are talking about. They are trying to convince the North Cowichan council that they are going to make payments for welfare costs on their behalf of way more than double the total cost for welfare last year.

Lake Cowichan village is a small village that didn't have to pick up its welfare cost. We've heard a lot about this small village in this House because of the very severe economic problems facing that area — a strictly forest-based town with mill closures. Most of the people there are getting very close to the point of running out of unemployment insurance benefits. It's a sad sight, indeed, from an economic point of view. What is this revenue-sharing going to do to them? It's going to increase their costs because of a cutback by this government of $40,000 in a small depressed area like Lake Cowichan. That's what this government is doing under this piece of legislation.

That's the direction they're taking, Mr. Speaker. Those are the figures and that's why every municipal council around this province is up in arms over what this government is doing. They recognize that they're being used in this government's financial juggling of figures. This government is attempting to blame local politicians and local governments because their taxes are going to have to go up. In reality, Mr. Speaker, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of this government and the shoulders of this minister for bringing in the kind of legislation that is doing nothing but detracting from and destroying the local scene. It was deliberately done, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure, in an attempt to take away the public pressure that is on this government because of its inadequate policies, its lack of foresight and its inability to manage, and in an attempt to point the finger at the local level. Certainly

[ Page 7322 ]

the net result is to put more cost on the already overburdened local taxpayer.

It puts local councils in a horrendous position. They are committed to certain programs that they have undertaken. Those things are underway and now the whole funding base is destroyed. That's very bad. That's very unfair. But even worse is to make those cuts under a guise and a pretence of broadening and improving and giving more. That cannot be tolerated in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BRUMMET: I thought I'd like to say a few things in this debate on this bill to try to perhaps look a little more realistically at what we're talking about. We're basically talking about a restraint program. I just listened to the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace), who said that the policies of this government are to put more costs on the already overburdened taxpayers. That is exactly what the restraint program is trying to avoid. To say that if we put the costs where they are evident — and let's bury them in provincial government management — that somehow or other we are helping the taxpayers of this province, I would have to say, Mr. Speaker, is a ridiculous conclusion.

I think it's very clear from the speakers on the opposition side that they are against any and all restraint in government spending. They have made that clear in speech after speech, because you cannot exercise restraint in government spending if you just keep spending as much as anybody asks for. So let's have it clearly on the record that the opposition is against any form of government restraint. If we added up all of the requests that they have made in their speeches, I would suspect that the provincial government this year would have had the expenditure part go up over 25 percent. And guess what would have happened then? They would have said: "That horrible free-spending government." Yet request after request keeps saying "spend, spend, spend." They refuse to recognize that there is the other side to money management.

I think the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) made some statement about the government spending — sorry, I forget his exact quotation — and he seemed to be of the view that we should just go on spending indefinitely and not concern ourselves with where the money comes from. I find it amusing to find these great defenders of the taxpayers at the same time saying: "Let's keep spending more, more and more." That's what they stand for now. That's what they proved when they were in office. They can manage money, but they can manage only the expenditure side. They don't seem to be able to consider that there are two sides: the income side plus the outgo side. They're certainly good at the outgo side. We found that out when they were in government.

A lot has been said about the municipal councils, mayors and representatives from all over who are very upset with any cutbacks they have to put into effect because of the restraint program. It would be irresponsible of them not to fight for all the money they can get for their municipalities and for the people in their ridings. That is why they speak up. The first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), particularly, likes to put everything in terms of partisan politics. Every mayor and every representative of a municipality was put in terms of being either Socred or NDP. Most of the people who run the municipal councils and the school boards in this province are not partisan; they represent their particular constituents regardless of what government is in office. The only mayor I know of in this province who can't speak freely is the mayor of Vancouver, because he is committed to being against anything Socred and for everything NDP. The rest of the mayors in this province speak for themselves and for their people. Just because they vote one way or the other in a provincial election does not preclude them from speaking for their constituents at that time. I would hate to think we will ever reach the point where the municipal councils in this province are as partisan as we are at this level. I would like to think they will always continue to represent their best thinking, regardless of partisan views.

As I've said, the NDP have very clearly come out against all restraint. Again, a lot of these cuts that we're talking about would not be necessary if we accepted the principle that it is not necessary for huge wages increases to take top priority in any budgeting. Wages make up the highest proportion of most budgets. The opposition continues to try to delude the people into thinking this is a strictly partisan issue; it's a strictly political matter that really has nothing to do with the economy. The economy is down, we are in an economic slump, yet they are trying to kid people out there into thinking it's strictly political. In doing so, they say: "Well, all you've got to do is keep your numbers up, keep your pressure up, and political pressure will have its way. There will be a great deal more government spending."

If that actually happens, they're starting this province down the same road to ruination that the federal government has put Canada on. It has spent well beyond the revenues generated in this country, and now one dollar out of every five is wasted on interest payments. We lived too high in good times and now we've got to pay the bill. In bad times we've got to waste one dollar out of every five before a service or a program can be instituted in this country.

The NDP have irrevocably allied themselves with the union leaders, who are saying: "We'll scratch your back if you'll scratch ours." Can you imagine what would happen in this province? Those union leaders who have a vested interest in keeping conflict going would say: "Look, it's strictly political. You stick with us. You do not have to participate in the economic downturn. Just demand everything and pressure will do it." Well, that's strictly political and it has nothing to do with economics. I think many people in the field, out in the unions, are starting to recognize that you cannot say to government: "Keep spending, because it won't cost us." It will cost them, and I think many of them are starting to think quite responsibly.

One speaker remarked that this government is only concerned with managing its budget. Well, for heaven's sake, when government manages its budget well, it manages well the money of the people of this province, and I think we shouldn't forget that. Many people have to recognize that. Government manages the budget; but it is managing the people's money. If we just say, "Let's spend; let's not worry about whether we get the funds to spend," we are going to create a disaster. I do not blame the municipal councils for fighting for whatever they can get. Many people in this province have said that government spending is out of control, and by that they mean, of course, the provincial government or the federal government. But you cannot say, on the one hand, that government spending is out of control, and on the other, "Keep giving us more and more money." It's the same taxpayers. It's a matter of where it comes from — at the local level or at the provincial level. The same people are paying the bills. When are we going to catch on to that? I think realistically we have to face the fact that you cannot keep spending more and taking in less.

[ Page 7323 ]

We've heard a lot about the megaprojects. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to go on at great length about them; only as it applies to this bill, in the sense that we've been told by members of the opposition that if we just cut out all spending on the megaprojects, we would then be able to give all the money to the municipalities, hospitals and schools. They neglect to mention where that money would come from. They talk about being the great defenders of the working people that we want jobs.

Let's take northeast coal just as an example. Suppose they had their way and not another dime of government money went into northeast coal. That would be, according to them, terrific. We would have, over a period of a couple of years or so, $300 million more to spend on the people of this province and that much less to put into economic development. Suppose they had their way. What we would end up with is that Teck and Denison, who are committed to spending something like $500 million and $245 million respectively, would go by the wayside.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. I wonder if we couldn't confine our remarks a little more to the specifics of the bill before us. We are in second reading on Bill 15. I appreciate that the member is relating his remarks generally, but I would appreciate it if he could bring the scope of debate a little more closely to the actual bill we are presently debating.

MR. BRUMMET: Right, Mr. Speaker. The point I was trying to illustrate is that there is a necessity for the restraint and less money being given out by the provincial government, even if we have to put money into projects that will generate jobs, revenue and further economic development. Without economic development we are going to be the losers in a very short time. As I mentioned, you could take any of the megaprojects and suppose the NDP had its way and they were all cancelled so the municipalities would get more money this year. We would also have to pay out a lot more money for unemployment insurance and welfare, because those projects create jobs. All of the related industries also create jobs.

MR. COCKE: You have to cut back on Fort St. John and Fort Nelson, and that is precisely what he's doing.

MR. BRUMMET: No. You see, you can't have a restraint program and not cut back anywhere....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Tell that to Hyndman.

MR. BRUMMET: Now that can only happen under socialist economic management.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The member for North Peace River has the floor. All members will have an opportunity to take part in the debate.

MR. BRUMMET: We have to continue our expenditures on programs that are going to provide jobs, that are going to encourage a lot of private investment. We cannot simply condemn every investment in this province, as the NDP would, which then eliminates all additional money that comes in, and support every cost program and expect to survive somehow or other. They have condemned all the projects: northeast coal, B.C. Place and Expo 86. We do have to plan for our future. Without economic development we're on the road to ruin. It's easy enough for them to say: "Well, if you're in favour of restraint, that's great, but defend your own municipality and defend every expenditure program in this province." I have full faith in the municipal councils in this province, that they can manage better, that they can bite the bullet and that they will create the development necessary to keep this province going. As I said earlier, I fully recognize their needs and their responsibility to say: "We need more, and we don't want to cut back." While I recognize that, I cannot recognize the idea that every request for spending that comes in should be met. At the same time as we're saying "let's be nice to the taxpayers," taxpayers are going to pay it one way or another. I think it's time we quit kidding people. One way or another the taxpayers of this province are going — pay the bill. If we restrict economic development, they will pay for it in lost jobs and a lower lifestyle. If we simply give programs, they will pay for it in interest down the line. The taxpayers of this province pay the bill. I think it's time we quit kidding them by saying: "Look, we're not going to involve the taxpayers; let the government do it." The government is the taxpayers of this province. If we hope to survive, we're going to have to exercise restraint and get everybody involved.

MR. KING: I don't know where the member who just took his seat lives. It sounds like Alice in Wonderland. Mr. Speaker, what we're debating is a bill which removes from municipalities throughout the province revenue which they have enjoyed and have been guaranteed over the past number of years. We're not debating whether or not they should have more; we're debating a bill which provides for pretty massive cuts in government spending to those municipalities. The member's comments, when he talks about the need for restraint, would have more credibility if his colleagues in cabinet did not indulge themselves in Roman orgies of profligate spending for their own luxurious surroundings at public expense.

When we see cabinet members spending $37.50 of the taxpayers' money for bottles of wine with those with whom are dining, and when we see them paying out $400-plus a night for ministerial suites in Quebec City and other places across the nation, it ill behooves that member to counsel the municipalities of this province to show restraint. Where is the example being set by this government? We see them travelling first class. We see them entertaining each other and their friends at public expense in the most luxurious of surroundings, in the most profligate, arrogant way, smacking of political patronage, smacking of disdain for the taxpayers' pocketbook in this province. And they have the gall, Mr. Speaker, to come in here and counsel, through this bill, restraint on the municipalities? My God, what crass gall, what incredible brass! Never in the history of this province have we seen a government with such contempt and disdain for taxpayers' money. We have the minister for MASH descending on northeast coal with seven helicopters, packing his friends and hacks at public expense, and now imposing restraints and cutbacks on municipalities. We have the luxurious cabinet tour to Schooner Cove and the East Kootenays at public expense and they bring in this restraint. My gosh, the taxpayers are not going to accept the proposition that we should do as the government says, not as they themselves live.

[ Page 7324 ]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

It was only last year — speaking of restraint, as they allege it is contained in this bill — that the opposition in this Legislature moved cuts in ministerial expenses for their offices, travel and a variety of other non-productive things. Cuts of $82 million saved in last year's budget, trimmed from the fat and luxury of ministerial accounts, would have gone a long way toward balancing the books and continuing the system of statutory grants to the communities throughout the province.

They are leaving the House. They don't like to hear home truths, my friends. I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that after the next election there won't be this many left. They will be more lonely than they are now. There will be fewer of them, because the people are not going to stand this kind of abuse.

I want to talk specifically about the effects of this bill upon the communities in my riding. I want to spell out for the minister precisely what it means in financial terms to those communities. In the city of Revelstoke we have a situation where the province assumes the cost of social assistance, which cost that city $164,000 over the last nine months. Through the revenue-sharing cutbacks, they lose $350,000, an increase that the taxpayers of that community are going to have to make up of somewhere around 15 mills. That community is already close to 50 mills in taxation, which is the statutory limit. The net loss to that community through this bill represents $186,000. This is a net reduction, taking away the saving that is realized from social assistance assumption by the government.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It will vary from year to year.

MR. KING: The minister says it will vary from year to year. Neither the communities nor the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia trust this government to take unto themselves the political power to vary and change the grant formula every year. They don't trust him at all, and I don't blame them for not trusting him.

In Revelstoke's circumstances they are fairly fortunate. They have an offset from an aberration that occurs this year. We have a very large camp which is the main support camp for the construction of the Revelstoke dam. Because we pick up that man-camp as a tax base, we offset some of the lost revenue from the cuts in revenue- sharing. But that camp is only there until the completion of the dam, which is slated for 1983. From that point on, Mr. Speaker, that community is looking at a major reduction in revenue, which they have been guaranteed over the years by not only this government but the previous NDP government. That is an unfair cut and one that's going to be extremely difficult for the taxpayers of that community to bear. So that's what the minister's bill means: a reduction of $186,000 to the city of Revelstoke.

What do we have in Salmon Arm? Reductions in the sewage-sharing grant really jeopardize that community and the regional district, as a matter of fact, which are facing very high costs of installing sewage facilities throughout the area. It looks like the statutory grants in 1981 for that community were around $804,000. Under the minister's new formula in this bill we have a reduction to $482,000; that is a net reduction to Salmon Arm of some $322,000. Mr. Speaker, I haven't got the figures for the saving they realize through the government's assuming social assistance costs, but I want to tell you that in no way does it approach $322,000. So it's another net loss to that community and the imposition of an additional tax burden on the already heavily saddled taxpayers in that particular community.

Let's have a look at Armstrong, Mr. Speaker. It's a small community of under 2,500 taxpayers. There is absolutely no saving by the province's assuming social assistance costs. They didn't pay them to begin with; they're under a population of 2,500 people. Mr. Speaker, Social Credit giveth with one hand and taketh away with both hands. That's what we have in this con game that's going on, this financial con game with the municipalities of the province of British Columbia. We have a net loss in Armstrong of $37,000. For a community of under 2,500 souls, that becomes an onerous burden for the taxpayers to accommodate. Yet the minister and his government would have us believe that under this bill there is an advantage being realized by the communities throughout the province.

Mr. Speaker, these are the facts of the case, and those members who wish to stick their heads in the sand and say this is just a partisan political debate are failing to represent their own communities in responsible fashion. If they wish to make it non-partisan, Mr. Speaker, they should be up from both sides of this House, recognizing the consequences and the impact on their communities and defending those communities from the money grab this bill constitutes.

Mr. Speaker, we have the village of Chase in my riding. As a village, they never paid social assistance costs, so the provincial government's assuming that cost is no saving, no change whatsoever. Their per-capita grant is down this year; the revenue-sharing grant went up somewhat, but the bottom line is a total reduction in the statutory grants that that community enjoyed. I haven't got the precise figures, but I think last year they received $42,000 and this year they stand to receive some $17,770 — a major reduction in revenue. That's on the per-capita grant.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Add the basic grant to that and you'll see it's higher.

MR. KING: It's still a loss; it's still a net reduction from the previous year. The minister apparently won't accept that the communities can calculate the revenue that they expected last year and budgeted for this year against the cuts that are now being imposed by this government without any advance notice to the municipalities and with the unacceptable power vested in that minister to vary those amounts for the future. As I said, they don't trust this government. They see them advocating restraint on the one hand and abusing the trust that the people have placed in them by squandering public money on the most luxurious ministerial conduct imaginable. They don't trust this government to make decisions in the privacy of the cabinet chamber any longer.

The community of Enderby has a reduction in revenue sharing, including $18,000 of statutory grants, of some $133,000, as I have the information. All these communities — every one of them, without exception, in my particular constituency — suffers a major loss under the terms of this bill. I have been on the phone to all these communities and I have received one consistent request from them, that request being: "Can you not persuade the minister to have a second look at the amendments he proposes in the bill?" I felt if we could, come into the Legislature and offer precise figures to

[ Page 7325 ]

the government on the negative impact this bill has on all the communities — not only in my riding but throughout the length and breadth of the province — perhaps he might be sensitive enough to have a second look and to take this bill back for further consideration. I don't know whether there is any hope of that or not but, as it stands, this is creating a crisis in many of the communities throughout the province. It is creating a crisis in terms of ability to budget and in terms of the tax burden that the communities are now going to have to impose on the citizens of those communities. It certainly is my hope — as the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) said — that the government will look at it in a non-partisan way and recognize that these communities are hurting, that the non-political people, as the member mentioned, in those communities are saying: "Look, this is the consequence for us — major cutbacks." Under these circumstances I hope the government will be fair enough to recognize it is a burden the communities can't live with and do something about withdrawing this bill until there is further consultation on its impact with the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

Some very unusual language has been used in describing this bill. As some of my colleagues have outlined, the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities, Jim Tonn, has categorized the bill as a "crass money grab, a Social Credit juggling of the books." I don't think Jim Tonn is the type of person who would launch inflammatory attacks on any government. I think Jim Tonn's record is one of being a pretty temperate fellow. Even he was moved to describe this particular bill and its objectives as "juggling of the books and a money grab from the municipalities."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Juggling of the bucks?

MR. KING: Juggling the books, Mr. Minister. Apparently we have the irony of the Minister of Municipal Affairs making fun of my accent. I am sorry about that. I'll try to nurse the English language along more carefully. I would hope perhaps the minister might have some sensitivity to that problem.

It is a real problem, and it angers me, quite frankly, when I hear the government talk about the need for restraint while they, in their own personal conduct, are flagrantly abusing that whole concept, while they are living high off the hog at the taxpayers' expense. They travel first-class, rent expensive suites of rooms, buy the best of French wines, and entertain their friends and hacks with apparently unlimited expense accounts and then counsel restraint on the working people, the productive people of this province — those who produce the wealth — and on the communities which are required to deliver all those services that make life palatable for the people of B.C. It has to be the epitome of hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, and as a government they are going to be called to account for this kind of crass, blatant, deceitful treatment of the municipalities and the people of the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, it's been suggested that we, as an opposition, oppose development. Well, that's nonsense. Everyone knows we have to have development to provide jobs. But what kind of mental gymnastics would say that the only industrial activity that creates jobs is the big megaprojects like northeast coal and the grand projects in the city of Vancouver? There are jobs at stake here when these municipalities have to cut back on their expenses and throw people out of work and when they have to cut back on basic services that the people have a right to expect. I would say that in the aggregate there are probably more municipal jobs lost through contracts for sewage improvement that should be undertaken than will ever be created by northeast coal. There are probably more jobs lost directly through this bill than northeast coal will ever generate. We're talking about thousands of jobs. Mr. Speaker, the communities now can't afford to undertake the sewage treatment plants, the trunk lines and all of those expensive contracts that should be undertaken at this time before interest climbs higher. I find it an unacceptable anomaly that while this kind of restraint is being imposed on the municipalities, we had in the province of British Columbia last year an outright grant by this government to a private development, Fairmont Hot Springs, of $800,000 for sewage treatment facilities, under the federal shared program.

What kind of mentality would starve and impose this kind of harsh restraint, this kind of harsh cutback, on municipalities with duly elected democratic governments, while at the same time handing out, hand over fist off the back of a truck, the taxpayers' dollars to private entrepreneurs to develop private luxury surroundings? What kind of mentality is that? Well, maybe some of the ministers like to go there and enjoy those luxurious surroundings and enjoy some of the expensive wine that comes along with it, at taxpayers' expense. Maybe that's why.

I've got nothing against grants for industrial development. At times, that's prudent. But how is it that the restraint is all directed at people's programs, like health-care cutbacks, so that people needing elective surgery can't get into a hospital bed? How is it, Mr. Speaker, that we have cutbacks to the municipalities in basic services to people that, again, have a health dimension? The water system for the city of Salmon Arm has been judged partially unsafe by the public health inspector. How is it that there's no funding to assist that community in improving the water supply? How is it that while we see the starvation of public services to the communities of this province, we see largesse for friends of the Socreds? It is not only Fairmont Hot Springs, with $800,000 for a sewage facility — a forgivable loan with taxpayers' money. What about my good friend Gordon Bell? He is former Social Credit regional director. He has a first-class facility at Three Valley Gap, which I congratulate him for; he's quite an entrepreneur. But if you try to persuade me that Gordon Bell needs the $389,000 grant that this government dished out to him — a private enterprise — for sewage upgrading and for construction and expansion of his tourist facility, while at the same time you're starving the municipalities of Salmon Ann, Revelstoke, Enderby, Chase and Armstrong, I say nonsense. I say that is not good enough. I say that it is not fair and it is improper use of the taxpayers' money to dish out $189,000 of taxpayers' money to Gordon Bell of Three Valley Gap because he is a friend of this government, while at the same time the communities that represent the people whose taxes you are accumulating are starved and cut back through this kind of trashy bill.

We are not against development, but we are for consistency. We are for prudence in the handling of the taxpayers' money. Free enterprise exists, by all means, but free enterprise has a right to exist through its own stewardship, not with welfare handouts by this government or anyone else.

It is a scandal how this government has presided over the stewardship of finances in this province. Just a year ago they

[ Page 7326 ]

voted down, with their majority in this House, proposals by the opposition to cut back on their own spending by $82 million. They said: "Hey, there's no problem. We've got lots of money. We're going to spend it on our travel expenses. We're going to try to spend it on luxurious furniture. We're going to import Tory-blue brain-trust people from Ontario to try to get us re-elected. Now they come in and they say, well, okay, everyone else is going to have to restrain themselves.

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who's not a bad fellow, even though he doesn't reason too well, says that we're opposed to all restraint. He said that because we have an association with the trade union movement we're in their pocket and we oppose any restraint. Anyone who knows anything about the law — as it exists under Social Credit — anyone who has any confidence in collective bargaining believes that restraint is imposed by tough bargaining across the table in good faith. That's what a free, democratic society is based on. The World Council of Churches, the United Nations — not just the NDP, my friend — every one of those organizations measures the degree of democracy in a society by the degree of opportunity working people have to bargain for the return on their labour. What's wrong with that? It's compatible with free enterprise, is it not? They have a commodity to sell — it's their labour. In a good market they sell their labour for a high return and in a poor market condition they automatically, through the forces of the economy, have some restraint imposed on the equation.

That's apparently not good enough for Social Credit. They say: "We're going to intervene in this bargaining process and we're going to impose a political guideline on you, which in effect says we have no confidence in collective bargaining." They have no confidence, they say, in the people who have been selected to bargain for them. I say that's an abrogation of a law that they should be upholding. It's an abrogation of respect for a truly sensitive democratic society. It's highly and totally inconsistent with the luxurious living habits of the people who sit in the executive branch of this government.

I'm convinced, Mr. Speaker, that people throughout the length and breadth of this province — whether they be in organized labour, in communities, or in business, large or small — given the cruel economy of today and the uncertainty of economic conditions, would indeed be prepared to exercise restraint, provided it was equitable and fair and applied to all. But I think it's totally unconscionable, unrealistic, uneconomic and doomed to failure when a government imposes arbitrary restraint on a very small sector, which will have no overall effect on the inflationary spiral, while at the same time themselves displaying the most crass contempt for any restraint at all. Restraint won't work that way. Restraint has to be developed on some psychological consensus throughout the total community. I think everyone dearly loves British Columbia and I think — I hope — everyone dearly loves Canada, although this government would attempt to hold Ottawa the scapegoat for all of their own incompetence. I don't think that's healthy. When times get tough, I think people are prepared to exercise some restraint. I think they're prepared to be responsible. I think they're prepared to increase their productivity — provided they have some fair, equitable, strong, sensitive leadership.

How can we ask under this bill that small groups like the municipalities accept greater cutbacks in the services they give to people in their communities when at one and the same time we see headlines about the profligate, luxurious waste — the orgy of waste — by this government and their executive members. It's a scandalous inconsistency that is going to doom this government's credibility and destroy any chance for a concerted kind of approach to the difficult times that we face, regardless of one's political persuasion.

In short, this government has done more to create division, contempt for the system, animosity and polarization in the last few years than any other administration in Canada, with the possible exception of the government of Quebec. That's absolutely shameful.

Mr. Speaker, there is example after example after example, through each and every community, of patronage to friends, of the doling out of large public sums for a highly dubious return in terms of job creation, while at the same time they're prepared to start up the megaprojects, some of them based on rather dubious economic foundations, but to use the knife in unfeeling and brutal fashion on the health-care system, on the social programs, on the education system and on the municipalities of the province of British Columbia. Mr. Speaker, their crass approach has to be exposed.

It would be one thing if the minister had the courage to come forward in this bill and say: "Look, it's a time of restraint and we're going to cut back funds to you." But his government apparently lacks the courage to do that, so they come in with a bill that says: "Well, we're going to do a little double-shuffle here and we're going to hand you a bit of money" — a bit of a saving by the provincial government assuming the responsibility for social assistance costs at the local level; a saving to the community. Then, in the most sleight-of-hand fashion, Mr. Speaker, they impose major cuts in the statutory grants — the sewage facilities sharing, the water sharing, the per capita grant, the revenue-sharing — but in each and every case in my riding it results in a net and major financial loss to those communities. They do this under the guise of offering more, without the forthrightness to come forward and say: "Look, we are imposing cuts on you and here is how we are doing it, and we're doing it in an upfront way. They attempt to disguise it; they attempt to persuade the very people suffering these cutbacks that they are benefiting. That's so typical of Social Credit: give it with one hand and grab it and take it away with two. It's less than a forthright, honest approach to budgeting; it's less than a forthright, honest approach to government.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, it reminds me of another program that the government brought in — I'm not going to dwell on it except for a reference point — and that was their assistance for new home grants. They brought in a good program: a cash grant for young people getting new homes. It was just a great program if anyone could have qualified. But what they did was arbitrarily set the permissible cost of the home so low in most of the communities throughout the province that nobody qualified. There was a wonderful Social Credit program — a big cash grant to you — but the limitation on the cost of that home was so unrealistically low that they guaranteed that no one could qualify, and for the first few years, at least, that was the case in general terms.

It is that kind of sleight of hand, that kind of duplicity in terms of government policy, that is eventually going to catch up with this coalition of convenience that would rather mask and hide and back and cover and fill than be forthright and deal off the top of the deck with the taxpayers. It will indeed catch up with them and they will pay the consequences, because in my riding, as in most ridings across the province of British Columbia even now, well-known and long-term

[ Page 7327 ]

Social Crediters are leaving that party and saying: "Look, we can't take any more. We've had enough." It's not happening in isolated cases; It is happening in massive numbers. The government can continue with their head in the sand and ignore that trend at their own peril, but I suggest that after the next election occurs they will be held to account, as they properly should in a democracy, for the brutal kind of budgetary policies they have forced on the people of British Columbia. I say bring on that election day.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me in this debate. I understand the principle that we must keep ourselves aligned with the principle of this bill and not delve into the fine points of judgment which will be taken when we are in the committee stage, so I will attempt to keep to these lines specifically and speak clearly on the principle of this bill. I am rather amazed that our hon. friend from Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) would mention some obscure home assistance act, which he did not specify. I would like to know which one it is, because every one of our acts instituted in home building, the production of homes, was a great success. So I like it if at some future time he could explain to me what he's talking about, because there is no reason or judgment at all in what he is saying. I'm at a loss. One thing that we're noted for — and I speak to the principle of this bill — is our work in the building of homes; we were noted for that of all things. I am amazed that we would be assailed on the very point that was our greatest strength. I would like to say that this bill clearly is one that asks for restraint; that's all. It gives the minister some rights in this time of restraint so that we can do the job better and finer than ever before.

Mr. Speaker, as it is getting close to the time of adjournment, rather than break my address into two points I would like to move adjournment of the debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Introduction of Bills

COURT OF APPEAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Court of Appeal Act.

Bill 2 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is here and waiting his opportunity to enter the chamber. Before he arrives, I would like to deliver this decision.

On Wednesday last the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) asked leave under standing order 35 to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance relating to motion 21 on the order paper. It is stated as follows in the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, at page 368, under the heading of "General Restrictions on Motion for the Adjournment of the House," and I quote: "Members are precluded, under the rule of anticipation, from discussing, on an adjournment motion, a notice of motion or an order of the day which already stands upon the notice paper or order book."

The matter raised by the hon. member offends this restriction; accordingly, it is my opinion that the matter cannot be advanced under the provision of standing order 35.

Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is about to enter the chamber.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Education (Interim) Finance Act.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:42 p.m.

[ Page 7328 ]

Appendix

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

3 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With respect to the Guidelines for Coal Development Projects—

1. How many prospectuses have been filed with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; by which companies; on what dates; and for what coal mining prospects?

2. How many Stage I Reports have been filed; by which companies; on what dates; and for what coal mining prospects?

3. How many Stage 11 Reports have been filed; by which companies; on what dates; and for what coal mining prospects?

4. How many public hearings have been held pursuant to the Guidelines for Coal Development Projects and for which projects?

5. How many coal mining projects have reached the Stage III (licensing phase) without public hearings?

The Hon. R. H. McClelland replied as follows:

"1. Seventeen (17) prospectuses have been filed.

"2. Nineteen (19) Stage I Reports have been filed.

[ Page 7329 ]

"3. Nine (9) Stage II Reports have been filed.

' Stage II Report accepted; Stage II approval-in-principle granted by ELUC; project has entered Stage III.

† Stage II Report not accepted.

‡ Environmental impact Statement (equivalent to Stage II Report) being reviewed by Coal Guidelines Steering Committee; results to be referred to new Energy Project Review Process.

"4. No public hearings have been held pursuant to the Guidelines for Coal Development in a legal sense. Informal public meetings are held for all projects as a matter of course, sponsored either by the proponent or local interest groups (e.g., local councils, local environmental groups, local chambers of commerce, etc.). The ELUC has the power to hold legal public hearings pursuant to section 4 (a) of the Environment and Land Use Act, but has yet to find this necessary for a coal project going through the coal guidelines review process.

"Pursuant to both the Pollution Control Act and the Water Act, the Ministry of Environment may hold licence application hearings to hear objections, but has yet to find this necessary for a coal project going through the coal guidelines review process.

"5. While no projects which have been subject to the Guidelines for Coal Development have reached production, the Line Creek Coal Project will begin production in 1982. In total, five coal projects have reached Stage III, the licensing stage:

"None of these projects involved legal public hearings. However, all involved informal public meetings in the local region."

8 Mr. Skelly asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With respect to habitat damage mitigation required of B.C. Hydro under its Water Licence for the W. A. C. Bennett Dam—

1. How much money has been spent on mitigation to date and for what specific projects?

[ Page 7330 ]

2. Was a study done on the mitigation efforts and, if so, at what cost and has this study been made public?

3. What specific recommendations were made in the study?

The Hon. R. H. McClelland replied as follows:

"With reference to the above questions, no information is available.

"The questions deal with events in the early 1960s and habitat mitigation was not accounted as a separate cost item in those days."