[ Page 7491 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Act (Bill 28). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7491

Division –– 7494

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

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On the amendment to section 2 –– 7494

Mr. Barber

On section 2 as amended –– 7495

Mr. Hall

Mr. Barber

Appendix –– 7502

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

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

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION ACT

(continued)

HON. MR. CURTIS: In a very few moments yesterday afternoon I attempted to start the summary of this debate which commenced one week ago today, late in the afternoon of last Tuesday. Through the course of the several days intervening I think most members have had an opportunity to express their views with respect to this bill and their views on the decisions that the government took leading to this particular point.

In the introductory remarks last week I set out the fundamental points which were embodied in the bill. I spoke of guidelines and regulations. I indicated that it was our expectation that the majority of matters that are referred to the commissioner would be handled through the more conciliatory guideline route. Nonetheless, as was made clear yesterday by the Premier of this province, the bill has teeth if and as necessary. That, I submit, is as it should be.

I want to thank those members who focused on the principle of the bill; frankly, it must be said that some members opposite did not. They used this as an opportunity to indulge in reflections on individual members when in fact we were hoping for more useful comment on this particular initiative taken by the government.

A great deal of time was also spent by the NDP last week in attempting, with failure, to jump out of the federal Liberal bed. I think that other members of the government benches spoke with eloquence and demonstrated the fallacy and laughable nature of that effort when one considers the sorry record of the NDP-Liberal alliance in Ottawa over a good number of years.

When the leader of the official opposition first developed this theme I thought that perhaps it would be a passing thing and that, in the excitement of debate, he thought that he could have a little fun. However, subsequent speakers from the official opposition made it very clear that this was a clearly decided approach. Mr. Speaker, it failed. It didn't work. You can say it as often as you want in this House, but it didn't work and it won't work. So much for the diversionary tactic that was taken.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't, Mr. Member, but since the members opposite spent so much time developing the theme, I thought I might take 90 seconds to just refute it — to dismiss it for what it is: a diversionary tactic. And it didn't work.

Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt that restraint in the public sector is an important aspect of the government's thrust towards controlling the total cost of government in this province. If we were completely alone in this particular approach perhaps some of the criticism which has been directed towards us in this regard would have more merit. But in fact, Mr. Speaker, you and, I think, most members and most Canadians know that it is a problem which is being addressed, discussed and considered and which will be acted upon in a number of provinces in the months to come, because there is no other easy way for us to ensure that government does not go out of control.

I would refer hon. members to the six provincial budgets which have been tabled to date this year, including British Columbia's. Even Alberta next door said this — and I believe the quote is almost entirely correct: "Alberta faces new budgetary realities. Basic changes in Alberta's present taxation, expenditure and savings and investment policies will be required before long." There is specific reference to the need for restraint. Alberta has a problem. We have been compared so often with Alberta, and we have been told that it is unfortunate that we do not have the heritage trust fund.

Mr. Speaker, is there a need for restraint in the province of Alberta? I submit there is. They have a budgetary deficit — not a capital debt, but an operating deficit — increasing from $240 million in 1981-82 to a quite astonishing $2, 440 million in 1982-83. It results from low oil revenues and a massive 27.3 percent increase in budgetary expenditures. As a result, it has been announced that no future loans will be made to other provinces from the Heritage Fund. In Ontario the 1981-82 deficit is expected to exceed $1 billion. Interest on public debt is currently 9.4 percent of total budgetary expenditure in that province. The situation is likely to worsen in 1982-83.

I spoke about Quebec. I referred to the editorial in the Globe and Mail on April 30. Quebec 1981-82 deficit over $3 billion, likely to worsen this year. They are servicing $3 billion on operating account. The servicing of the public debt will cost $380 million in 1981-82, 16 percent of total budgetary expenditure.

Mr. Speaker, you might be thinking: "What does this recital have to do with Bill 28?" I submit that it is the essence, the heart and the reason for Bill 28, because this government has taken notice of early warning. In Quebec, as we all know but perhaps as we should remind ourselves from time to time, the provincial government has told its employees that wages will have to be frozen — not limited to a moderate, responsible, reasonable increase, but frozen. That is the problem in Quebec. I suggest that that is the kind of thing that no government in British Columbia would want to see occur to our public employees, whether they are at the officials level, whether they have just joined the public service, whether they are involved in local government, whether they are involved in education, whether they are involved in hospitals or whatever. I don't want to see that happen, and this government doesn't want to see that happen.

Continuing with Quebec, grants to hospitals have been substantially cut back in the course of the last few months to keep that huge deficit from growing larger. So it's a desperation situation in one of our sister provinces.

In Nova Scotia the 1982-83 deficit will be $374 million on a per capita basis, equal to a British Columbia deficit, if we had one, of $1.2 billion. That's the budgetary truth, the reality of Nova Scotia in May 1982. If their deficit were converted into British Columbia terms, it would be $1.2 billion. This deficit will be incurred notwithstanding massive

[ Page 7492 ]

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

The federal government is the most alarming instance of all, because we are all Canadians. The 1982-83 deficit may now exceed $12 billion. The cost of servicing that federal debt could be as high as 25 percent, one-quarter of the total budgetary expenditure in 1982-83. Restraint? We need restraint, Mr. Speaker. We need restraint across this country, and we certainly need it at the federal level. The bell is starting to ring in Ottawa. The federal government is reported to now be considering general expenditure restraints and controls for its employees, along with staff reductions in order to keep that deficit under control.

Getting back to Alberta, very briefly, I have another quote. I think it was on page 23 of the budget address: "If demands for provincial services continue to rise rapidly, the government will have to increase tax rates sooner than expected. Tax increases will inevitably have to occur."

Mr. Speaker, by speaking of a few provinces and the federal government, I have attempted to outline the problem which we might have faced in British Columbia if we had not introduced the Compensation Stabilization Act. The Premier spoke yesterday. If I may say so — it is not essential that I say so — I want to say I thought the Premier yesterday identified for all employees and all British Columbians precisely how this government views the need for the controlling of government growth, and I congratulate him for it. It is tempting today to rebut some of the silly points that have been raised by the opposition — for example, the reference by one speaker last week regarding furniture in the Ministry of Finance. I hope no one is still misinformed on that particular point, Mr. Speaker. It's furniture for employees, virtually all of them members of the British Columbia Government Employees Union — working furniture in order that they can perform more effectively at their desks or work stations, and in order that they would be treated as first-class rather than second-class citizens. So don't offer that as an example of a lack of government restraint. When we order furniture for some hundreds of employees over a good number of months, because of complaints and because of our concern for the working condition of government employees, don't offer that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Balderdash.

HON. MR. CURTIS: "Balderdash," the member says; he's not even in his seat. Don't offer that to us as an example of why we introduced this legislation. If you have a legitimate criticism, make it, but don't fish around for phony issues to support your weak case. Phony issues, phony arguments, I'll stop short of saying phony members; that would not be parliamentary, so I won't say it.

To the member who is interjecting with respect to the Ministry of Finance's furniture — he has perhaps thought of things he should have said when he was on his feet, but that is usually the case — in the event that he wishes to see the furniture, I extend an invitation to him; today, tomorrow, we'll go and see it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, he doesn't want to see it, because that would tell him, and me, that in fact it was a phony argument. Mr. Member, put your feet where your mouth is, you usually do. Walk over with me — I invite you to.

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

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

What we have, and what was identified by government members and the Premier yesterday, is a unique challenge to our public employees throughout British Columbia — to those in the public sector, those at the local level, the school board level, the hospital level, the provincial level and in our Crown corporations. It's an opportunity to ensure that their colleagues are not laid off as a result of the very severe difficulties in which all of North America finds itself. That's a great opportunity. It was the essential element that was developed when the government first started its discussion of what is now known as Bill 28. It has nothing to do with the past. As a problem, it was identified and this was seen as a solution appropriate for the situation in which we find ourselves today in British Columbia, along with the rest of Canada and the United States.

To reflect again for just a moment, if we had ignored, first of all, the problem, and if we had not found the solution embodied in this bill, then we would be in the situation, which can now only be described as desperate, obtaining in some other parts of North America with respect to public employees. The debate on second reading concludes in a few moments. I ask the NDP again: in committee, in the corridor or in your statements to the press, where are your numbers? If you don't like our guidelines, then give us yours. We didn't hear any. We heard none in the debate. We heard a great deal of extraneous information — irrelevant in some respects, in my view. But we didn't hear the NDP numbers. We didn't hear what kind of level or lift should be permitted in the public sector in the 1982-83 year, given the conditions which apply here and elsewhere. So as they work on their numbers, Mr. Speaker, perhaps they will make comment in the days and weeks to come.

The purpose of this bill is work-sharing. I think that is a very fundamental matter at this particular point. Others have spoken of — and so have I on previous occasions — the very cruel factor which comes into play in the private sector, where suddenly no job exists. Not so in the public sector. I'm glad that it's not so. We'll hear more about the NDP numbers in the course of the days and weeks ahead, if they wish to offer them to us.

Interjection.

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

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: This is the third call.

[ Page 7493 ]

MR. LEA: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I noticed in your warnings to members about speaking out of turn that you've started saying first, second and third call. I think, in fairness to the members, you should tell us what happens when we've been bad boys and girls on the third call or the fourth call, because I don't think it's fair that you start saying first call, second call, third call unless there's some way that the members know what you mean by it. You can't use it as a threat. You have to give us the rules to go by.

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

MR. LEA: It's not encouragement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please be seated. The authorities require that Mr. Speaker maintain order. The authorities also require that members should not be caught unaware of having been repeatedly called to order. In trying to assist the members so that they not be caught unawares, the Speaker tries to extend to them the courtesy of letting them know they are offending, and are offending in a pattern. That is the reason. I trust that's acceptable to all members.

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

I think we have to know exactly where we stand. You can't say first warning, second warning, third warning without letting us know what happens on the second warning, the third warning and the fourth warning. If you don't, it's a threat with no substance to it. I would like to know what the rules are. I

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

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

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will be seated. It is hardly the purpose of the Chairman or the Speaker of this House to be in a debate with hon. members regarding the rules. All hon. members know the rules. The Chair will seek to enforce them.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LEA: On the same point of order.

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

MR. LEA: No, I don't.

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

MR. LEA: No, it is the same point of order. I want an answer. It's not good enough that you say "first warning, second warning, third warning." I want to know what the consequences of each warning are.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is out of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The member is out of order. I will review the Blues, but it appears that there is almost an attitude of contempt from the member for Prince Rupert.

The Minister of Finance continues.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I was attempting to conclude these remarks in relatively short order, because the debate has been protracted. I again would point to a couple of remarks which were made by members opposite and which I think need clarification.

British Columbia Hydro was mentioned. I assure the House that British Columbia Hydro executives are not exempt from the compensation stabilization plan, contrary to be point that was made in debate last week. The usual date for annual increases for those executives is December 1. The last increase was approved on December 1. It was implemented in January 1982, before the announcement of the compensation stabilization plan on February 18. B.C. Hydro executives, therefore, will enter the compensation stabilization program for two years as of next December 1. I think that that was important.

The allegation was also made that the compensation stabilization commissioner, Mr. Peck, would not be able to administer the law, guidelines and regulations governing the CSP free from cabinet interference. The point which has been missed by members opposite — in fact, the key to the success of this program — is the commissioner's credibility and independence. The government will not interfere in individual cases which are before Mr. Peck, which he has under consideration. That is fundamental to the form of program which we have introduced. We have chuckles from across the way, once again. It is a very important subject, I think, and there is far too much chuckling on the other side instead of discussion of the principle of the bill. I feel very sorry about that, because I think we could have had a good discussion. One member — the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) — did address himself to the principle of the bill, and we disagree on the thrust. That is fair enough, but at least he had some comments to make which I think could be analyzed and considered.

In the greater Victoria area, where I reside, and in the constituency which I represent, we have a large number of public employees. Some of them are employed by the British Columbia Ferry Corporation; many of them employed by the government of British Columbia in one ministry or another, the liquor distribution branch, and a variety of Crown corporations. I have a number of friends and acquaintances who are members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. In fact, as a member from the capital region, as others would know — as my colleague, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) would know — it is very difficult to go anywhere n this area without meeting and having an opportunity to discuss government business and public affairs with individuals — whether you meet them in a shopping centre, in a cafe, on the street or in the course of moving through the constituency. I have a message, not from the Lieutenant-Governor but from those public-sector employees whom I know, and whom I've had a good association with over a number of years, and who live right here. Notwithstanding the attacks from the other side, notwithstanding the incredible exaggerations which occurred in the debate last week, notwithstanding inflammatory statements made by union

[ Page 7494 ]

leaders, the bulk of the public-sector employees in British Columbia accept, understand and welcome Bill 28. That's the message, Mr. Speaker, and nothing which has been said in the last several days can contradict it or prove it incorrect. Whether it is in the capital region, whether it's in the north of British Columbia, whether it's in the interior, whether it is in the lower mainland, the story is the same. Public-sector employees recognize the difficulties in which we — in Canada, in British Columbia, in North America — find ourselves. They hope and believe that it is a short-lived difficulty. I believe that. They are prepared to see moderate restraint imposed during these difficult months and years. Mr. Speaker, that is why we have Bill 28. That is why it was so carefully designed. That is why we selected an eminently qualified commissioner. That is why this government supports it, and that is why the people who are affected by it, understand and accept it.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 18

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

Bill 28, Compensation Stabilization Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 15, Mr. Speaker.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

Section I approved.

On section 2.

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

On the amendment.

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

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I think the amendment is self-explanatory. If the member wishes, I can read it to him. In short, it states that "of amounts, calculated under prescribed formulas, to assist a municipality or regional district to pay the costs as determined by the inspector of municipalities of constructing sewage collection and disposal facilities, recommended by the inspector of municipalities according to prescribed criteria, including debt charges incurred by the municipality or regional district in respect of such facilities before this section came into force...." This is simply to ensure that there is the provision, as outlined, to allow the inspector to give consideration to this.

MR. BARBER: It allows the inspector of municipalities to exercise a rather extraordinary degree of discretion in determining which are the favoured municipalities and which are the unfavoured. You're asking him to perform a fundamentally political chore. You're asking him to do so in the guise of administering an act which is fundamentally political in its content. This is not, I think, reasonable. This is not a fair or appropriate request of the inspector of municipalities. The inspector of municipalities is supposed to be one of the most impartial and politically disinterested of public servants. The inspector of municipalities and the deputy minister used to be one and the same person; they are now separate offices. This is a course that we recommended to the government some years ago, and which they accepted two years ago. We're glad they did. But now, as far as I can tell — and I certainly read the amendment, but I ask for your explanation of it — they propose to use the office of the inspector in a manner that is not consistent with the other duties and obligations of that office.

If you propose to allow the inspector to determine which are, and which are not, appropriate expenditures for sewage and other similar matters, and to give him the discretion to determine whether or not they were initiated at a sufficient period before the inception of this act to allow them to qualify under it, you are asking him to make a basically political choice. The office of inspector of municipalities is that which arbitrates disputes between citizens and persons in local government. That office is not the same as the deputy minister's office, which has different capacities and functions. I ask whether or not it is wise to give the inspector this obligation, and ask whether or not, if this is your policy, it might not be wiser to give it instead to the deputy minister of municipalities, who, more traditionally and more appropriately, carries out the political direction of the minister of the day. I don't think it's appropriate to use the inspector of municipalities for this function. If you wish the function handled, give it to someone who should handle it better, and who can handle it more ably. That, I think, is the deputy, and not the inspector of municipalities.

Amendment approved.

On section 2 as amended.

[ Page 7495 ]

MR. HALL: The net effect of section 2 has, of course, been listed in debate on second reading. However, those of us who have heard back again from our municipalities since debate on second reading, and since the minister spoke during second reading, now have an opportunity to evaluate even further the effects of this section and of the bill. I want to tell you, as I predicted in the previous debate, of the effects of this particular bill on the municipalities in my riding.

For instance, since the minister spoke, I've heard from the city of White Rock, particularly in view of some of the cuts they've got to make in terms of sewerage, which is dealt with particularly in this section. The net loss to the city of White Rock, because of the bill, is going to be in excess of $200,000, which will seriously affect their sewage program. They're going to have to stop sewage tiling in the city of White Rock. They're going to have to stop some of the expansions of the libraries. They're going to have to stop the recreation and conservation activities in the city of White Rock. They're going to have to stop some of the paving in the city of White Rock.

At first blush the net effect of this section appears to be an increase, but when you examine all the labelling of money that takes place through the various effects of this bill, the city of White Rock will be short of money to the extent of 3 mills, and they'll have to increase the debt levy 1 mill. No provision will be possible in the city of White Rock this coming year for a contingency fund. What else will they have to do in that city, which everybody knows is one of the main centres in our province for retired citizens? You'll be interested to know, Mr. Chairman, because you live not a million miles from there, that they're going to have to reduce the number of hours for senior citizens' activity centres because of the net effect of this section that we're dealing with — a pleasant springtime present for the senior citizens of our province. Paving cuts, recreation and conservation cuts, library cuts, sewage tiling cuts.

Summertime in White Rock. The minister and I spend a happy day in the summer at the sandcastle competition, building castles in the air, dreaming of leadership on the one hand and getting home to my family on the other. What are they going to do this summer when the beach crews, the number of personnel hired on our beaches in White Rock, are cut because of this section? Maybe the minister will be safe, high and dry in his penthouse eyrie on Rockland Avenue and not down there at the sandcastle competition with no protection.

Mr. Chairman, that debate style aside, I would ask the minister if he knew when he responded to my suggestions about what was happening in Surrey, the other major municipality in our riding.... He chose to belabour the municipality of Surrey in an attempt to deal with my criticisms about their cuts. He said: "Why doesn't Surrey reduce its capital expenditures in the extension to its municipal hall housing all the bureaucrats? Why don't we do that," he said. Do you remember the vigour and force with which he dealt with that subject in second reading? Didn't he know that the Surrey municipality has a council of extension programs? But he didn't address the points I did raise, such as that we're going to have three less RCMP constables than requested. He didn't answer any of the questions that were raised about his own municipality during second reading. Instead, he chose to berate the municipal council and accuse them of building palaces to house a bureaucracy.

That wasn't good enough, I say to my partner in Surrey. You didn't serve the people of Surrey well in that debate. Now, in committee stage, I ask you again: why should our municipality in White Rock have to take that kind of punishment by this kind of bill? Why should the senior citizens have their activity centre reduce the number of hours open for service? Why should the library program be cut back in that municipality by this teaming and labelling "first you see it, then you don't" kind of program contained in Bill 15? Mr. Speaker, I say it's not good enough. I'm not going to vote for any of these revenue-sharing agreements that will see this kind of activity visited upon the municipalities of our province, which we've shown as we've gone up and down the length and breadth of the province and read and registered into the record what the full net effect of Bill 15 is on the citizens, the municipalities and the districts of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I certainly have to respond to that, because the member is a colleague of mine in the constituency. Firstly, I want to assure him that I intend to continue living in the constituency. I have always lived in my constituency. As far as I can recall, he has never lived in his constituency and still lives in beautiful Tsawwassen, which is some considerable distance from the constituency.

All of the remarks coming across the floor from the Leader of the Opposition.... Neither he nor his running mate have ever lived in their constituency either. So let's set the record straight.

While we're setting the record straight, let's also mention here that if all of those programs in White Rock that my colleague from Surrey mentioned were to be cancelled or cut back, they could reduce the taxes in White Rock by half. The effect on White Rock is not what the member makes it out to be, and I think it's rather irresponsible to throw such a scare into senior citizens, those who use libraries, those who enjoy the beach and those who look to the RCMP for protection, an effect that is certainly very minor compared to what he mentions. I don't think it's proper at all.

MR. HALL: It's not good enough to say it's not as I say it is without giving some reasons and some evidence. First of all, I can quote from personal conversations I've had with aldermen in the city of White Rock. That's the first thing I want to say. The second thing I want to say is that I don't think the minister even reads his own local newspapers any more. That's another pity. If he cared to buy or purchase — or I can lend him or arrange a subscription for him to — the White Rock Sun or the Peace Arch News, he would see columns by Jennifer Brown, Eileen Tuomaala. He could see the quotations from all of the reporters and the city officials who list all of the things that I've said. If he likes, I'll send him photostats of these articles that were in his own local newspapers. I can send him articles that were in the White Rock Sun dated Tuesday, May 4, which quotes city treasurer Bob Carmichael and alderman Carmen Beuhler, a raving left-wing New Democratic who said all of these things. As a matter of fact, I believe he's the agent for the local Conservative member of parliament. Mayor Tom Kirsten, Alderman Brian Brett and engineer Bob Gascoyne, are all mentioned and quoted, and they list those things I have read into the record today in terms of the effects on White Rock. So it's not good enough for the minister to just stand up and say that isn't so; he's got to do a

[ Page 7496 ]

little better than that and tell me where indeed the city of White Rock is going to find the $200,000 to replace the cut programs I've listed.

MR. BARBER: This is the bill which the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities described as fraudulent. This is a bill which gives with one hand and takes back with two. This is a bill which in section 2 — that we are now debating, Mr. House Leader — indicates the repeal of the Sewerage Assistance Act and the Transmission Line (Underground) Act — that's section 5 and section 6 specifically — and in this instance grants authority to require that moneys that were formerly made available from separate sources now be made available with the Revenue Sharing Fund, which therefore automatically reduces the moneys that were previously available for unconditional grants to municipalities.

Once upon a time it was the policy of this coalition opposite to guarantee that 80 percent of all the moneys from the Revenue Sharing Fund would be made available in the form of unconditional grants. In the usual sneaky way that these guys always do policy changes, they announced nothing. They did not indicate openly and honestly that they were cutting back that 80 percent figure and abandoning that promise they made to municipal governments in British Columbia. Instead, in a sneaky way they simply introduced this and hoped that we and the municipalities would forget the 80 percent promise. Well, they don't and we don't either, although I'm sure the minister would be glad if we did.

I want to read into the record a series of calculations, Mr. Chairman, of the impact of section 2 and others — but section 2 is adequate for the purpose — on individual municipalities in certain provincial ridings, on the individual municipalities that are going to be the victims of the cuts in unconditional revenue-sharing and of the new obligations found in section 2. The figures that I read into the record today will be given in two forms: what we will call method one and then method two. The difference between the two is small and simple and has to do with how you calculate the losses to municipalities as the result of the distinctions between the calendar and fiscal years among local governments and the provincial government.

Method one is calculated as follows. The total allocation for 1982-83 equals the basic grant plus the supplementary basic grant plus the unconditional or per capita grant plus three-quarters of the social-assistance savings estimate. Let me repeat that method one, the figures I will read into the record today, indicates that only three-quarters of the amount of social-assistance saving will be used in the calculation. This is because the municipalities and the provincial government have different fiscal years. While the province is estimating savings over the whole year — April 1, 1982 to March 31, 1983 — municipalities with a fiscal year following the calendar year have already contributed social-assistance moneys in the first quarter of 1982, and as such they will only receive three-quarters of the benefits indicated by the ministry in its announcements. So, Mr. Chairman, whenever I refer to method one as a means of calculating the losses that will be suffered by municipalities, this is the basis upon which that calculation has been made.

Method two is calculated on the same basis, with the following exception, which refers to social-assistance savings calculations. It runs as follows. The total allocation for 1982-83 equals the basic grant plus the supplementary basic grant plus the unconditional per capita grant plus .3636 of the social-assistance savings estimate. Let me explain how that is derived, because this is the one that municipalities are going with. The first is the one that the government has gone with; the second is the one that local government has to live with. I ask the minister to note that only .3636 of the amount of social-assistance savings is used in this calculation. This is because 11/44 of the savings, which is to say one-quarter of the total savings, have already been paid out by the municipalities for the first quarter of 1982, and because an additional 17/44 of the total allocation — this is figured on the basis of $44 million, and that's where the figure comes from — must be paid back to the provincial treasury this year. This is a direct loss to municipal governments. Since approximately $28 million of the estimated $44 million in social-assistance savings will not accrue to applicable municipalities this year, only 16/44 or .3636 of the total individual savings and social assistance costs will be used in that calculation.

So there are two bases, Mr. Chairman, and each of them results in a loss to local government; but method two tends to produce a greater loss, and this is the method used by more municipalities than any other. We have contacted virtually all the municipalities in British Columbia — directly or indirectly through the Union of British Columbia Municipalities. These figures come straight from them and, comparatively in method one, from the government itself. So no matter which way you calculate it, on the basis of method one which is the provincial government's version, or of method two which is the local government's version, you will see loss upon loss. Let me remind you, this government had a policy that 80 percent of the revenue-sharing moneys would be made available in the form of unconditional grants. Unannounced they have abandoned that policy.

In this bill they propose to require that money come from revenue-sharing that used to come from another place, to pay for sewerage and underground transmission lines. This is a direct loss to municipalities. This loss is proven when you examine the following instances. For the benefit of Hansard, I'll follow the same system throughout, and I will afterwards provide a copy of these calculations. Every one of them comes from UBCM, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, or the municipality concerned. You now know the methodological basis for calculating these figures. I don't expect to hear a word of dispute from the minister, because they are his own figures in method one and they are probably the figures of the Union of B.C. Municipalities based on the formula I've outlined. I hope you won't try, even once, to pretend that these are not absolutely accurate.

The municipality of Stewart, in the provincial constituency of Atlin, under unconditional revenue-sharing programs was allocated $120,588 in 1981-82. In 1982-83, according to method one, the allocation will be $108,203. This is an absolute loss of $12,385, or a percentage loss of 10.27. According to method two they would be allocated the same figure, $108,203, in 1982-83. This is an absolute loss of $12,385 and a percentage loss of 10.27. By way of illustration, as the minister will see, the figures are identical on both bases of calculation.

In the municipality of Burnaby, which is covered in the provincial constituencies of Burnaby North, Burnaby-Edmonds and Burnaby-Willingdon, the unconditional revenue-sharing grant in 1981-82 was $10,071,209. In 1982-83, by method one, it will be $7,806,332. This is an absolute loss of $2,264,887 for a percentage loss of 22.49. According to method two, in 1982-83 Burnaby would lose $3,319,713 on

[ Page 7497 ]

an allocation of $6,751,496, for a percentage loss of 32.96. Burnaby, when you use the provincial government basis of calculation, loses 22.49 percent of its unconditional grant, or when you use the local government calculation, 32.96 percent.

The town of Golden in the riding of Columbia River in 1981-82 had $279,674 allocated for unconditional revenue-sharing grants. This year that is cut under method one of calculation to $252,531. This is an absolute loss of $27,143, or a percentage loss of 9.71. According to method two the allocation for 1982-83 is down to $225,668. This is an absolute loss of $54,006, or a percentage loss of 19.31.

In the municipality of Kimberley in the riding of Columbia River, 1981-82 saw $554,801 allocated for unconditional revenue-sharing grants. According to method one this is a loss this year down to $468,514. The absolute loss is $86,287, for a percentage loss of 15.55. According to method two the unconditional revenue-sharing allocation would be $411,520. This is an absolute loss of $143,281, or a percentage loss of 25.83.

In the same riding the town of Invermere last year had allocated $140,770 for unconditional revenue-sharing programs. This year, method one says that's to be cut to $138,067, for an absolute loss of $2,703, or a percentage loss of 1.92. Method two provides identical figures.

In the riding of Comox, Courtenay was allocated $635,002 last year under this program. Method one this year sees that grant reduced to $546,009. This is an absolute loss of $88,993, or a percentage loss of 14.01. According to method two, in Courtenay this year the unconditional grant is reduced to $476,519 for an absolute loss of $158,483, or a percentage cutback of minus 24.96 percent.

In the same riding of Comox, last year the municipality of Comox had allocated $499,236. This year, under method one, we see that cut to $441,665. This is an absolute loss of $57,581, or a percentage loss of 11.53. Under method two we see allocated to Comox this year only $390,596. This is an absolute loss of $108,640. It is a percentage loss of 21.76.

Parksville, in the same constituency of Comox, last year had allocated $380,343. This year, under method one, that is cut to $341,329, for an absolute loss of $39,014 and a percentage loss of 10.26. Method two demonstrates that this year Parksville will get only $301,020, a loss from the previous year of $79,323, or a percentage loss of 20.86.

The village of Qualicum Beach, in the riding of Comox, last year had $211,022 allocated for the unconditional revenue-sharing program. Method one indicates that they will be increased this year. I want to read an increase — the one we can find in Comox. It will be increased to $229,568. This is an absolute increase of $18,546 or a percentage increase of 8.79. I want the minister to understand that we're not simply reading all the negatives into the record. When we could find a positive figure we have quoted it. It is as accurate in the positive sense as are all the other figures in the negative. I don't want the minister to think that we, like him, cook the books. We will read the positive figures as well as the negative ones into the record. Method two would calculate that this year, however, the town of Qualicum Beach would suffer a small net loss. Method two would see the revenue-sharing unconditional program grant cut to $207,590. That is a loss of a small amount: $3,432, or the small percentage of 1.63.

The municipality of Cumberland, in the riding of Comox, had an unconditional revenue-sharing program grant last year of $171,822. This year they will suffer a small loss.

Under method one we calculated it as $171,238, for a loss of $584. This is represented by the percentage of 0.34. Under method two Cumberland sees the very same small loss. The different methods result in the same figures.

Let's move now to the riding of Cowichan-Malahat. Let's take a look here at the municipality of North Cowichan, which, in 1981-82, was allocated $1,225,390. This year method one indicates that the allocation will be cut to $1,078,542. This is an absolute loss of $146,848 and a percentage loss of 11.98. Method two demonstrates an even greater loss. They would be cut to $937,815. This is an absolute loss of $287,575, or a percentage loss of 23.47.

Duncan, in the constituency of Cowichan-Malahat, was allocated $404,990 last year under the unconditional revenue-sharing program. This year, under method one, that is cut to $283,603. This is an absolute loss of $121,396, or a percentage loss of 29.97 — a quarter of their budget gone away. Under method two Duncan suffers an even greater loss. If you calculate it according to the basis I outlined at the beginning of these remarks, you will see that Duncan's unconditional revenue-sharing grant is cut even further — in this instance to $250,929. This is an absolute loss of $154,070, for a percentage loss of 38.04 percent.

The municipality of Lake Cowichan, in the same riding, last year had allocated $236,397. Method one demonstrates that they will be cut to $198,459. This is an absolute loss of $37,938, or a percentage loss of 16.05. The same municipality, according to method two, would see the same losses dollar for dollar. There is no difference in the way that works out.

Let's move now to the riding of Dewdney. Maple Ridge, in that riding, was allocated $2,368,967 last year. This year method one provides only $1,864,325. This is a total loss to the municipality, under the calculations of method one, of $522,642. This is a percentage loss of 21.90. Maple Ridge, in the same riding, according to method two, would get $1,615,236. This is a loss of $771,731, or a percentage loss of 32.33. Mr. Chairman, I believe there's an error in here. I will correct that in a moment. I think it should read $1,615,000,

In the same riding of Dewdney, in the municipality of Mission, last year they had allocated $1,439,434. This year, under method one, it will be cut to $1,239,291. This is an absolute loss of $200,143, or a percentage loss of 13.9. The municipality of Mission, according to the other calculation, this year will see allocated only $1,084,298, for an absolute loss of $355,136, or a percentage loss of 24.67.

In the same riding of Dewdney, taking a look at Pitt Meadows, we see allocated last year, under this program, $415,310. Method one sees that figure cut to $382,472. This is an absolute loss of $32,838, or a percentage loss of 7.91. The second method of calculation sees that cut even further. Allocation this year is $334,479, for an absolute loss of $80,831, a percentage loss of 19.46.

Let's move to Kamloops. Last year Kamloops received $4,522,144 under the unconditional revenue-sharing program. This year the first method of calculation sees that reduced to $3,880,620. This is an absolute loss for the people of Kamloops of $641,521, or a percentage loss of 14.19. According to the other calculation, once again Kamloops loses. Method two provides a loss to $3,385,657. According to the second calculation, this is an absolute loss of $1,136,487, for a percentage loss of 25.13. That's what

[ Page 7498 ]

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

Let's move to Kootenay and the municipality of Cranbrook. We see that last year they received $1,271,858 in unconditional revenue-sharing. Method one demonstrates that this year that will be cut to $1,079,699. This is an absolute loss of $192,159, or a percentage loss of 15.11. The second method of calculation sees the allocation this year reduced to $956,708, or $315,150 less, for a percentage loss of 24.78.

In Kootenay as well, looking at Fernie, we see that last year they received $449,568. Method one provides that that will be cut to $394,953. This is an absolute loss of $54,615, or a percentage loss of 12.15. Alternatively, in Fernie, on the basis of the second method, we see that the allocation this year will be only $352,882, for an absolute loss of $96,686, or a percentage loss of 21.51.

In the same riding of Kootenay, in Sparwood, we see that last year they received $310,439. This year under method one it will be cut to $260,164. To the people of Sparwood this is a loss of $50,275, a percentage loss of 16.19. The second method of calculation demonstrates that this year they will receive only $228,039 in unconditional revenue-sharing grants. To the people of Sparwood this will be a loss of $82,400, a percentage loss of 26.54.

To continue with the riding of Kootenay, when you look at the town of Elkford you discover that last year they received $203,701 in unconditional revenue-sharing grants. This year method one provides an increase. Once again let me demonstrate that we are prepared to provide evidence of increases where we can find them. We do so here in the case of Elkford. Admittedly it is a small increase, but nonetheless a welcome one. Formula one provides that that will be increased to $236,889; this is an absolute improvement of $33,098, a percentage improvement of 16.24. Method two is somewhat less generous, but it is still a small increase in Elkford. This year it provides that unconditional revenue-sharing will be $212,731; this is a benefit of $8,940, a percentage increase of 4.39.

I would like to move now to the riding of Saanich and the Islands and the municipality of Saanich, represented so interestingly by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). Last year the municipality of Saanich received $5,557,641 in unconditional revenue-sharing grants. This year method one cuts that to $4,559,140, an absolute loss of $1,018,501, a percentage loss of 18.33. In Saanich method two makes the cut even greater; the grant will fall to $3,920,869, for an absolute loss of $1,636,772, a percentage loss of 29.45. Central Saanich, which is in the same riding, received $700,191 last year; this year, on the first calculation, it will receive $582,857, an absolute loss of $117,334, a percentage loss of 16.76. In the second calculation the same municipality would have only $506,427 allocated this year; this is an absolute loss to them of $193,764, a percentage loss of 27.67.

In Saanich and the Islands again, looking at the township of Sidney, we see that last year they had allocated $548,323 under this program. This year they get only $496,272 under the first method, for an absolute loss of $52,051 or a percentage loss of 9.49. The second method would see even a deeper cut in revenue-sharing under Social Credit. Sidney will fall victim to that cut and be reduced to $434,865 for an absolute loss of $113 458 or a percentage loss of 20.69.

In the same riding of Saanich and the Islands, the municipality of North Saanich had $404,434 under this program last year. This year that will be cut, under method one, to $365,652. This is an absolute loss of $38,752 or a percentage loss of 9.59. Method two provides alternatively an even greater cut. This will be $318,380, an absolute loss of $86,054, a percentage loss of 21.28.

Looking now at the riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke, represented so ably by the member for that riding (Mr. King), who yesterday gave such a brilliant speech about the utter hypocrisy of Social Credit restraint programs last year, the municipality of Salmon Arm received $834,015 under this program. This year that will be cut to $684,722 under the first method. This is an absolute loss of $149,293 or a percentage loss of 17.9. According to the second method the people of Salmon Arm will be cut even more viciously by Social Credit. They will go down to $601,414, for an absolute loss of $232,601 or a percentage loss of 27.89.

In the same riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke, when you look at the city of Revelstoke you see that last year they received $475,968 under this program. This year they will get a small improvement. Once again, let me indicate that we are prepared to give credit where it is due. We are not going to cook the books. We're not going to fudge the figures. We are going to tell the truth, unlike the coalition opposite, about the actual impact of this program. The town of Revelstoke gets a small benefit from this particular means of altering revenue sharing. This year they will go up to $586,594. This is an absolute change of $110,626 in the positive, or a percentage change of 23.24, according to method one. Method two — the other means of calculating these things — is somewhat less generous, but nonetheless it is still a small net gain. In Revelstoke this year, the unconditional revenue-sharing grant will go up to $523,364. This is an absolute improvement of $47,396, or a percentage increase of 9.96. Regrettably, that's the only improvement in that riding; everyone else loses.

In the same riding, you look at the township of Spallumcheen. Last year they received $282,988 under this program. This year they are being cut by Social Credit to $270,649. This is an absolute loss of $12,339, or a percentage loss of 4.36. Method two is even more devastating for the township of Spallumcheen: they will be cut to $238,091. This is an absolute loss of $44,897, or a percentage loss of 15.87.

The municipality of Armstrong, in the same provincial constituency, had $230,777 allocated last year. Method one sees a small improvement. That figure will be raised to $233,897. This is an improvement of $3,120 over last year, or a percentage increase of 1.35. However, method two provides that they will lose. Method two sees Armstrong being cut to $213,163. This is an absolute change by way of loss in the amount of $17,614, or a percentage loss of 7.63.

In Enderby, in the same riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke, $162,379 was allocated last year. Method one will mean $151,008 this year. The loss this year will be $11,371, and the percentage loss 7 percent exactly. Method two provides the very same figures.

In Chase, in the riding of Shuswap-Revelstoke, $133,999 was allocated last year. This year, with method one, there's a small increase: $142,724 was allocated — an absolute improvement of $8,725, or percentage improvement of 6.51. Method two provides the very same figures for Chase, in Shuswap-Revelstoke.

[ Page 7499 ]

The municipality of Kitimat, in the constituency of Skeena, received $927,884 last year. This year, under Social Credit, that will be cut. Method one says $806,591 is the allocation, while the absolute loss is $121,293 and the percentage loss is 13.07.

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

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to point out that I'm absolutely astounded by these numbers that are coming from the hon. first member for Victoria. It's astounding that the communities throughout this province are going to take this kind of shellacking from an unfeeling government. I just thought that I should say that.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, I was referring to Kitimat, which under method two will be cut this year to $707,564. This is an absolute loss of $220,320, or a percentage loss of 2374.

In the same riding of Skeena, the municipality of Terrace suffers under Social Credit. Last year they had allocated $832,655. This year, under method one they will be reduced to $712,595, for an absolute loss of $120,060 or a percentage loss of 14.42. Method two sees the cut even deeper. They will be reduced to $628,252, for an absolute loss of $204, 05 or a percentage loss of 24.55.

Smithers, in the same riding of Skeena, last year had allocated $351,646. This year that will be cut under Social Credit to $314,882. This is an absolute loss of $36,764 or a percentage loss of 10.45. Smithers suffers even more under the second calculation. They will be cut to $279,565, which is an absolute loss of $72,081 or a percentage loss of 20.5.

The municipality of Hazelton, in the same riding of Skeena, last year had allocated $60,006. This year they have a slight improvement. Once again, Mr. Chairman, let me indicate that we are not prepared to lie about, twist or distort the figures. Where they indicate benefit we will demonstrate benefit and give credit where it's due. Where they indicate loss, Social Credit as usual will fib about it, I expect; they will be as deceitful as they always are about these things and will not admit the truth. The same formula that we've indicated before provides loss upon loss, provides a benefit in the case of Hazelton. And let's give credit where it's due. Last year — $60,006; this year — $86,541. This is an absolute improvement of $26,535. That may not seem like much, but it is for them a percentage increase of 44.22. That's under formula one. Formula two provides the very same figures.

In the constituency of Surrey, my colleague the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) has already indicated what the losses are, but for the sake of this record, which will be distributed across the province as soon as Hansard prints it, the municipality of White Rock received last year $962,145. This year, under Social Credit, that will be cut to $812,070. This is an absolute loss of $150,075 for a percentage loss of 15.6. Method two sees the Socred cutbacks even deeper. That provides that they will be cut to $707,356, for an absolute loss to the people of White Rock of $254,789, or a percentage loss of 26.48.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: We're a phony? If the minister were less preoccupied with the sleazy politics of Social Credit and a little more concerned with the genuine interests of the municipalities — that is right; when we talk about Social Credit we talk about sleazy politics — he might be able to do a better job for them, instead of imposing these incredible cutbacks and losses, and the inevitable tax increases that will be suffered by victim after victim of Social Credit in British Columbia. The sooner the next election, the better.

In the riding of Surrey, last year they had allocated $10,219,312 under this program. This year that will be cut viciously by Social Credit. The government of dirty tricks, Gracie's Finger and all that other junk will see that cut....

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

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

The government that did all of those other things is doing the following: Surrey last year, $10,219,312, method one this year, cut viciously by Social Credit to $8,500,447. This is a loss to the people of Surrey of $1,718,865, or a percentage loss of 16.82. In the minister's own riding, however, when the second method of calculation is used you see that the loss is even more vicious. Under Social Credit, the people of Surrey will have that grant reduced to $7,363,365. This is an absolute loss of $2,571,677, or a percentage loss of 27.9. How the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in the government of dirty tricks thinks he can get away with this dirty trick in his own riding I don't know. I do observe that the minister has been corrected three times now on the completely false claim he made, the absolute misinformation he provided this House, that the city of Surrey was still proceeding with its municipal hall when, in fact, they are not, The minister has yet to apologize for that misinformation.

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

MR. BARBER: Oh, the municipality of Surrey, he says, not the city. That's a wonderful rebuttal; what a learned reply! You tell total nonsense, a completely false thing to this committee, an utterly untrue statement, and all you can say is: "It's a municipality and not a city." Are you guys all that dumb? Are you all that stupid?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will advise the member for the second time that he is now straying from the parameters of this debate. Also, if he would address the Chair, it greatly aids in the debate.

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

In the ridings of Vancouver Little Mountain and Vancouver East we find the city of Vancouver. To deal with those two tidings for a moment and the problems faced by the city of Vancouver, last year they had allocated the largest amount of all — this is understandable — under the program of unconditional revenue-sharing grants. Last year they received $30,421,674. Method one this year provides a loss to the city of Vancouver by way of a reduced allocation in the amount of $24,149,197. This is an absolute loss in the city of Vancouver of $6,272,477, or a percentage loss of 20.62. Method two

[ Page 7500 ]

provides even greater losses to the people of Vancouver, who, after the next election, will be formerly represented by the Deputy Premier — God pray. That will be reduced to $20,974,633, for an absolute loss of $9,474,041, or a percentage loss of 31.14.

I have other figures, each of which will be read into the record. The whole of the record will, I promise the government, be distributed to every municipality in the province — to all of their elected representatives, all of their employees, and as many of their taxpayers as they can reach. It's absolutely vital that this Hansard record of the actual and vicious cuts in revenue-sharing, perpetrated by Social Credit, be known, figure for figure, loss for loss, tax increase for tax increase, across British Columbia.

The information we're reading into the record today will be distributed everywhere the taxpayers care about Social Credit cuts in revenue- sharing, and understand the reality that will result. That reality is simply this: taxes will have to go up because Social Credit has reduced its contribution. Why are they doing that? Everyone knows: to finance northeast coal, B.C. Place and all of the other megaprojects that they hope will buy their way back into election after the writ is dropped.

Let's take a look at more cuts. My own riding, the municipality of Victoria — or, as the minister might ably say, the city of Victoria — last year had allocated $4,802,660. This year, under the minister's own method, that will be cut to $3,843,247, for an absolute loss of $959,413, or a percentage loss of 19.98. Method two sees an even more vicious cut under the provisions of this section. Method two sees it cut to $3,345,726, for an absolute loss of $1,456,934, or a percentage loss of 30.34. It should be noted that the city of Victoria at the moment is going on the basis of the first calculation. The city of Victoria recognizes that their cut will be almost 20 percent. Every dollar that the Socreds cut will have to be made up by the local homeowner. Every dollar that the Socreds siphon off on expensive wine encounters, fancy Phaeronic schemes to build B.C. Place, and those ridiculous Good Show buttons to the Vancouver Canucks, of all people — good grief, what an insult — will instead now have to come out of the taxpayers' pockets in the city of Victoria.

Let me offer a few other figures from the ridings of Maillardville-Coquitlam and Coquitlam-Port Moody. Last year the municipality of Coquitlam had $4,098,499. This year that will be cut to $3,496,125, an absolute loss of $502,374 and a percentage loss of 14.70. In the second method of calculation the people of Coquitlam lose even more money. That method provides that they will be cut to $3,024,122 and an absolute loss of $1,074,377, a percentage loss of 26.2 1. No wonder Jim Tonn, the mayor of Coquitlam, is so incredibly angry at the deceit and, in effect, at the legalized theft of the revenues that they formerly had and counted on. No wonder Jim Tonn describes this bill as fraudulent; so do we; so does everyone except the minister.

In the municipality of Port Coquitlam in the riding of Coquitlam-Port Moody, last year they had $1,962,819 allocated; this year a cut by Social Credit to $1,608,480 is the first figure, an absolute loss of $354,339, and a percentage loss of 18.05. However, the second basis for calculation provides for an even greater loss: $1,395,690 would be allocated, an absolute loss of $567,129, and a percentage loss of 28.89.

Last year the city of Nanaimo received $3,214,214. It will be cut this year to $2,918,911. Under Social Credit, for the people of Nanaimo this is an absolute loss of $295,303 and a percentage loss of 9.19. The second basis for calculation sees the people of Nanaimo suffer even more. This year their grant will be cut to $2,555,162, an absolute loss of $659,052 and a percentage loss of 20.50.

Last year New Westminster received $2,745,926 under the unconditional revenue-sharing program; this year it will be $2,395,224. The absolute loss is $350,702 and the percentage loss is 12.77. Or if you care to calculate it under the second basis, it would be reduced to $2,097,310, an absolute loss of $648,616 and a percentage loss of 23.63.

In the riding of Alberni, let's take a look at the city of Port Alberni and discover how they are being cut back by Social Credit and how the coalition is forcing homeowners in Port Alberni to make up the difference in order to pay for vast welfare schemes for the Japanese steel industry. In Alberni last year they received $1,482,210. This year they will be cut by Social Credit to $1,200,571. This is an absolute loss of $281 639 or a percentage loss of exactly 19. Alberni under the second calculation would lose even more. It would be cut to $1,046,846, an absolute loss of $435,000 or a percentage loss of 29.37.

I have more figures. All of them demonstrate the deceit and political fraud implicit in this bill. In the provincial constituency of Prince Rupert we see that last year they received $1,214,436. This year there will be a loss. They will be cut to $1,084,774 on the first basis of calculation. That is an absolute loss of $129,692. This is a percentage loss of 10.68. Alternatively, the loss is even greater. Method two would see the people of Prince Rupert being reduced to $959,574, for an absolute loss of $254,862 or a percentage loss of 20.99.

In Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, the municipality of Esquimalt — or the city, as the minister may care to so ably reply — last year received $1,188,866. This year they are cut to $983,509. This is a loss of $205,357 or a percentage loss of 17.27. On the second basis of calculation the people of Esquimalt lose even more. This year they would be reduced to $860,866. This is an absolute loss of $328,000 or a percentage loss of 27.59.

In the riding of North Island we look at Campbell River and we discover that last year they received $1,067,188. My colleague for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) will go to Campbell River shortly and will tell them that, thanks to Social Credit and its vast welfare schemes for northeast coal, the grant for Campbell River will be cut under method one to $940,472. This is an absolute loss of $126,716, or a percentage loss of 11.87. Campbell River does even more badly under the second basis of calculation: they are cut to $818,122. This is an absolute loss of $249,066, or a percentage loss of 23.34.

In the same riding of North Island, the people of Port Hardy last year got $383,230. This year they are being cut to $328,238. This is a loss of $54,992, or a percentage loss of 14.35. The second means of calculating the Socred losses on cutbacks see the people of Port Hardy reduced to only $289,018. This is an absolute loss of $94,212, or a percentage loss of 24.58.

The municipality of Port McNeill in the riding of North Island does even more badly under the program. Last year they got $212,076. This year they'll receive only $176,282. This is an absolute loss of $35,794, or in percentage terms of 16.88. The second method of calculation sees the very same figures result.

[ Page 7501 ]

Gold River — also in North Island — last year got $202,574. This year, as my colleague for North Island will shortly be telling all of those ratepayers, the government grant is being cut to $150,391. This is an absolute loss of $52,183, or an incredible percentage loss of 25.76 percent, which is almost as bad as Duncan. That is what the Socreds have done to the people of Gold River. However, they're doing it to others as well. Let me continue.

They had allocated $1,029,975 in Mackenzie, the district of Powell River, last year. This year, only $838,123 was allocated. This is an absolute loss of $191,852, or a percentage loss of 18.63. Under method two they would receive only $734,390. This is an absolute loss of $295,585, or a percentage loss of 28.7.

Last year, the municipality of Trail in the riding of Rossland-Trail received $744,991 under the unconditional revenue-sharing program. As the result of the vicious cuts imposed by Social Credit in order to finance northeast coal and other giveaway schemes, this year Trail will be reduced to $605,560 for an absolute loss of $139,431, or a percentage loss of 18.72. Under the second method of calculation, they would be cut even further — in this instance to $531,379. This is an absolute loss of $213,612 or a percentage loss of 28.67.

In the same riding of Rossland-Trail, the town of Rossland last year received $346,909. As the result of Social Credit giveaway schemes for northeast coal, their figure this year is being cut under method one to $307,538. This is an absolute loss of $39,371 or a percentage loss of 11.34. On the basis of the second calculation, Rossland will be cut this year to $276,881. The absolute loss will be $70,028 or a percentage loss of 20.19.

In Nelson-Creston, the great riding so ably represented by the former and only full-time Minister of Housing this province has ever had.

Interjection.

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

In the provincial constituency of Nelson-Creston, represented so ably by Mr. Nicolson, they received $817,952 last year. In order to subsidize northeast coal this year the people of Nelson will receive only $683,339. This is an absolute loss of $134,613 or a percentage loss of 16.46. On the basis of the second calculation Nelson would only receive $612,682 this year, for an absolute loss of $205,270 or a percentage loss of 25.10.

In the same riding of Nelson-Creston, let's take a look at Castlegar, which received $520,231 last year. This year they are being cut by Social Credit to $435,896. This is an absolute loss of $84,335 or a percentage loss of 16.21 on the basis of the first method of calculation. On the basis of the second calculation Castlegar is being cut even more viciously by the coalition opposite. They will be reduced to $382,557. This is an absolute loss of $137,674 or a percentage loss for the people of Castlegar of 26.46.

Creston, in the same riding, last year received $319,226. This year they will receive $286,752. The absolute loss is $32,474 and the percentage loss is 10.17. Or, on the basis of the second method, $254,372 is the amount that will be allocated under the unconditional revenue-sharing grant program this year for an absolute loss of $64,854 or a percentage loss of 20.32.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's get to work.

MR. BARBER: This is work for the people of British Columbia, who have to make up the losses that you impose on them through their home tax because of your crackpot schemes to finance northeast coal and your crackpot proposals to build things like Transpo or Expo 86 that no one wants, needs or requested.

In Nelson-Creston, the township of Kaslo last year had allocated $89,279. This year they have $87,420 — a small absolute loss of $1,859, a percentage loss of 2.08. That is on the basis of the first and second methods of calculation.

New Denver, in the same riding, receives a small increase. Again, when the figures demonstrate an increase we read that into the record too. We are not going to lie about the figures like some opposite have done all too often. Method one shows that last year New Denver received $78,231. This year they will have an increase to the amount of $100,832. This is an absolute increase of $22,601 or a percentage increase of 28.89. The same figures apply under method two.

In Slocan, in Nelson-Creston, last year they had allocated $57,211. This year they are cut to $51,699. This is an absolute loss of $5,502 and a percentage loss of 9.63. The same figures result when the second method is applied.

We have lots more information of the same order to provide the government. I wonder if the House Leader would indicate whether or not he wishes to adjourn right now or continue.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Gibber another five minutes.

MR. BARBER: I sure can. I've got lots more.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Okay.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:56 a.m.

[ Page 7502 ]

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

15 The Hon. W. N. Vander Zalm to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 15) intituled Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, 1982 to amend as follows:

Section 2 is amended by deleting section 4 (3) (d) and substituting the following:
"(d) of amounts, calculated under prescribed formulas, to assist a municipality or regional district to pay the costs as determined by the Inspector of Municipalities of constructing sewage collection and disposal facilities, recommended by the Inspector of Municipalities according to prescribed criteria including debt charges incurred by the municipality or regional district in respect of such facilities before this section came into force.