[ Page 7503 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Forest Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 42). Hon. Mr. Waterland.

Introduction and first reading –– 7504

Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 40). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 7504

Transpo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 45). Hon. Mr. Hyndman.

Introduction and first reading –– 7504

Oral Questions

Closure of Mackenzie hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 7504

Advertisement for posting in Tourism ministry. Mr. Hall –– 7504

Vancouver ward system. Mr. Macdonald –– 7505

Cost of reports on hospital systems. Mr. Cocke –– 7505

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

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

On section 2 as amended –– 7506

Mr. Barber

Division

On section 4 as amended –– 7507

Division

On section 5 –– 7507

Mrs. Dailly

Mr. Barber

On section 6 –– 7509

Mr. Barber

Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act (Bill 32). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7511

Mr. Barber –– 7511

Mr. Howard –– 7513

Mr. Mussallem –– 7514

Mrs. Wallace –– 7514

Mr. Leggatt –– 7516

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 7517

Division –– 7518

System Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 18). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7518

Mr. Levi –– 7519

Mr. Cocke –– 7521

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7521

Income Tax Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 20). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7522

Mr. Stupich –– 7522

Mr. Cocke –– 7523

Taxation (Rural Area) Amendment Act, 1982 (Bill 21). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7523

Mr. Stupich –– 7523

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 7523

Ministerial statement re closure of Mackenzie hospital.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 7523

Mr. Cocke –– 7524

Appendix –– 7525

TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1982

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY: I would like to advise members that there are a number of senior citizens from Port Alberni touring the parliament buildings. They represent the Echo Sunshine Club in Port Alberni. I would ask all members to make those people welcome.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Visiting the Legislature today and seated in the gallery is the newly appointed Consul-General of France in Vancouver, Mr. Marcel Ollivier. Seated with him is the cultural attaché, Mr. Luc Zeller. I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. BARBER: In the buildings today are Mayor Jim Tonn, the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, and Mr. Jeff McKelvey, the executive director of that same organization. We just spent half an hour meeting with them in caucus. I was glad they were there, and I'm glad they're here. I would ask the House to join us in welcoming them to the buildings.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: We have very special guests in the gallery today: Mr. Henri Dane and his wife Christina, from Nanaimo. I'd like to make the House aware that Mr. Dane is director of the food services school at Malaspina College and chairman of the board of the Canadian Federation of Chefs de Cuisine. Perhaps even more important than that, Chef Dane has just been elected as Chef of the Year for Canada; the 800 delegates to the national convention of the Federation of Chefs de Cuisine at the Empress last week elected him the best in the country.

I'm sure we're very proud of Mr. Dane and of all our chefs. I would like the House to know, Mr. Speaker, that he has many accomplishments and has achieved these since he came here from his native Holland 30 years ago. Last year he was a member of the Canadian team which placed third at the Culinary Olympics in Frankfurt, Germany. Chef Dane also holds two other gold medals from the national competitions in Holland in 1981 and in Israel in 1978. The Chef of the Year award is given to the chef who is judged to have made the most achievements in international culinary competitions; secondly, the most in contributions to the chefs' association; thirdly, the most in contributions to culinary education.

We indeed have a most distinguished British Columbian and Canadian in the gallery today with his wife. I would ask all members of the House to honour his profession and to extend a very warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the Chair will continue to encourage members to make their introductions brief.

MR. BARRETT: Having met Chef Dane before, I want to echo the welcome, but he still has not answered the question I asked him before: does he cook at home?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Two groups of school children are visiting today from Vancouver South. They are from Sexsmith elementary school and Churchill Secondary School. Would the House please make the students welcome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today are the winners of the 1982 Premier's Athletic Award. These international-calibre athletes have earned distinguished honour for their world-class performances. They are the young men and women who represent British Columbia and Canada in competition around the world. I'm sure we can expect to see some medal-winning performances from their ranks, particularly at the upcoming 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles. Their pursuit of excellence is something we can all take a great deal of pride in. It gives me great pleasure to introduce them at this time. First, some members of our national basketball team: Kelly Dukeshire of Victoria, Howard Kelsey of Vancouver, Mike Jackel of North Vancouver, and Gerald Kazanowski of Nanaimo.

We also have with us Hugh Fisher, a canoeist from Burnaby, and rowers Bruce Ford of Victoria — who, incidentally, is great-grandson of former Premier T.D. Pattullo and Pat Walter of Chilliwack.

We also have Robert Cheyne, a marksman from Port Moody, and — a name we are all familiar with — Debbie Brill, a well-known track and field athlete from Burnaby.

Some of the athletes are currently involved in competition. Andrea Schreiner, a rower from Victoria, is competing back east. Accepting her award today is one of her rowing colleagues, Carla Pace. Tricia Smith, a rower from Vancouver, is competing in Italy. Her dad, Marshall Smith, is here on her behalf.

I would like to advise members that these athletes achieve international prominence and rank for teams of the fifth or fourth rank or better for individual. They receive a scholarship to assist them in their training so that they can continue to represent our country internationally and bring us credit. With that they also undertake an obligation to train others, and because of their fine example coaches and other young people in this province aspire to achieve the same excellence in the field of athletics. The award for each of the recipients in achieving this international recognition is $2,500 each, and it has gone a long way to assist them in their training to continue their international competition. The much greater gift they give is the training given to others in this province.

MR. SPEAKER: That introduction went beyond the bounds of introduction. I would accept it as a ministerial statement, and a reply is in order.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it wasn't a reply in this instance. I just want to say that along with the two individuals who have been recognized this afternoon, an even younger generation — a group of students from Rock City Elementary School — are in the precincts. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, this is undoubtedly a day of greatness in the galleries, but Dewdney will not be outdone. We have in the galleries today a group of very bright students from Pitt Meadows Secondary School. Their leaders are John Wong, Diane Maxwell, Val Appleton and Yvonne Tingey. I wish the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I know all members of the House will be pleased to hear of a significant announcement that is to be made by the Brummet family today. Our member for North Peace River has the great honour of being the grandfather of the first granddaughter in

[ Page 7504 ]

the Brummet family. She arrived early this morning and will take her place with three grandsons.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I left out one very important name in the introductions. It is someone from Duncan, and I'll get heck for this when I get home because my wife was born in Duncan — representing basketball, Ken Larson.

Introduction of Bills

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Waterland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Forest Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 42 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.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 40 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.

TRANSPO 86 CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

Hon. Mr. Hyndman presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Transpo 86 Corporation Amendment Act, 1982.

Bill 45 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.

Oral Questions

CLOSURE OF MACKENZIE HOSPITAL

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. We have a little town in the interior of British Columbia called Mackenzie. It's 120 miles north of Prince George. Will the minister confirm that the cutbacks of his budget have created a situation wherein the hospital in Mackenzie has been shut down and the people of Mackenzie are at risk?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I can't confirm that. No one has advised me that the hospital in Mackenzie has been shut down, but I'll have someone look into it right away.

MR. COCKE: I would ask the minister whether, when he's checking whether or not the hospital has been shut down, he can also look into the fact that because of the shutting down of the hospital the people in Mackenzie will have to either fly, drive, or something, 120 miles to Prince George. In the wintertime that can be a very tough and hazardous journey for a sick person.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The purpose of question period is to ask questions and not to bring information to the House.

ADVERTISEMENT FOR POSTING
IN TOURISM MINISTRY

MR. HALL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan). In January this year the minister advertised for a public information officer. Part of the job description was to read through the Blues of Hansard to bring to the attention of the director and the minister comments made in the Legislative Assembly about the minister. Can the minister confirm that she is unable to read the Hansard Blues herself?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HALL: I'll try a supplementary. This is from the province of British Columbia's Public Service Commission postings. The advertisement calls for a public information officer for the Ministry of Tourism. Among the tasks required is the one I read out. The minister has no reply for that. A second task for that public information officer is to develop camaraderie among employees in the department. In view of the revolving-door policy of employees in the minister's own office, could she tell us what qualifications the public information officer will have to have for that particular task.

Interjection.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: A comment has just been made about the Good Show pin. In response, I would advise the members of the opposition that the industry is extremely distressed about the foolish and derogatory remarks that have been made by them, including the member for Victoria, about the Good Show pin. Forty thousand people have been nominated for that pin. It's the first time in history that a government has ever paid any attention and offered credit to those who work in the front lines of the industry of tourism — ordinary people, Mr. Speaker.

In relation to the member's question, I was out of the province at the time. There is a regular procedure which involves the placing of advertisements for personnel within the staff. This was brought to my attention when I came back and I asked our deputy minister if he would look into the matter. I couldn't reconcile myself with the sort of job description that was in the paper, which had been placed by the staff. I received a report to say it had been in error; in fact, the ad had been withdrawn and the position redesigned and reclassified. The member is once again — I'm sure not wilfully on his own, but on behalf of the NDP — trying to beg the issues of the day in responsible debate and to wallow in smear and innuendo. Mr. Speaker, I don't have a revolving-door policy in my office; I have an open-door policy, and I would advise members of this House that those I have had the privilege to work with in my office, some of whom have been with me as a team for over five years, have all, when they moved ahead, gone on to better jobs and better careers.

[ Page 7505 ]

To answer the member's question.... I rather enjoy the frivolous giggles of the opposition. They, of course, when they were government, made no commitment to improve the lot of anyone. On this side of the House, particularly because I am speaking for myself as minister, my commitment to people who come into employ with the government, either through my personal office as minister or through government service, is to do everything I can within my power to see that they have a responsible training, an opportunity to expand their knowledge and an opportunity to go on to better jobs.

Once again we see these frivolous giggles of an irresponsible opposition who should be dealing with the issues of the day and with the success of tourism in British Columbia in creating jobs and capital investment, and what's more, in creating opportunities for careers for people. I am proud to be part of it.

MR. HALL: My question is for the Provincial Secretary. Would the Provincial Secretary ask of his Hansard Blues reader if that person would now take the previous speech and answer by the Minister of Tourism and deliver it to the chairman of the Public Service Commission so that he would know the kind of smear and innuendo the Public Service Commission is dealing in by placing this single advertisement in the January 6 edition of "Postings"?

VANCOUVER WARD SYSTEM

MR. MACDONALD: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: for 100 years the city of Vancouver council has come to the Legislature for amendments to its charter in a hearing before the private bills committee. Who petitioned the minister to change that 100-year-old tradition in the matter of the ward system?

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a matter that will be a committee report that is upcoming?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the mayor and members of council of Vancouver are certainly welcome to come and visit me and make representation on any number of issues, as they did. I didn't deal just with their views with respect to the ward system; there were a number of issues covered in my response to them. I'm sure that they would much prefer to receive a response than no answer at all. They were given fairly good detail with respect to their questions.

MR. MACDONALD: Obviously the council of Vancouver didn't ask for these changes that the minister has announced he's going to make. Who did ask for them? Was it the NPA? Was it some friends or some Socreds in Vancouver? Who wiped out the council decision and the results of the referendum with these legislative proposals? Who prompted the minister? Give us the names.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The only Vancouver representatives who have visited my office in the last several months are Mayor Mike Harcourt and Alderman Rankin. We discussed a number of issues. Quite frankly, I have again a matter before me now with respect to something I'm sure is urgent to the city as well, to do with transit; and I was only advised yesterday that though the matter was brought to my attention by Mayor Harcourt, it was not the position of council. So I imagine a mayor may from time to time bring matters to me which are simply his personal views or his own initiative, and perhaps there's nothing wrong with it, Certainly they don't always represent the views of council.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister hasn't told us who has really petitioned for this change, but I ask this question: now that the minister wants to approve the wording of the referendum, the setting of the boundaries and so forth, will he be appointing to carry out this "vandermander" former judge Larry Eckardt?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, no one has made any decision of that kind, but naturally if such a decision had to be made I would hope it would be someone of that stature. Again, the only recollection I have now with respect to where the initiative might have come from was a letter from Mayor Mike Harcourt.

I did not receive, as was suggested, a letter, petition or delegation from members representing NPA or Social Credit. Mind you, if they did wish to make representations, I would welcome them every bit as much as the members of COPE, DERA or any other group within Vancouver. There's no reason why we shouldn't receive their representations and views on whatever matter it may be. This particular one, however, as I can recall it, came by way of a letter from Mayor Harcourt.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Is the minister telling the House that Mayor Harcourt of Vancouver asked for the 60 percent referendum prior to the ward system, and that the minister should have a hand in setting the ward boundaries? Is that what you're telling the House? Did Mayor Harcourt ask you to make that announcement?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, I did not say that. I think the member certainly knows that Mayor Harcourt would be quite satisfied with 50.09 percent, or whatever. He would not be asking for 60 percent, because he has constantly been of the view that anything beyond a simple majority is sufficient when it comes to a matter of changing the governmental structure or the constitution of a city.

Obviously, not everybody agrees with him. If he comes to me seeking my support for that sort of stance, no, I can't support it. I'm basically opposed to ward systems anyway, because it means more and more government. You know very well that it just means more cells, more government, more offices and more secretaries. It just leads to a whole lot more government and bureaucracy. That has been my position all along. However, I have made some suggestions to the mayor and council, and if they wish to respond to them, I'll be very pleased to receive their response or meet with them once more at any time — or whatever suits them.

COST OF REPORTS ON HOSPITAL SYSTEMS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question of the Minister of Health. The joint funding study which was produced in part by outside consultants, Ernst and Whinney, in October of 1979 and which cost the province over a million dollars, has been shelved.

We now have before us the Hawkins report on hospital systems which, as you told us yesterday, has also been

[ Page 7506 ]

shelved. What was the cost to the people of British Columbia for the Hawkins report? They are blowing millions of dollars on private consultants in this very important department.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I would be pleased to look into whatever costs were associated with what the member refers to as the Hawkins report.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

REVENUE SHARING AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

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

On section 2 as amended.

MR. BARBER: I spent some time in committee this morning outlining detail by detail and town by town all the consequences of this vicious attack on the principle of revenue-sharing, incorporated in section 2 of Bill 15. We read into the record example upon example of those cases where local governments will be made to suffer as the result of the punitive fiscal policies of Social Credit. Section 2, which we are discussing, is one of the three principal sections of this bill.

I would like now to read briefly into the record elements of a brief that was presented to the caucuses of the Social Credit coalition and the New Democratic Party — to Social Credit last week and to the New Democratic Party this afternoon. In this brief, presented by Mayor Jim Tonn, the president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities, they discuss the principle of revenue-sharing and lay forth an extremely heavy critique: a powerful, documented and truthful analysis of the problems with this bill and the consequences for local homeowners.

I would like to quote, if I may, from page 2:

"In April of this year the government announced its fifth year of revenue-sharing grants. For local government the announcement signalled the end to revenue-sharing as we had come to know it. Two actions on the part of the province have redefined the meaning of 'sharing' and marked an end to the new era of provincial-municipal fiscal relations that began with revenue-sharing....

"The government has instituted a tradeoff. It will assume social assistance costs in exchange for municipalities assuming the costs of the other four programs. This tradeoff is inequitable for local government, is without foundation and has been done without consultation with the affected partner — local government."

The brief goes on to say that the provincial government is going to benefit from this so-called relief program in the amount of $28 million.

"The immediate costs to local government of assuming sewerage assistance debts are twice the savings in social assistance. The more objectionable aspect of the tradeoff is that municipalities should not be required to assume the financial commitment made by the province to fund sewerage debt or the other three programs in the first place."

It is perfectly clear that local government totally rejects this bill. It is obvious to anyone who cares about local choice, local freedom and local responsibility that this bill and, in particular, the section we are now debating is an offence against those traditions and principles. This section, an operating feature of this bill, enjoys no support at all from local government.

What is particularly offensive about this section is that the government did not have the guts to be candid about its implications and did not have the political courage to tell the truth about its outcome. This section makes it quite clear that local governments will now have to bear the costs of sewage and underground transmission lines in a way that they never had to before. Those costs were previously borne by the provincial government from other revenue sources. They are now to be borne by the Revenue Sharing Fund from those sources. As the UBCM put it in its first-class brief, this is a tradeoff which results in a net loss to local government.

The only beneficiary of this section is the same as the only beneficiary of the bill — it is Social Credit. It is the coalition that stands to benefit when they reduce the costs for sewerage and underground transmission lines which would otherwise be a direct charge against their revenue. When Social Credit can reduce those revenue charges, they then have more money to waste on government advertising, more money to waste on massive subsidy schemes for megaprojects around British Columbia, currently being debated. Because of this tradeoff, local governments are losing tens of millions of dollars this year. Because of this tradeoff that is benefiting Social Credit and its megaprojects, local taxpayers will have to pay more; they have to make up the loss that Social Credit has made for itself as gain. This bill is a loser for local government, for the homeowner, for everyone except the coalition Minister of Finance, who is able to rip off the municipalities and the homeowner in order to have more money for these scurrilous projects of government advertising and PR for which Social Credit has become so notorious.

To reiterate, this bill and this section have virtually no support anywhere in local government. It is deceitful, costly, inappropriate; above all it is inexcusable, given the hypocritical performance, in the name of restraint, that Social Credit has attempted to ask the people of British Columbia to accept. The government of $37.50 bottles of wine and government vouchers in the amount of 60 cents for a carton of milk for a cabinet minister has no business telling local governments in this instance that they have to bear additional expenditures, ones that were formerly borne by the province and that should be currently borne by the province.

As this section makes clear, sewage treatment programs are vital to competent land-use planning. It is in the provincial interest as well to guarantee the fundamental human and natural resources of clean air and clean water and usable land. When this government tries to tell us they wish to bring more lots on the market, and then at the same time turns around and cuts back financing for sewers, which must be obtained in order to make those lots available in the first place, they are once again demonstrating the astonishing incompetence of Social Credit.

[ Page 7507 ]

Section 2 quite clearly demonstrates that Social Credit is abandoning the responsibility that the previous New Democrat administration accepted: that is, to assist in the provision of housing by assisting in the provision of sewerage.

HON. MR. FRASER: You didn't have any revenue-sharing.

MR. BARBER: We had revenue-sharing, and we were the first to introduce it. We did so on the principle of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. Ours was the first government to introduce revenue-sharing; yours is the first to start wiping it out. In 1974, natural gas revenue-sharing with municipalities was the first revenue-sharing program; and it was introduced by our administration.

One of the tragedies of section 2 is that it will once again make affordable housing unavailable to the people of British Columbia. When the provincial government cuts back on its responsibility for providing assistance for the construction of sewers and — of more than marginal importance — underground transmission, and makes local government pay for it instead, the practical result, because there's no more money at the local government level, is that those sewers will not be built and that housing will not be constructed.

This is a government of incompetence.

HON. MR. FRASER: Tell us about the reserve funds.

MR. BARBER: We know what they have to do with their reserve funds. They're dipping into them now to pay for essential services and essential construction, which your ridiculous revenue-sharing amendment would otherwise deny them. That's what they're doing with it, Mr. Minister; and they're doing it in your own riding, as you should know full well.

This objectionable section will condemn the people of British Columbia to higher local taxes. This objectionable section will condemn future homeowners to a longer wait and, when they finally do get to the head of the line, they will discover housing is all the more expensive because of the wait, the interest, the extra charges.

Let me repeat the conundrum posed by this section: if the provincial government totally abandons its responsibility for funding under the sewerage facilities act, it means it can only be borne by the developer or the local municipality, or by both in some combination. When that happens, housing is more expensive, more delayed, more unavailable.

That same government of incompetents opposite that cooked up the now infamous Ministry of Deregulation — do you remember that one, Mr. Chairman? — has cooked up this equally unworkable, unreasonable and inappropriate section. No wonder the UBCM condemns it; no wonder virtually every mayor and alderman in the province condemns it. The fact that we condemn it is almost an afterthought; the real attack has come from local government. For once the New Democratic Party has not had to carry the criticism, put forward the analysis or advocate the policy; local government has been doing it very powerfully for itself. This section is objectionable. This section should be withdrawn, and we oppose it as strongly as we are able to.

Section 2 as amended approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 19

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

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

Amendment approved.

Section 4 as amended approved unanimously on a division.

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 5.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to go on record agreeing with what has already been expressed by the other two Burnaby MLAs. We're completely against this change listed here under section 5, and then later in section 6, which repeals the former granting of the moneys out of special funds for sewers and for the transmission line. This is enunciated in section 6.

We're particularly unhappy with this and with the way in which the minister has handled this bill. The very fact that he allowed the municipal councils of British Columbia to actually believe that they were going to get extra assistance from the government this year when he announced the removal of the financing of the Human Resources imposition, which formerly rested with the councils.... I think that the manner in which the minister handled this bodes very poorly for this government — a government that would have a minister who would not speak absolutely straight to the members of the councils of British Columbia. Whether they belong to the Social Credit Party, the NDP or they're apolitical, by and large I think they have all been absolutely stunned

[ Page 7508 ]

that any minister would suggest that he was really giving some new financial assistance to them on the one hand and on the other hand, as this section points out, he is at the same time taking away financial assistance which they had expected to continue to receive.

So, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to go on record. I'm speaking on behalf of the Burnaby council, my fellow colleagues from Burnaby and I'm sure many other people in British Columbia who work very hard to serve the people of their municipalities. We resent the way this minister has handled this, and we are very much against this change.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we've certainly been very candid from the outset about the changes. If others interpreted these changes to be different from what they actually were, that's unfortunate. Again, we've been very forward with announcing the changes. As I mentioned as well — and certainly this relates to section 5 particularly — the changes in part are impacting negatively on some of the communities. There's no question about that. Hopefully next year it will be realized much more clearly by all that with the welfare changes tying into what has been brought into the program by way of section 5, there certainly will be a long-term benefit to municipalities.

I'm a little disturbed by some of these figures that were quoted indicating that the costs to municipalities were as per the figures given by the first member for Victoria. They were based on some formula which he apparently had contrived. The method one, as he called it, was an approach where he said: "We can really only give credit for three-quarters of the welfare benefits, because a portion of the year has already gone by, and therefore the credit which might otherwise be granted in calculating whatever the end result or the bottom line for the municipality can't be taken into consideration for those first months." But he should remember — and I point it out again to all members — that we work on a fiscal year commencing April 1, while they, as everyone knows, work on the calendar year. However, it doesn't change the benefit. Nor do we, when we announce the changes, or the percentage increase or decrease, do it on the basis of a calendar year; it's always on the basis of our fiscal year. If you're attempting to remove by some formula the benefit received by a municipality because of having removed the welfare charge as it applies to the first three months, then you also have to give credit for the additional revenue-sharing moneys received last year.

MR. BARBER: On a point of order, we're now debating, I believe, section 5, which is the repeal of the Sewerage Assistance Act — that's all. It has nothing whatever to do with welfare rates. It's interesting to hear what the minister has to say but it should be under the right section. This section has nothing to do with welfare rates. We just debated that and we passed it unanimously.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member makes a valid point, hon. minister. The minister continues on section 5 specifically.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Section 5 is the section to which the members of the opposition attributed the increase in moneys for unconditional purposes and the decrease in moneys available from revenue-sharing for conditional purposes. So it certainly ties in, Mr. Chairman. Since the figures given earlier by the first member for Victoria were based on these changes, in particular the change proposed in section 5, it's only right that I now set the record straight. I pointed out that the formula he had contrived really could not be applied in the simple way he proposed, and it does relate to section 5.

MR. BARBER: It's UBCM's formula.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Whether it's your formula, or whether in fact you sought some aid from UBCM, makes no difference; the formula is wrong.

The figures with respect to the revenue-sharing as it affects municipalities, because of the change proposed in section 5.... I agree there are municipalities that, because of this change, see some considerable reduction. Others see some slight increase but there are those who have some reduction, and that's well understood. That's certainly not something I've attempted to hide in any way, shape or form, and we've clearly pointed it out time and time again. The figures given for the impact of this section and others on the benefits accruing to White Rock were totally wrong. The difference between what White Rock will receive in 1982 as opposed to 1981 is $52,325, which is about 5 percent less than last year. We also have the figures for Golden, and Golden in fact sees an increase. Again, for Kimberley there is a reduction, but it's a very slight reduction; it's considerably less than 5 percent. Similarly for Stewart and for Mission. So the figures given were not actual. They were simply figures given in accordance with some formula contrived, as I say, by the first member for Victoria.

I wish to point out as well that the moneys necessary for sewerage assistance are so high partly because of interest rates and partly because we've unfortunately lost the benefit of the $25 million community assistance program, a federal program to help the province which lasted only two years. That particular program allowed us to reduce the cost of a project by 20 percent. Our projections had indicated there would be a gradual reduction for the cost of the sewerage assistance program starting last year, then again this year and on from here. If interest rates are reduced, as we expect they will be in time to come — hopefully soon — the benefit to the municipalities will be considerable.

MR. BARBER: We hope section 5 does not pass. It repeals the Sewerage Assistance Act. What that does is repeal the province's obligation to assure the proper treatment of sewage, the proper disposal and transmission of sewage and, with any luck, the improved quality of the water supply into which that sewage would otherwise be dumped.

Social Credit's record of environmental management is a disgrace. Everyone knows how little the coalition cares about those issues. Fortunately, local governments, because they are often much closer to the people — they are elected every two years, as opposed to every four or five years for us — are often much more sensitive to the issue of clean water and the correct disposal of sewage. Local governments need provincial assistance in order to manage that program effectively and affordably. The minister cries that Ottawa has cut back on a program that the province used to benefit from. We feel sorry for him, Mr. Chairman. Maybe he now knows what it feels like when Victoria cuts back on programs that local government used to benefit from. For him to turn around and blame Ottawa for one of its cutbacks and at the same time, in a cheeky way, attempt to avoid responsibility for cutbacks that

[ Page 7509 ]

this coalition of opportunists imposes is to do something that's really almost as ridiculous as the performance of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) during question period today.

You cut back hospitals and you try to avoid the blame. Ottawa cuts back on programs for sewerage assistance and you try to blame Ottawa. As usual, you're applying the coalition's double standard. Ottawa should not have cut back on that program, because it is vital to the success of a national program to upgrade the quality of the water systems in this country. The quality of those water systems is vital to the success of Canada's management of the water resources of our people. Ottawa should not have cut back on that program. Let them cut back on government advertising instead. For you to complain about an Ottawa cutback while at the same time you try to rationalize Victoria cutbacks is to try to do something that is simply ludicrous. You can't get away with it. The UBCM won't let you get away with it, certainly the taxpayers won't, and neither will we.

The Sewerage Assistance Act is an appropriate provincial statute, which, in days past under enlightened governments, was used to help local government guarantee and improve the quality of their entire water system. Those days are gone now. Once again the clock is being turned back by this coalition of opportunists who will do anything to grab a buck from local government and waste it on megaprojects and their vain attempts to get re-elected. This is an attempt to turn back the clock, which is totally unacceptable to anyone who even cares about the quality of life and the quality of the environment in the twentieth century.

The minister is ready to jump to his feet, and I know what he'll say. He'll say: "We're now paying for these things out of revenue-sharing." Right? Bill nods and smiles and waves his glasses. Of course he'll say that. That's his only defence, but it's completely inadequate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The member has full knowledge that members names are not to be used in the House.

MR. BARBER: I'm sorry. You're quite right. Excuse me. I appreciate the correction. The minister fully intends to say: "We're now going to pay for these things out of revenue sharing." The point is that, in anticipation of his lame defence of his halt policy, they're reducing the Revenue Sharing Fund and making local government pay for more things out of that reduced fund. The practical consequence of that is that fewer municipalities will be able to put in sewers, more housing will go unbuilt, and that little which remains to be built will be built at greater expense.

That's no defence. You're welcome to try to make it, but no one will believe it. When you reduce the fund and require the fund to pay for more services, the practical consequence is that less will be done. To do less in the field of guaranteeing the proper transmission and treatment of sewage is to do something that is completely unacceptable. The quality of the water resource of this province is important to us. It's important to local governments, and the only way they can finance it is with your help. You are denying that help by repealing the Sewerage Assistance Act, and you are restricting that help by diminishing the size of the Revenue Sharing Fund and requiring that fund to pay for more services.

There's no other logical way to examine what you've done. You should not do it that way. You should continue with the Sewerage Assistance Act, continue with separate funding for it and continue with a program to guarantee the quality of the water resource in British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out that the member makes the point under section 5 that somehow this government will walk away from some responsibility with respect to providing sewage treatment facilities, and I just want to compare the record. In 1974-75, the last year of the NDP in government, their welfare overrun alone was 20 times the amount they spent on the whole of the sewage treatment program. The total money they had allocated in 1974-75 was $5.6 million, compared with $50 million, which we allocated, and about $40 million last year. It has consistently been these sorts of sums. We've had more major projects initiated by this government with respect to sewage treatment and facilities than what we've seen in the whole of 25 years. If the member gets up there and attempts to say what could be done or what he or they would do, I say look at the record and see what they did.

MR. BARBER: We do look at the record, we do look at the bill, we do look at the section, and we see what you propose to do. During our period in office we met the requests that the local governments had for moneys available for that fund.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Don't be ridiculous! How do you know? You were with Cool Aid.

MR. BARBER: What are you talking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If we address the Chair, allow members who are standing to speak, and look at the section we are debating, we tend to get through the debate in a much more orderly and effective manner.

MR. BARBER: You were almost going to say " speedy," weren't you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Close.

MR. BARBER: To rapidly conclude debate on this objectionable section, you propose to turn the clock back, wipe out the Sewerage Assistance Act and require municipalities to do more with less, which, in the times of Socred interest rate policies, is an impossible thing. You shouldn't try to do it. You should withdraw this section of the bill. If you do so, we will give you leave to do so this very minute.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. BARBER: This section repeals the Transmission Line (Underground) Act. This is not as important, one should concede, as the repeal of the Sewerage Assistance Act, but it is nonetheless important for those who care about the visual quality of life, who care about urban planning in subdivisions where underground transmission lines are an important benefit to people who get to live there and where there is, in fact, some small element of public safety at stake. Obviously when the lines are underground they are safer than when they

[ Page 7510 ]

are above ground hanging from poles that can be knocked over by trucks; they can end up hurting people.

The repeal of this act is, to some minor extent, a degradation of and a danger to the public safety. We have the technology to put all transmission lines underground. Many municipalities have been able to do a great deal of this. They do so in the interest of public safety. They do so to avoid the incidents of electrocution and burning that can sometimes result when a power pole is knocked down and persons are hit by a live wire. Admittedly it is not as major an issue as repealing the Sewerage Assistance Act, but nonetheless there is a question of public safety at stake here. I wonder if the minister has done any kind of impact study at all on the practical consequences of wiping out the Transmission Line (Underground) Act, an act which was designed to encourage and help municipalities to put high-voltage lines underground where they are safer.

It is a question of public safety. It is a question of avoiding damage to individuals and to public health. It is admittedly a minor matter, but for the few people every year who are not burned or electrocuted because the power pole did not fall down on their heads because it had been put underground in the first place, it is no small matter. I wonder if the minister could indicate if he did any study of any sort. If so, will he table that study once we're out of committee, to indicate the practical consequences on the issue of public safety of abandoning a program to go underground with high-voltage transmission lines?

MR. REE: I would ask leave of the House to make an introduction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. REE: It is my pleasure this afternoon to ask the House to welcome a class of grade 11 students from Handsworth Secondary School up on the mountain of the North Shore. We have them under the guidance of their teachers, Mr. Jim Adams and Mr. Stu McDonald. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly do not believe that we made sufficient use of undergrounding. Even though the legislation has been on the books and even though annually there has been a small amount allotted for the purpose of undergrounding — and again this year, with the revenue sharing program, there is a sum of $300,000 for undergrounding — it is definitely paltry compared to what's required to do a proper job. I'm saddened by the fact that there appears to be a real lack of interest on the part of the utility companies, as well, to really become involved in this particular process. I'm hoping that, perhaps, in working with UBCM, we can develop a greater initiative that may see the coming about of a more aggressive program towards undergrounding utility wires, especially, in our communities.

MR. BARBER: While the minister feels sorry about the fact that his policy has not succeeded, for some reason he's decided to abandon the policy. The policy is embodied in the law. The law is being repealed. It's in this act. I'm well aware that the Minister of Municipal Affairs was not the author of the original bill — we research these bills. But you are amending that law by wiping it out altogether, through the section we're now debating. That being the case....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Put it into revenue-sharing.

MR. BARBER: No, I understand it's in revenue-sharing. Contrary to the minister's belief, I read these things really carefully. I spend a lot of time doing that, and I read that this is now in the diminished pie called revenue-sharing from which people will have to take smaller slices to do more and more things.

The practical consequence of repealing this act is that you repeal the primary instrument of public policy that would put high-voltage transmission lines underground. You've now incorporated it into a general statement of policy called revenue-sharing. The practical result of that is that there will be less money for this purpose, but the symbolic consequence is that you have abandoned the only initiative, the principal means of negotiating with municipalities through a separate statute. You've given it up. You're repealing it in this section. I think that's a mistake. I agree that $300,000 a year is much too little. The city of Victoria could spend ten times that amount itself. There are a lot of other municipalities where old poles, where dangerous intersections, where questions of public safety are really explicit, and where those lines should dammed well be underground. It's just not safe to have them. To repeat, Mr. Chairman, we have the technology to put these lines underground, to keep them safe and make them safer than they currently are in the air. We should use that technology, we should keep that statute, and we should reinforce that policy.

Sections 6 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15, Revenue Sharing Amendment Act, reported complete with amendments.

Divisions ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave not granted.

MR. SPEAKER: I hear objection, hon. members, so that will be next sitting.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 32.

[ Page 7511 ]

MUNICIPAL EXPENDITURE RESTRAINT ACT

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I wish to reiterate that certainly all governmental bodies and those involved in public affairs are required to take a very responsible position now in times of restraint, and cooperate in making our efforts work together for the benefit of all British Columbians. I realize that municipalities and regional districts are being asked — and being required — to limit their budget increases to 12 percent or less. Fortunately, this does not appear to present too much of a problem, and we have received some requests from regional districts — we've received a great many, as a matter of fact — for exemptions or exceptions, and these have been granted. About 40 municipalities have applied for exceptions. Again, little if any difficulty has been encountered with those.

A large number of the exceptions were granted based on considerations such as…where a program or function was only in effect for a short time in 1981, we've had to grant an exception to provide for a full year's operation in 1982. Similarly, staff positions that were either added late in 1981 or vacant for a lengthy period in 1981 were excepted to provide normal operating levels in 1982. Unavoidable or extraordinary 1982 expenditure requirements — that is, snow removal and such — were allowed. There was no difficulty with those.

Finally — and certainly this is where many of the lower mainland requests especially came from — if there was a civic strike during the early part of 1981 which reduced expenditures, then we would obviously have to make some provision for that reduction in the year 1982. That has been done.

Certainly, as I said, there has been little difficulty encountered with most, if not all, of the regional districts and municipalities, For the most part there appears to be pretty solid support for the introduction of this legislation. As a matter of fact, the UBCM has gone on record in saying that they certainly have no difficulty with the principle of it, and they found that most municipalities could certainly meet the limitation. It was naturally subject to seeing how the inspector of municipalities might receive the various exceptions requested. But again, there has been no difficulty there, and they are, as I mentioned, basically supportive of the initiative provided for in this legislation.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to move second reading.

MR. BARBER: I rise as the designated speaker for the official opposition, Mr. Speaker. If you'd care to come back around twenty to six, I'd be happy to see you then.

The practical effect of this bill is to put local government into political receivership. This bill does for municipal councils what the Education (Interim) Finance Act did for school boards: it takes away their responsibility to set their own budgets; it denies local freedom, local choice and local responsibility. It puts them into political receivership in order that the Minister of Municipal Affairs personally, as the czar of all the municipalities, may make all the decisions for locally elected persons.

Everyone believes in governmental restraint as far as wasteful, non-essential and silly expenditures go. We believe in appropriate government expenditures for health care and human services and for affordable economic development. Local government is at least as responsible, if not a lot more so, as the Social Credit government in setting its own budgets — they're pretty good at doing that. By and large they are more efficient than any provincial government and certainly far more so than any national government we care to look at. Last year local government did not have an overrun of $225 million, as did the Social Credit government, Local government has not run up debts of $10 billion, as Social Credit will have run up by the end of the next fiscal year. Local government by and large is much more prudent and much more responsible than the Social Credit government has ever been in managing its economic affairs.

Local government may or may not choose to meet a 9, 10, 11, 12 or 13 percent budget figure this year by way of increase over last year. But you see, that's fundamentally up to them. It is in the field of responsible government — not up to us. We don't elect mayors and aldermen as MLAs; the people do as citizens. It is our belief as New Democrats that local government should be strong, free and responsible. New Democrats believe in decentralized authority, decentralized government and local control. We believe, for instance, that the Financial Control Act was a horrible attempt to impose the provincial will on non-provincial agencies. We believe that when Social Credit wiped out resource boards, that was a vicious attack on local freedom and local choice. We believe that when Social Credit wiped out the Alcohol and Drug Commission as it was constituted and replaced it with public servants, that was a stupid attack on local participation and on local design of alcohol treatment programs. We believe that when Social Credit introduced Bill 42 under the tutelage of the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis), that was a disgraceful attack on local initiative and local freedom.

We observe, for instance, that this government has made a number of amendments to the statutes that determine who shall participate on the boards of directors of regional colleges, and that too has been a typical Socred attack on local government, local freedom and local choice, When Social Credit attempts to override local government and give farmland away to its sleazy developer friends, this is a devastating attack on the principle of local choice and local freedom in land use. We know what they've done with the Lottery Fund. We certainly know what the land-use act is all about and now we have this bill. The czar of all municipalities, the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), will have the personal power to set municipal budgets, to reset municipal priorities and to do at the local level what he was not elected to do by any local elector.

Social Credit is the most heavy-handed, centralist administration this province has ever seen, This bill represents the heavy hand of state centralism as Social Credit has always imposed it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What about forced amalgamations, Charlie?

MR. BARBER: Yes, Hughie?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What about forced amalgamations?

MR. BARBER: What about them?

[ Page 7512 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Victoria is debating.

MR. BARBER: Yes, but not debating the Minister of Finance; debating the bill. The bill is an attempt to place local government into political receivership, as I said before. It is an attempt to do so under the guise of restraint. They are using the word "restraint" because their pollsters — who are not paid for by the Social Credit Party but rather by the taxpayer — told them that the word "restraint" is popular. The word "restraint" may be popular but the program content most certainly is not, because it is not restraint. It is, in fact, a kind of political tyranny imposed by Social Credit over local government.

To reiterate, New Democrats believe in local government, local responsibility and local freedom. We do not believe that you are justified in circumscribing, diminishing or undermining it through the guise of a phony restraint program which applies to everyone except members of the cabinet. Is there is a mayor in all of British Columbia who takes out his constituents and guzzles down $37.50 bottles of wine? Can they name even one mayor who does that? Is there is a mayor in all of British Columbia who buys a 60-cent carton of milk and charges it to the government by voucher and expects the taxpayer to pay for his milk-guzzling habits as well as his wine-guzzling habits? If you are going to point the finger at anyone, point it at yourselves first. You don't need to point it at local governments through a bill like this. If they believe in restraint, which they pretend to do but which they do not practice, they would not have wasted $12,000 yesterday on a disgraceful attempt to exploit that magnificent hockey team, the Vancouver Canucks. You wasted $12,000 to exploit these splendid athletes and you propose now to tell some other level of government that they must exercise restraint. That is kind of sickening. The hypocrisy and the stench of that hypocrisy sickens people in British Columbia.

Last year this government was given an opportunity by the official opposition to vote in favour of $82 million worth of restraint. We proposed that they cut back government advertising, PR, travel and office furniture. We gave them $82 million worth of opportunities to demonstrate their sincerity last year. Before this group asks or requires anyone else to exercise restraint, why don't they start doing it themselves?

The minister who sponsored this bill indicated such a lack of restraint last year that his personal office budget was overrun by $25,000. Is there a mayor in British Columbia whose personal office budget was overrun by twenty-five grand last year? I don't think so.

There is another principle. I am reminded of it by my colleague from Prince Rupert. What if the federal government, with the new constitution and aided and abetted by the Socred-Liberal coalition in British Columbia, decided to impose a provincial expenditure restraint act? What if Ottawa decided to do to you what you propose to do to those you perceive to be under you? You would be screaming bloody murder and for good reason because, you see, we at the provincial level are also elected separately and independently, just like aldermen and mayors. Ottawa should restrain its own absurd and unnecessary expenditures on travel, PR and wine-guzzling. So should you, but until you've done it first you're in no position to tell anyone else to do it. Until the government of $37.50 bottles of wine cleans up its own act, how can you presume to tell local government what they may and may not spend? If they spend too much or too little, they will be thrown out by local electors, and so it should be.

Why are you acting as the czar of all the municipalities and presuming that you alone know best how they may write their budgets? Of course we believe in restraining unnecessary, foolish and political expenditures. Of course we believe in that, and we gave you $82 million worth of cutbacks last year which you rejected. We're going to give you more cutbacks this year, and you'd be awfully stupid to reject them. But if you do, we will continue to move around this great province and tell people about their not-so-great government wasting incredibly great amounts of money to promote themselves and their crackpot economic schemes for British Columbia.

Until you clean up your act, you're in no position to tell local government to clean up theirs. As it happens, their act is a great deal cleaner than yours. They do not have $225 million overruns, like Social Credit did last year. They do not have $10 billion worth of debt, like Social Credit will have next year. They do not have mayors who overrun their personal office budgets by $25 000, like the Minister of Municipal Affairs did last year. Local government has exercised great restraint in the past, and they will continue to do so in the future. In that regard, this bill is unnecessary. It is an insult to local freedom, local choice and local government. They will exercise appropriate restraint; they will not, I suspect, take out ads exploiting the Vancouver Canucks, and they will not cook up local departments of deregulation or compulsory heroin treatment programs that are totally unworkable and that have to be shut down at great expense. I have never seen the city of Vancouver try to convert the SeaBus from a day vessel to a night vessel, and from a night vessel to day vessel, like you did with the Marguerite, wasting $20 million in the process. Local government has never exercised those foolish policies; Social Credit has.

The real wastrels in this province have always been Social Credit. They spend money like a team of drunken sailors. They spend money like it was going out of style, and considering the high interest rate policies of this administration and their friends in Ottawa, it is going out of style. You won't need wallets in the future, Mr. Speaker; you'll need wheelbarrows. That's what Social Credit fiscal policy is all about.

You have no business trying to tell local government to exercise restraint when you are doing none of it yourselves. Your budgets for travel this year are way up over last year, your budgets for advertising this year are way up over last year, your overruns in the B.C. Systems Corporation are way up over last year, and now you're asking for authority to increase the borrowing limit to $60 million.

What municipal government has ever asked its electors for borrowing authority like you have? They have always shown restraint, they have always been prudent, they have always been accountable, and much more often than Social Credit. Until you guys clean up your act, you have no business asking local government to do the same, especially when they've already been doing it prudently, cautiously and conservatively over the last many, many years in this province.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an insult calculated to exploit a narrow range of public opinion, in order to benefit the government opposite. I don't think it will succeed. The restraint program, phony and hypocritical as it is, is falling apart already. We were treated yesterday to the spectacle of the Premier himself, red-faced and arm-waving, telling us that

[ Page 7513 ]

his own program apparently isn't good enough now, and he's going to have to introduce even tougher legislation, as he describes it.

Well, that's absurd. Even before your bill is law, you're telling us it isn't adequate. The Premier knows that the phony restraint program of Social Credit, which restrains everyone except members of the cabinet and their $37.50 bottles of wine, is not being believed by the people of British Columbia. It's not going to be believed by local government either. This bill is unnecessary and is an insult to local government, and if you knew what you were doing, you'd withdraw it.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, in the last few years we've seen within the province and with this government a decided bent in the direction of legislating greater and greater amounts of authority into the hands of the cabinet, as distinct from it being in the hands of the Legislature. We see here, in this particular bill and in other bills that have been dealt with and are to be dealt with later in this session, a movement of authority and control away from local governments and into the hands of the cabinet. That did not take place accidentally. It is part of an overall grand design and grand plan of this government to move to destroy and make ineffective local governments. It is part of a grand plan to restrict and interfere with democracy because it basically does not believe in democracy.

The government can — and is moving to — restrict its share of funds to local governments. But local government — municipalities — raise revenue themselves by taxes upon residences, property and land. Along with that taxing authority of the local government there has to be the concomitant responsibility to the people being taxed. This bill seeks to remove that responsibility and to deny it to local governments, municipalities, regional districts and the other municipal type of authorities set out in the interpretation section of the bill. It seeks to intrude upon one of the basic tenets of our democracy: that is, that the government which is closest to people is the government that is most responsive to people. Any interference with that is just the Big Brother activity, the state control activity that is in this particular bill.

I have had the pleasure of seeing governments function at the federal and provincial levels. While not having been an active participant in municipal governments, nonetheless I do take part in their electoral activities and have watched them function as well. Municipal governments are the most frugal, responsible and responsive to local needs and local feelings of the three. They are the most conscious about getting best value for dollars spent. This bill seeks to tell those municipalities that no longer are they going to have that particular responsibility which they have prosecuted so admirably over the years.

There is a provision in the bill — in the Minister of Municipal Affairs seeking to take the authority about operating budgets of municipalities — that says he will have that authority notwithstanding what it says in any other act, What that means in uncomplicated layman's terms is that it really is of no consequence to the minister what any other law of this Legislature says; he is seeking to be the supreme god insofar as municipal operating budgets are concerned.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: That's pretty high up. I thought czar was high enough.

MR. HOWARD: The minister objects to the word god. That's up to him. He prefers the word czar. Czar or commissar perhaps would be much more in keeping with what he is seeking to obtain from this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Back to the bill, please.

MR. HOWARD: I was precisely talking about the bill until the Minister of Municipal Affairs attracted me to converse with him about his role as commissar in charge of municipal operating budgets.

Not only that, but the bill also makes a particular point of saying that any decision which the minister makes, any exercise of his supreme power, notwithstanding any other law that this Legislature passes, is classified as a directive. It makes a point of saying that it is a directive, not a regulation. The Regulation Act does not apply. If the minister's exercise of this supreme power that he has were to be done by way of a regulation, at least it would be open to public view. It would be required to be published and open. This way it's secret. His directive can come by way of a telephone call, by way of a letter, by way of an order, or it could be transmitted by whatever nature — on television, following the example of the Premier. Any type of supreme authority of that nature that is classified as a directive but not as a regulation and is done without any other act — notwithstanding the provisions — wouldn't be classified as a type of authority similar to that which one would expect in a fascist country or a communist country. I wouldn't put it in that category at all. It strikes me that it's more the type of authority that one would expect from a Liberal — more the type of authority that one would expect from Prime Minister Trudeau.

When I look at this piece of legislation — and I've read various pieces of federal legislation as well — I tell you, Mr. Speaker, Trudeau couldn't have done it any better. It's authoritarian. It's a fellow-traveler type of law, anti-democratic and it impinges on local government.

As a local government. municipalities will now basically have a government in exile in the form of a commissar in charge of Municipal Affairs. Is this Liberal-type legislation? Exactly! And we've had the discussions in the House here the past few days about the Liberal Party and how this crowd opposite, that passes itself off as the government of this province, is basically Liberal-oriented. It's basically very friendly with the Trudeaus. They counter that by saying: "Oh, no, it isn't so." But just go down the list, Mr. Speaker, and see for yourself. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) is a Liberal. The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is a Liberal. Real powerhouses in the cabinet, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (HON. Mr. McGeer) is a Liberal. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is a Liberal. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is not only a Liberal, Mr. Speaker, but a Trudeau Liberal — the worst type of Liberal. In 1968 the Minister of Municipal Affairs was a Liberal candidate in Surrey–White Rock. Maybe he forgets that he did it. This picture is a reproduction from the Surrey Leader.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Table it.

MR. HOWARD: I'll send it over to you.

There they are on June 20, 1968 — there they are: two smiling faces peering into the bleak future. "Make your vote

[ Page 7514 ]

count," says one of them. That's this one. "This is our big chance," he says, "to get into the mainstream. Vote Liberal. Vote Bill Vander Zalm." Pierre is smiling. They have their arms around each other, embracing in public. They're able to do that because of the change in the Criminal Code. That's just one. Here's another one from the Surrey Leader on June 13, 1968. That candidate, Bill Vander Zalm, has his hand on his hip, a big smile, teeth gleaming and his arms are linked with Trudeau.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Send it over.

MR. HOWARD: I'll send it over to you. Hold on. The minister wants me to send it over to him only because he"s forgotten that he did this dastardly deed. Do you know what he said?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The authority suggests that the debate on the stages of the bill particularly second reading, should be confined to the bill and should not be extended to be criticism of administration, and certainly not criticism of the personality himself. Perhaps the member would take that into consideration as he's developing his speech.

MR. HOWARD: It deals exactly with the bill, Mr. Speaker. Federal laws brought into the House of Commons time after time by Prime Minister Trudeau had those telling words in them: "notwithstanding any other act." That's federal law. That's Liberal doctrine. That's what has prompted the minister here to extol his virtuous relationship with Mr. Trudeau by saying: "Now join the Trudeau team." There it, is. He's even got one here, Mr. Speaker, on June 20, in which he has a little comment on the bottom of this one: "I am ashamed of my Social Credit colleague in the Surrey–White Rock riding." There was a Social Credit candidate in Surrey–White Rock at that time. Our Bill says: "I'm ashamed of my Social Credit colleague in the Surrey–White Rock riding." Well, I'll bet his Social Credit colleague is sure ashamed of him now for having sold out to the Liberal Party, having sold out to the Trudeau doctrine of authoritarianism, having sold out to the Trudeau concept of anti-democracy.

It's a shameful way to have to look upon a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but I think we can look at it in, no other way. The bland, innocent comments of the minister, when he opened the second reading of this bill, seeking to put people off by saying, "Oh, well, there's nothing to it, it's just a gentle little piece of legislation. I mean, there is only one page, and it's really the sort of thing that we need to do," and so on.... I closed my eyes and heard Prime Minister Trudeau speaking as I've heard him speak in the House of Commons time after time. If there was ever a reason in the history of this province to vote against a piece of legislation, that reason is that it's Trudeau-type legislation. The minister should withdraw it, admit his error and say that he made a mistake in 1968. Don't perpetuate it by bringing this type of pro-fascist legislation into the House. Shame on you, Bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, we refer to members of the House by their portfolio or by their constituency designation.

MR. HOWARD: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Shame on the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. MUSSALLEM: It is an honour for me to stand here and support Bill 32. It was rather a surprise for me to hear the hon. member for Victoria and other hon. members in this chamber decry with some vehemence the fact that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) had the audacity to buy wine for $37.50 a bottle. That they consider a big deal. I sit here and just smile. I wonder which of us, when inviting a guest to our home, does not get the best wine we can afford, does not get the best meat we can buy.

AN HON. MEMBER: We pay for it ourselves.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Well, we do, but so does this government. The same thing applies. I think the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, responsible for the liquor outlets in the province, should be going first class. I think it is fitting and proper that he should buy wine if he has guests of this province, no matter where it is. I'm telling you that I'd do the same thing. It is proper, fitting and correct.

What this bill does, in my opinion — and I support it strongly — is to cover the municipality and take from them the responsibility of going into debt carelessly. It is not inconceivable. It has happened before that when municipalities have got into serious trouble, and one case at hand was the municipality of Burnaby. They were in such tremendous debt that it was in receivership for I don't know how many years. At a time like this I think the people are welcoming the opportunity to see a government that is watching the municipalities to make sure they are not getting into unnecessary debt. It's a time of restraint. Municipalities are close to the people, and they are usually in a position where they have to bend to the wishes of their electors. They're in a position where sometimes they bend too much and spend too much money; it happens, although they are quite responsible. The minister and this government are finally responsible, and they must stand clearly and say: "We are the responsible party. We recommend that you do not go into debt." There is restraint, and this is merely a time of restraint.

I can't understand how members of the opposition would take this opportunity to say that we should not have restraint. What are they talking about? It is a time when we do not know the future; if we could see it we could go on as usual. What will the future bring? Is the recession over? Are we on the way out of trouble, or are we not? Some great economists tell us that it will be six months before we're out of trouble. In six months we could be in serious trouble in our municipalities and our businesses. It's not only in the municipalities where we must be careful, it must also be in business. I think that if I was to say anything to business, I would like to say what I say to my own: "You have to survive in the next six months." It may take longer. I hope it takes less time, but this is a time of restraint. All this bill says is: "We are ultimately responsible or your debts, and we are requesting that you do not step over the threshold." I do approve of this bill and support it wholeheartedly.

MRS. WALLACE: I was very interested to hear the member for Dewdney, who has just taken his place, say that this bill is relieving the municipalities of responsibility. It isn't relieving them of responsibility; it's relieving them of authority. They're still stuck with the responsibility of providing local government. That member has it completely backwards, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 7515 ]

It's certainly interesting to listen to members of the other side who support this bill. Had this bill been brought in a few years ago, perhaps by a New Democratic government, and had the member for Omineca been the mayor of Houston, I can't help but wonder what his reaction would have been. I can just imagine the furor, the rhetoric in protest against the taking away his responsibility as mayor of Houston. I wonder what the Minister of Finance would have said if he had still been the mayor of Saanich, and perhaps still the chairman of the municipal financing authority, and he were faced with this bill. Although there were no such bills before the House, when the Social Credit government of that day and the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dan Campbell, would bring in legislation or his estimates for the year, that particular mayor used to be very outspoken in his objection. Now he is part of a government that is introducing legislation three, four, five times worse than anything undertaken in that period of time, and he supports it. It's a very strange thing to watch.

It's interesting to think what the minister responsible for this bill would have done had he still been mayor of Surrey.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'd have been very supportive. I would have said: "Good stuff."

MRS. WALLACE: I believe you would have been very upset, Mr. Minister.

The interpretation section of this bill talks about the various bodies that are covered, and one of them is regional districts. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, who is just leaving the House, has been known to express a lot of negative feelings about regional districts, yet as the czar who is now going to make the decisions about regional districts, municipalities and water improvement districts, he will have that kind of authority over those regional districts. He's going to tell regional districts that they must restrain their expenditures, that they must keep within a 12-percent increase. Yet he has, I'm sure, endorsed the Minister of Finance's recommendation to increase the rate for rural districts from 10 to 12 mills.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, in connection with this restraint bill, might be very interested to know just how much he's going to make from the Cowichan Valley Regional District as a result of that increase.

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, in all kindness, I point out to the hon. member who's speaking that there is another bill on this very subject, one that is not yet before the House for second reading.

MR. SPEAKER: But it has been tabled and is on the order paper?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member take cognizance of the fact that there is a bill of that description on the order paper.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, I'm quite aware of that, Mr. Speaker. What I'm talking about are the kind of increases that will accrue to the government in that particular area, an average increase of 31 percent, while at the same time this ministry is telling municipalities to keep their expenditures within a 12 percent range. That's the kind of contradiction we see constantly from this government, and that's the kind of evidence that makes it so difficult to believe in this government's sincerity. It's difficult to believe they really want restraint generally. They are attempting to use their powers to force various agencies and groups of people to restrain themselves, but at the same time this government is prepared to accept a 31 percent increase from the rural areas of one particular regional district.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Require it.

MRS. WALLACE: Absolutely — require it by legislation, as the Minister of Finance so kindly pointed out.

The one particular reason that I rose in this debate was to ask the minister to clarify a point I raised at another time in this House. At the time I raised it the Premier was in the House, and he was shaking his head very decidedly, indicating that I was wrong in what I was saying. In order to get the record absolutely clear, I want to read into the record a news release that appeared in our local paper on March 30 relative to the Cowichan Community Centre. This relates to how we calculate restraint on money-making ventures within a regional district or a municipality.

"The provincial government's restraint programs could signal the end of quality entertainment and many of the programs at Cowichan Community Centre. The community centre commission learned Thursday how the restraint program will affect the centre. All expenditures must be within 12 percent of last year, and revenues cannot be used to balance expenditures.

"They couldn't believe it, but Friday the hard-line interpretation which will likely cut all money-making functions from the budget was verified by Municipal Affairs officials. 'We thought they just didn't understand what we're doing here, but apparently they do,' the chairman of the commission advised the press. 'I can't believe this is what Premier Bennett had in mind when he announced the restraints.'"

Apparently the Premier did not, by the way he was shaking his head when I raised this earlier.

"The chairman said that he has no idea where this latest interpretation leaves the community centre commission. One of the hardest-hit functions under the restraint program will be the community centre theatre, which sponsors acts from the Royal Winnipeg Ballet to Stringband. It will now be required, along with the rest of the community centre, to budget by expenditures only. 'What that means,' the chairman said, 'is that revenues generated by events at that centre will no longer be included in the centre budget. It is insane, but that is what the provincial government is insisting on.' He said he spent most of the day at the community centre speaking with municipal officials in an effort to have the restraints interpreted so the centre could continue to offer a wide variety of events to the valley. The final word came from inspector of municipalities Chris Woodward, who told him in no uncertain terms that restraints take expenditures only into account.

"One of the first things to go will be a boxing commission which, ironically, the commission gave its okay to only the night before. Boxing matches, which have proven extremely lucrative for Nanaimo,

[ Page 7516 ]

would cost money to put on, even though the revenue generated could be many times the original expenditure."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What's a boxing match got to do with my restraint bill?

MRS. WALLACE: Really, that is just what I am asking you, Mr. Minister. Because of your restraint bill that community centre will not be able to include the expenses for that boxing commission in their budget, regardless of how much revenue that would return to that community centre. They can't calculate revenue, according to one of your chief executives.

Can't the minister consider the possibility of allowing the difference between the expenditures and the revenues? If you consider the revenue, your expenses will go up little or not at all; perhaps they will decline because your revenues are growing. By this ridiculous interpretation of this bill for money-making ventures that are owned and operated by municipalities, you are putting a damper on any activities in the area.

I have mentioned earlier about the Canucks, where they have to have the Plexiglas. The government decision is not to allow the expenditure of $5,000 for Plexiglas. They have already purchased the Plexiglas and intend to install it this spring, but we're not allowed to do that. That means that the Canucks will have to find some other place for their fall training camp.

Many of these things that we take for granted will no longer be there. It affects anything that we could make a profit on. It will simply turn that centre into a super rental agency. We'll be able to rent the rooms and rent the equipment, but we won't be able to sponsor anything ourselves to get the return and the revenue for the community.

That's what this bill is doing — not just to Cowichan; it's affecting places like Victoria and Vancouver as well. I would ask the minister to review his stand on that particular aspect of this. Well, I would ask him to review his stand on the whole thing, because it's utterly ridiculous to take into his hands that kind of authority over locally elected community govern ments that are put there by the people to serve the needs of local people. I'm sure he won't do that; he's not going to withdraw the bill. But I would ask him to look very carefully at his interpretation of this restraint bill in respect to those money-making community projects which are operated not just for the social and sports betterment of the people who live there, but which also from an economic point of view are turning dollars into the community. Through this bill, that minister is stopping that kind of endeavour. I would ask him to look very carefully at that, to review it, and at least change that portion of the interpretation to prevent that kind of curtailment from happening.

MR. LEGGATT: I've always found that the shortest pieces of legislation are the most dangerous. We're looking at a one-page bill which has within it the seeds of dictatorship. It is a bill in which the provincial level of government has told democratically elected and responsible aldermen and mayors in this province that we are going to limit their mandate, the one given to them by the people of each of those municipalities.

I've had the opportunity of being in political life for quite a long time, I've had the opportunity of serving on school boards and on municipal councils, serving in this Legislature and serving....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Political opportunism.

MR. LEGGATT: Always with the same party, I might add, Mr. Speaker. So the political opportunism that I hear the ex-Liberal suggest is, of course, pretty difficult for the minister to substantiate. But I know he has that cynical smile about the question of party loyalty. There's not much that the minister has ever been really loyal to, except his own personal political ambition.

I want to go back to the purpose of the bill. I have served as a municipal politician, as a school trustee, as an MLA and as a Member of Parliament for some seven years.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Show-off!

MR. LEGGATT: I'm very proud, actually, of being able to serve in those positions, representing the same political party. There are not many who have been able to do that.

Mr. Speaker, those politicians who are closest to the people are the best politicians to spend your money; they happen to be municipal politicians, elected by and responsible to the people who elect them.

I'm very shocked that this minister, who has municipal experience, who spent some years messing around in the affairs of Surrey....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Messing?

MR. LEGGATT: Messing up Surrey? In any event, he's had some local experience. I assume that he has sat down and actually looked at a budget in Surrey. I assume that Surrey had meetings where they scratched at each other to try to figure out what they could and couldn't spend and worried and worried about those expenditures.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I wrote the budget.

MR. LEGGATT: That's right. The minister tells me he actually wrote the budget in Surrey; I'm sure he did. I'm sure he had to try to write that budget and then try to get it through a very tough council. Then he had to have people sitting right next to him in the gallery criticizing, asking for points of order. That's real democracy at the local level.

I'll trust those people to spend my money any day before I'll trust the minister to spend my money over here. There is no question whatsoever that your money is more cautiously and responsibly spent at the local level. It is the height of hypocrisy for this government, for this minister, to tell duly elected, democratically responsible representatives that they are no longer responsible to the people, that they're responsible to the big czar of a centralizer over there. This bill says: "You are-not responsible to the people who elected you. You are just the handmaiden of the Social Credit government from this point on."

I think the public is going to have to take a careful look at this before the next municipal elections — whether, in fact, they want to elect people who are merely the handmaidens of the provincial government. In fact, they're going to look very seriously at those who are independent of mind. This is the

[ Page 7517 ]

bill to castrate local politicians. It not only does that, but the minister and this government like to make a big thing of how they promote efficiency throughout the various municipalities.

There's no question what this bill will do. Those prudent municipalities who have been very careful in using their taxing powers, who have been very cautious in hoping that they would have a few projects for this year, are about to be punished with this bill. They are about to be punished, because they're getting the same limit as the ones who may have been a little more generous with the taxpayers' money. Is this the kind of even-handed administration…? This is stupid and irrational legislation. It penalizes the thrifty and rewards, perhaps, those who should have been a little tighter. I'll still trust those politicians before I'll trust a provincial centralizer any day.

There is now a philosophical difference between the New Democratic Party and this present government that is getting wider and wider.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I'm glad to see the member from way over there in the East Kootenays agreeing that that philosophy is getting wider. The difference is that, as you examine the legislation that's coming down — the restrictions on school boards, the restrictions on municipalities, the legislation which has come down this session to confiscate the power of school boards to receive non-residential tax....

The confiscation of that tax revenue is an enormous power grab on the part of this government which reduces and weakens local government. It reduces the power of local government to represent the people as they should, and takes all the power into Victoria. The great state centralizers are at it again.

Mr. Speaker, the difference between the government and the New Democratic Party continues to be that we trust people. We trust people to make responsible judgments at the local level, and this government doesn't. They don't trust local people at all. They want to hold their hands. They don't want to give them any responsibility at all. I'll still trust my locally elected representative to spend my local tax money any day before I'll put it in the hands of the wastrels on the other side of the House — put it in the hands of people who would, in the most cynical way, attempt to garner, through acts of desperation, anything going.

The Vancouver Sun had something to say about this government today that I think hits the nail on the head. The editorial's called "The B.C. Spirit."

"The slick, full-page B.C. government advertisements supporting the Vancouver Canucks reek of political opportunism by a party desperate to catch some reflected glory by riding the hockey team's coat-tails. The newspaper ads featuring a white towel, the adopted symbol of the team's march to the Stanley Cup, and the Social Credit slogan 'That's the B.C. Spirit' cost taxpayers $14,200."

That must be hard to take, you guys. It's like having the hand that you've been feeding come back and bite you, right?

"The stunt will not break the provincial budget, but it's an insult to the many British Columbians who are being asked to exercise restraint as the province struggles through one of the worst recessions in decades. In normal times the political gimmick would be questionable, an expensive indiscretion. But in the midst of the government's own restraint program, when businesses, unions and public institutions are being asked to make sacrifices, the ads display a lack of moral leadership.

"Since the government invites comparison with the Canucks, it would do better to emulate the self-discipline exhibited by the team's defence."

I can't add much more to that editorial. It really does say it all about the cynical attempt to manipulate public opinion, to ride on the coat-tails of a magnificent group of athletes. Certainly, they are far more worthy of support than this government — that goes without saying, Mr. Speaker.

I hope "B.C. spirit" means that moral leadership is a part of that spirit. If anyone has the B.C. spirit, it isn't this government. The rest of the population may have some spirit. A lot of it has been taken away from them, but the B.C. spirit has nothing to do with the Social Credit government.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would remind all members that we are presently on Bill 32, the Municipal Expenditure Restraint Act.

MR. LEGGATT: The other aspect of this bill that is particularly offensive is that the bill doesn't say what the percentage of restraint is. This 12-percent figure is something that has come down as a directive, not as a regulation, and not as something you can challenge. The directive may change next week. It may go to 14 percent. This discretionary power set forth under Bill 32 is one of the most serious erosions of the normal democratic process that we've ever seen foisted on us in this House.

We have duly-elected representatives who understand their local communities far better than this government will ever understand local communities, They are far more responsive to local communities and far more able to understand what a community can and cannot afford than this government is. I am against restraint if it means that they are the people who are doing the restraining, because they have demonstrated that they don't know anything about restraint. They haven't demonstrated any leadership whatsoever in the field of restraint. They've been throwing money around like drunken sailors and now they're telling duly-elected local people to restrain their spending. The lesson starts at home, with this government after they've demonstrated some restraint. If they had accepted, for example, a reasonable cut in their budget, like the S82 million the New Democratic Party proposed to them a year ago to cut out the fat, waste, spending, travelling and booze, then maybe this year they might have some argument about restraint. But restraint is a matter of leadership and the issue around this bill is a total lack of leadership from the minister and his government. Therefore we will be opposing this legislation.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Again it has been pointed out by the opposition that somehow this would restrict the authorities and powers of local government. One member said it would put them into some sort of receivership. I would suggest that this will not do anything of the sort. Instead it will obviously provide the people within the municipalities with the knowledge that the taxes they are required to pay will be restrained and limited by this legislation. Municipalities

[ Page 7518 ]

and regional districts as well will be participating in the attempts to try to reduce the cost of government at all levels. To suggest, as one member did, that we do not believe in giving local government freedom, is certainly contrary to all the programs that we've initiated where much, if not all, of the initiative is with local government. Unlike the NDP, we have not forced amalgamation and such on municipalities; we have instead allowed the people there to make their own decisions.

It was suggested by one of the members that somehow this was a sellout to our sleazy developer friends. I don't know how this could possibly fall into the category where someone could make such a charge. Firstly, I have lots of developer friends, but they're not sleazy. They are not NDP, perhaps, but I can assure you they're not sleazy. That is probably why. Developers will benefit from the legislation in the sense that all people will benefit if we can help limit the tax increase that might be imposed on the populace otherwise. If we can restrict or prevent those tax increases through this legislation then obviously we have attained what we set out to do.

I don't argue that local governments are very responsible and certainly I would agree with most of the comments made with respect to local governments being perhaps most responsible when considered in the whole sphere of governments throughout the country. But, again, there has to be that initiative on our part to ensure — and this legislation provides it — that local governments in certain areas do not run away, because while we may speak in generalities about the responsibility of individual councils or members, there are certainly those areas where there would be the danger of considerable tax increases, and we know this can be avoided. This legislation, which puts a limit on the amount of budget increase, will be the vehicle that will make it all possible.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 19

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

Bill 32, Municipal Expenditure Restraint 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: Second reading of Bill 18, Mr. Speaker.

SYSTEM AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: When the British Columbia Systems Corporation was established a few years ago, the board of directors was made up of members of the Treasury Board of the province of British Columbia, and it appeared appropriate at that time. The power to control and direct systems development within the government clearly is a matter to be determined ultimately by the Treasury Board and by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Mr. Speaker, the board's membership has changed to the degree to which only one minister, the Minister of Finance, sits on the board. I relinquished the chairmanship of the board some time ago to Mr. Mallory Smith, believing that, again, a minister should not serve as the chairman of any Crown corporation board; that is in line with this government's philosophy. This is clearly appropriate in this case and in the best interests of the corporation. However, there exists a necessity to clarify the duties and the responsibilities of the board and its relationship to the provincial government. The amendment contained in Bill 18 makes it clear that the Systems Corporation is subject to the direction of Treasury Board.

At the present time the System Act also requires the British Columbia Systems Corporation to remit their net income or loss for each fiscal year to the general revenue or the general expenditure of the province. At the outset this provided the government and the corporation with the most practical method of dealing with this responsibility. Given the increased activities of the corporation — it's maturing, in fact — and its financial arrangements with the province, it's now appropriate to provide for increased flexibility in the financial relationship which I just described. Under the arrangement proposed in the amendment, the province would have that increased flexibility in determining the timing of the movement of the income from the corporation. This would provide for simpler accounting procedures and would also provide the province with a method of accommodating the corporation with respect to its particular financial needs.

In regard to the corporation's borrowing limit, Mr. Speaker, the Systems Corporation has leased property for its operation since its inception in 1977. Again, the leasing was appropriate at the outset, but certainly with the maturing of the corporation it is no longer the best route to follow. Last year the government granted the corporation permission to construct its own facility. Members, of course, will know of the progress which is occurring on the construction of this building on what may be called the northern part of Blanshard Street in the municipality of Saanich but in the constituency of Victoria. Completion of the structure is expected in just under a year from now — in fact, in March 1983.

In order to adequately finance this project and the corporation's existing operations obligations, it will be necessary to increase the corporation's borrowing limit. This is made clear in a breakdown of the corporation's capital program and working capital requirements for 1982-83. Funding requirements beyond the present fiscal year will be a function of net

[ Page 7519 ]

income retention and new capital projects, if any, not presently identified. This summary indicates the need for funding authority beyond the current level of $50 million.

In speaking to this it is necessary to point out that the precise amount required is unknown. However, it should be comfortably larger than the 1982-83 amount of some $56.2 million; thus the recommendation that $65 million be the new statutory funding limit. I can assure you and hon. members that I believe that is comfortable. It is difficult to project in connection with this particular corporation, but I feel that it is a comfortable figure which we can live well within.

In addition, the System Act presently allows the government to guarantee borrowings undertaken by the corporation. Equipment lease contracts in existence at the time of the formation of the corporation which had been entered into by the province were assigned to the corporation. Subsequently these leases were allowed to lapse or, if renewed, have been done so in the name of the corporation without the necessity or advantage of a provincial guarantee. New leases have been similarly structured. In assessing the financing opportunities in the capital markets available to a number of Crown corporations — I speak here of those other than British Columbia Hydro — lower cost advantages do exist for certain classes of capital acquisitions, through lease arrangements to provide increased financing flexibility at the lowest cost, along with the improved certainty of being able to access these lease markets. An amendment to the System Act is proposed to provide for the government to guarantee payments under a lease arrangement entered into by the corporation. The provision of this guarantee should increase the leasing opportunities at lower costs than those which might be available without the benefit of the province's triple-A credit rating.

I will assist members to the extent possible in second reading, but I appreciate that there may be more detailed discussion at the committee stage. I move second reading of Bill 18.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) mentioned on some other occasion that one has to be almost leery of bills that come in this form. It is like a little billet-doux from the minister to the House. It contains one full page — two half pages — of information.

I would like to remind the minister that we've had a long series of debates in this House about the function of Crown corporations and where the government stands in respect to these Crown corporations. The favourite saying of the Premier is, "It's got to be arm's length, " and he always used to stick his hand out. If we pass this bill we're going to chop the arm right off, right down to the wrist, and all that's going to be left is that they can get it around the throat of the Crown corporation.

When they introduced the Crown Corporations Reporting Act some years ago, the Premier said: "This bill and this opportunity for scrutiny come at a time when the corporations listed are those corporations which we're trying to depoliticize, for which we are trying to appoint independent boards of directors." I point out to the minister that I've met Mr. Mallory Smith, and he's an extremely impressive individual, so much so that I can't understand for the life of me why the minister wants to do what he wants to do in this bill. He is a capable administrator of a very large corporation in the private sector, and in the day that I spent with him he showed that he obviously knows what is going on in the Systems Corporation. He has acquainted his board with what's going on in the Systems Corporation. Mark you, the board has had some interesting people serving it, but not like Smith, who is a very capable man. Here the minister comes in and has cut the ground completely from under the board.

It's all very well for the minister to tell us that when the Systems Corporation was first set up members on the board were members of the Treasury Board. That's not why they were on the board; they were on the board because they seemed to represent the major users of data processing in this government. Now he wants to use that as a rationale for taking away all of the power of the board, because that's what this bill does: it leaves that board at the complete mercy of the Treasury Board. Gone is the philosophy of "arm's length"; gone is the idea that it will not be politicized, because that's what it is. But this is where they put it in writing.

When the Systems Corporation was first set up the purposes of the corporation were to establish and implement policies it considers appropriate for the consolidation and rationalization of data-processing services provided to government entities. When that bill was first brought in the Systems Corporation was dealing with something like $22 million. That was what the minister, who is now the Provincial Secretary, told this House. The total cost of data-processing in this government was $22 million in 1977. The cost of the Systems Corporation today is upwards of $70 million.

It says: "…rationalization of data processing services provided to government entities." There is also another section: "to ensure that government entities achieve economies by the use of data processing services and procurement services as are available through, or offered, provided or recommended by, the corporation and that are appropriate for the needs of the government entities." In there they set up a board and that was going to be the way the board would function. This act takes all of that function away from the board. The government will now do everything.

Therefore one might well ask: why do they need a Crown corporation for the Systems Corporation? We know why you took it out of the government in the past. You took it out of the government, thereby taking all of that expense out of the various departments; then you put it into a Crown corporation and the Crown corporation charged back. Today those charges are running pretty close to $70 million. That is a very long way from the $22 million envisioned by the former Minister of Finance.

Last year we had a discussion about the building that the minister wanted. He came in and amended the act so as to increase the $25 million bond power to $50 million. I said to him in that debate: "Are you sure you've got enough, or are you going to come back next year and ask for some more?" Ironically, he said pretty well the same thing as today: "We are not completely sure just how much we're going to need." Now we know they need $60 million.

What I am trying to point out is that either you run it as a department of the government or you let the Crown corporation people run it. They have $70 million in terms of service costs and $60-odd million in terms of a building, adding more to the debt of Crown corporations. One would think, if you are fortunate enough to put together a capable board, that you would want to leave it in the hands of that board. They are fortunate that they have people who know about the operation of services for data-processing. They also happen to have a very good chairman. What is his function really going to be? It's not going to be any function at all. When the minister presented the bill — not for the first time, but for the second

[ Page 7520 ]

time — it was completely wrong for him not to have been able to tell this House what's going to happen in respect to that building. We're going to be dealing here with an enlarging of their borrowing power. They're going to gut the board's power.

Buried in this bill is one very small provision which is sensible. That is the one that the Systems Corporation asked about for some time: "Why does the government have to scoop out all the profit we make — two or three million dollars — and leave us absolutely nothing with which to go out into the marketplace to buy some of the things we need?" Buried in this little billet-doux is that provision. It's the only provision that's worthwhile.

The other provision goes against the enunciated principles of that government led by the Premier. He introduced a bill about the reporting committee, in which he said: "Arm's length is what it has to be — no politics. Good private citizens serving on a voluntary basis on boards are doing the job for us." That's come to an end now. They're going to be completely subject — it's written in there — to the whole business of the Treasury Board. We know about the Treasury Board. We know about the powers of the Treasury Board in this government: all their interface people in the ministries, and the difficulty ministers have in developing policies.

I put this to the minister. This government has prided itself on knowing where the dollars are — planning. For the second year running, this minister is not able to tell us — I would challenge him to tell us, Mr. Speaker — if this is the last time he is going to come to this House for an extension of the borrowing power of the Systems Corporation connected with that building you've got going on out in Saanich. Last year you didn't know; this year you're not sure. The building was supposed to cost around $30 million. We don't know; he hasn't told us. He could have told us that in the beginning. Maybe he didn't read his speech from last year; he left it open-ended last year, Now we're going to have to wait until he sums up, or wait for the committee stage, when he can tell us exactly what the extension of the borrowing power is going to be. Surely, with all the machinery over there, with all the accountants, with all the comprehensive auditing that's supposed to be going on over there, the minister can be a little more candid and give us some facts as to exactly what the building is going to cost. If you don't know now, we're really going to be in trouble.

Then he's going to have to deal with the philosophy in relation to the boards, the arm's length philosophy that was enunciated by the Premier. That's all disappeared. Why has it disappeared?

He tells us that he needs special authorization with respect to the leasing. There already is a section in there which allows you to do some kind of leasing. But none of this has been explained by the minister.

Unfortunately, he did a very poor job of introducing the bill. I know it's not a very big part of his empire over there. He and I have often had at it about the Systems Corporation. But it's a pity that here is a corporation with which, frankly, he's having a lot of difficulty. I say difficulties, because of its size. I would suggest that the size of this corporation is well beyond what anybody on that side of the House ever envisioned. It's enormous and getting bigger. We have never been able to get many of the facts that we need.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't like the Canucks.

MR. LEVI: Do you want to put this guy in order, Mr. Speaker, or ask him to leave. I can't debate over his yelling. Take it easy, Bill. We've got one more hour, and then you can go and watch the hockey game.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Those who wish the protection of the Chair should be sure that they themselves are in order.

MR. LEVI: That's quite true. I just wanted to remind him to go and watch the hockey game. But don't, for God's sake, take an ad out tomorrow.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to finish shortly. I just want to say to the minister: we need to know, in this bill, why you've moved away from that all-important, enunciated philosophy of arm's length. You're no longer arm's length with the Systems Corporation creation. Why? What is it that you're concerned about?

I would accept that there's got to be some concern about the fact that the services for data-processing in this government are costing some $70 million and up. That's a long way from the $22 million it started out at. It's almost out of control. Now the minister's taken basic authority away from the board. He's come to us and he wants us to give more money, and we want him to tell us exactly what that building is going to cost. Even if he tells us within a matter of $5 million, we'll be a lot better off than we were last year. I said to him, "Are you sure you've got enough money?" and at that time he said he did have enough money. He said in reply:

Not all decisions have been reached with respect to this new headquarters building for the British Columbia Systems Corporation. The existing $25 million borrowing limit — the ceiling which is in place — has not been fully utilized. Ten million dollars has been advanced to the Systems Corporation to finance current activities, so it is not correct to assume that we have fully committed the existing ceiling which is now in the statute and is being amended by this proposal.

All we want to know from the minister are the facts. He was the one who was yelling in another debate: "Give us the facts; give us the figures." Well, that's what I'm asking him. Give us the facts; give us the figures. How much is the building going to cost? Is it going to cost $30 million, $40 million, $50 million or $60 million? Are they looking at charges back to the ministries for services they don't even have to provide but they're going to do it anyway? What kind of charges are they going to provide? What's this managerial stuff? It's beginning to sound like a small real estate company that wants to do a little bit of management.... Anything to get the money back out of the ministries. He discussed none of this; he hasn't told us anything. There is no way we can support a bill like this. You're going to extend the debt of the province. We had great discussion about the size of the Crown corporations' debt.

But the other question is: what have you done to the board? That's a slap in the face for members of the board who are citizens and wish to serve. As the Premier is fond of saying, private citizens are only wanting to serve their government and all of a sudden they find out they don't have any power at all. It's written right into the bill that from now on

[ Page 7521 ]

the Treasury Board is going to run everything in the Systems Corporation.

We want the minister to be much more candid in the presentation of this bill. It's small and it looks ineffectual, but it destroys one basic principle: your arm's length approach. Secondly, you have not told us any facts or figures. Even when he delivered his opening statement he was not quite sure how much it was going to be.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that when the minister closes the debate he will tell us some of these facts so that when we get into committee we won't get a rather wide-eyed look telling us he's not prepared to answer the questions that have been put to him in this debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I find Bill 18 an amusing bill in the face of what else is going on in this government at the present time. If Prime Minister Trudeau, the author of all the restraints over there, the great friend of our Premier, knew that behind the scenes.... You know, the facade out there is that there are great restraints, and yet we see this minister striving to increase his empire while, at the same time, we see the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) doing exactly the same thing.

There is a study for the Ministry of Health setting up a whole new systems corporation for the hospitals. He's not even using this expensive, dynamic structure that the Minister of Finance has under his wing. It is amusing, and if it wasn't so sad in these times of stress and constraint, it would be doubly amusing. But it's totally irresponsible. We have these ministers out there striving to build their empires. Bill 18 indicates that there is an expansion. If that expansion is going to be an effective expansion, then what are we doing with a very expensive study being carried on by Computech — Mr. Hawkins, a systems man, to be exact? I know that there is no way that Pierre would endorse this. Let's hope that he doesn't hear about it. They get very edgy whenever we expose the fact that the author of all that's coming off that side of the House is coming directly from Ottawa, and all it was was a hint.

Mr. Speaker, they're not following that at this time; there is no restraint here. You've got the Minister of Health dusting along, trying to set up a proposition for $5.5 million in the first two years for the hospitals. They aren't very happy about it. I understand that they've turned it down but he can ram it down their throats. If Mr. Hawkins tells him to do that, he'll have a systems corporation running separate from the one we have here. How many systems corporations do we need in this province? The fact of the matter is that we were told that one of the reasons the ministry was setting up this kind of proposition was so that they could streamline everything and put it all together in one very economical program. They have sure shown that they really stick together. What marvellous teamwork over there.

We will be asking a number of questions about this whole situation. The one thing I can see the minister wants to do with this present expansion of expenditure and debt that he is calling for under Bill 18.... We noticed that just across the boundary in Saanich where there used to be a trailer court this nice monument is progressing. I'm sure that it will be called "Curtis Court" so that it can be a lasting memorial to the Minister of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I built the hospital, and I didn't put my name on it either. This government hasn't built a hospital since they've been in power. All they did was go around and put plaques on the ones that we started.

In any event, this is just going to be another situation where we get no answers whatsoever. We don't know whether there is teamwork going on over there. All we know is that this government is extravagant. They're wastrels and we're seeing it here again. There are two systems corporations budding along. We were told that it was all going to be done under this one mighty empire, for the good of the folks. I don't see it. I can't support this kind of legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam has shown an interest in the Systems Corporation, an appropriate interest for an honourable member in the official opposition to show with respect to a Crown corporation. Yes, we have had a number of discussions in this House with respect to the Systems Corporation, and I've made note of some of his remarks today.

The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was, however, his usual excitable self. I want to assure that member that in the very unlikely eventuality that anyone is foolish enough to suggest that the Systems Corporation building now under construction should be named after me or a member of my family, I would not want that. The member for New Westminster might feel that that's the kind of reward that should come, but I don't happen to share that point of view. So I hope I've cleared that away.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) come to order.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I endorse the words of the member opposite with respect to'the chairman of the Systems Corporation. I mentioned him in the opening remarks. I think that Mr. Mallory Smith brings particular talents, interest and capability and independence to his position as chairman of that board. I met him first as a member of the board, and then asked him to accept the chairmanship. So we're agreed on that.

I thought the member might say something along these lines, but — and on the basis of my observation; I get to the board meetings more often than was the case a year ago, thanks to the member's nudging and comments and thanks to the fact that the board now meets in Victoria and in Vancouver on an alternating basis — I am frankly not aware of any concern on the part of the chairman and the board of directors of the Systems Corporation, with respect to the changes that are spelled out in this amending act — none whatsoever. I think they very clearly understand the need for a restructuring of the relationship between government and the board on the basis of several years' experience. When the System Act was first introduced, of course, certain things were expected to happen, and they may or may not have happened. I do not agree with the member's observation that this guts the board's power. On the contrary, I think that it is more appropriate for 1982-83, and I believe that it has the support of the board. I know of no board member who is dissatisfied with these changes. .

There is another fundamental aspect with respect to the relationship between government as an entity — I don't

[ Page 7522 ]

speak of the treasury benches here — and the Systems Corporation. That is the user review committee, which I've spoken about before and the member would know from his research. I am pleased that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) is still here too. It is composed of representatives from a number of ministries of government at the officials' level, with their own elected chairman, who serve as a referral committee on behalf of the ministries which make use of the systems corporation in order that they can channel comments, criticisms and suggestions for improvement in the functioning of the Systems Corporation — channel through all ministries, through the user review committee to the board of directors and to the senior officers of the Systems Corporation.

With changes in personnel which will inevitably occur in a very large organization such as government, that user review committee fulfils a very important function in that respect. In addition, however — this is with particular regard to the comments by the member for New Westminster — it is a safeguard in terms of duplicated effort or projects which may not be absolutely essential for better service to the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member interjects, but it is important for members opposite to understand, and it is important for us to remind ourselves on this side, that when a particular ministry wishes to undertake a new function involving data-processing in one form or another it is referred to the Systems Corporation for a brief or very lengthy comment, depending on the circumstances at the time, and that that in itself is a safeguard. That does not mean that the B.C. Systems Corporation has a veto on the project which is undertaken. But at least the Systems Corporation, as a service corporation to government, has the opportunity to say that this particular proposal is acceptable for these reasons or, on the other hand, this particular proposal is perhaps not the best course of action to follow for reasons which would then be enunciated. I think that interaction between the Systems Corporation and ministries and the insistence that particular new proposals be referred to the Systems Corporation bodes well for the best possible use of the corporation and, at the same time, avoiding an overdevelopment of the corporation in any respect whatsoever.

I don't think the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) spoke critically of the building now under construction in the constituency of Victoria. I do point out to interested members that that building will avoid the rental of a number of locations. With the growth of the Systems Corporation from 1977, there are several locations presently in use, which leads to inefficient operation. They are costly rentals in some instances. So here, as I indicated last year, we have a centralized operation in terms of functioning out of one building, which certainly will serve the Systems Corporation, the government of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia for a number of years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that I've touched on virtually everything. The designated speaker with respect to this amendment act asked about costs. I am able to answer his question in very round figures. We look at the building itself at $24 million; land and parking, $6.4 million; all the fees associated with the construction of quite a large building, $2.9 million; fees and other, which would include the building permits and so on, $2.9 million; interest capitalized at $5 million; and a new figure of approximately $600,000 which the board has been examining with respect to uninterruptible power supply. There was a proposal advanced which suggested that perhaps we should go for a version of uninterruptible power supply with a cost of $1.5 million. The board discussed this at considerable length and later opted for a less expensive but still appropriate installation with an approximate cost of $600,000. So that gives the member the approximate total of the cost of the building. However, the member will know and, I think, will admit later that that is not a significant increase in terms of figures which were advanced earlier.

The additional funding requirements do not relate to the building but to the other activities of the corporation. Perhaps I have strayed into committee matters, but nonetheless an amendment bill such as this almost demands that. I move second reading of Bill 18.

Motion approved.

Bill 18, System Amendment Act, 1982, 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: Second reading of Bill 20, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Income Tax Amendment Act, 1982, reflects the fact that the federal government and the province of British Columbia entered into a tax collection agreement which provides that the personal and corporation income tax fields will be administered on behalf of both parties by a single agency, namely Revenue Canada. It's an unpopular term, but nonetheless that is the name with which we are saddled.

One of the conditions of the tax collection agreement specifically section 6 — requires or stipulates that the province will maintain its Income Tax Act with respect to administration, enforcement and collection in a manner similar to that of the federal act. All of the amendments contained in the bill now before us have been requested by the Department of Finance and reflect changes that have been made to the federal Income Tax Act. The amendments reflect minor changes to our Income Tax Act to provide greater flexibility to taxpayers and the taxing authority with regard to deductions at source, the application of lost carry back and in serving demands for information or tax returns. Further, the bill provides for an increased penalty for non-filers and improved collection legislation for Revenue Canada when placing garnishee notices on financial institutions. Finally, the bill amends the definition of a province to recognize the Yukon Territory, which started its income tax in 1980.

Mr. Speaker, all of the provisions in the bill are retroactive to the date the corresponding provisions became effective in the federal Income Tax Act. With those few remarks I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I will say very little on this, except that the minister drew attention to the agreement

[ Page 7523 ]

between the federal government and the provincial government on taxation. As a taxpayer and a tax practitioner, I hope we never get into this situation where we're doing this on our own.

MR. COCKE: This bill gives rise to some questions that are in my mind. Seeing that I have those questions and that I would like to have some sort of good answer from the Minister of Finance, I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 21.

TAXATION (RURAL AREA)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1982

HON. MR. CURTIS: The Taxation (Rural Area) Act receipts is not that which some members may think is before us. This one simply points out that presently 320,000 receipts are issued under the act each year. Section 4 of the bill removes the requirement regarding receipt issuance, and some 210,000 fewer receipts will be issued in future. There are significant cost savings here, Mr. Speaker, and yet the individual taxpayer is, in my view, protected. The cost savings will flow from decreased postage usage, handling and data-processing, resulting in annual savings of $83,000 to the people of British Columbia. That is the sum and substance of this particular bill, and therefore I move second reading.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have to wonder whether we're looking at the same Bill 21. The minister tells us that the sum and substance is to save the government some postage money, but this is the bill that increases the rate of rural taxation by 20 percent. That's my understanding. Do we have different copies of the bill? The savings in postage, it seems to me, is a minimal item compared to the 20 percent increase in taxation rate. Maybe we should move adjournment until we find out what is going on, if it is the same one as the minister has.

I'll speak in opposition to the Bill 21 that I have, the one that increases the rate of taxation by 20 percent, in a year when assessments have been increased in rural areas by anywhere from 50 to 300 percent. This is a very substantial increase in grab, in taking money out of taxpayers' pockets. Assessments all over the province have gone up tremendously. The rate of taxation is going up 20 percent and the minister stands up and tells us that the purpose of this bill is to save a bit of postage. His explanation alone is reason enough at this particular time for opposing the legislation, until he has some better understanding of what he is proposing to do in this.

Apart from increasing the rate of taxation and apart from the postage saving that he mentioned, it also takes out of the legislation the fees set for the different services rendered by government and leaves them up to regulation. It is opening the door, once again, for the cabinet to drag more money out of people's pockets by making a decision in a cabinet meeting as to precisely what they are going to charge for certain services. As the legislation now stands, this is set in the legislation. This bill includes provision for it to be taken out of legislation and changed so that the cabinet, by regulation, can make any change it wants in the amount of the fee.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I don't particularly want to adjourn if the minister is talking about the same bill, except that I know some people have something else they want to do this evening. If that is what you are inviting....

HON. MR. CURTIS: I rise on a point of order to apologize to the House for making the wrong reference in my opening remarks. I can only say in my defence that there was a fair amount of disturbance at that particular time. That is no excuse, but I apologize to the member and to the House for incorrectly introducing the bill.

MR. STUPICH: I don't know how we can achieve this. With leave, I'd like to go back to the beginning and let the minister have an opportunity to reintroduce second reading of this bill.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I now rise with real hesitation. Because this bill affects a very large part of British Columbia and it does deal with an increase in a tax rate that has not been touched for some time, which was spoken of in the budget debate, I think it would be appropriate, under a number of circumstances, again to apologize to the House and to indicate that I would like to continue my opening remarks in second reading. Therefore I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a ministerial statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

CLOSURE OF MACKENZIE HOSPITAL

HON. MR. NIELSEN: During this time of recession and restraint, members of hospital boards, hospital administrators and medical professionals are cooperating with the Ministry of Health to ensure that quality health care continues in our province, and are almost to the individual avoiding making inflammatory statements that may cause citizens of our province to be frightened, alarmed or just plain scared without just cause.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) earlier today made a charge during question period that would indicate to me motives determined by a desire to exploit the fears of citizens about their health care, even if it appears necessary to embellish a situation or to misinterpret facts for whatever motive, political or otherwise. I would be concerned if the politics of the day are more important to some members than the truth of a situation or the wellbeing of our citizens.

For anyone to exploit the sick or the frightened is repugnant, in my opinion, and I consider it to be a despicable action for any person to choose to exploit the sick or the frightened.

ML Speaker, I'm getting somewhat tired of innuendos being offered by a very small number of fearmongers in this province. But today we saw an example of the concern which

[ Page 7524 ]

is before the people of British Columbia being further enhanced by the member for New Westminster, who asked today in question period: "Will the minister confirm that the cutbacks of his budget…wherein the hospital in Mackenzie has been shut down and the people of Mackenzie are at risk?"

Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the people of Mackenzie, the people of British Columbia and the members of this House that the information suggested in the member's question today, that the hospital in Mackenzie has been shut down and the people of Mackenzie are at risk, is absolutely incorrect. There is no other person we've been able to discover in British Columbia who even remotely agrees with that statement that that hospital has been shut down.

The chairman of the Mackenzie and District Hospital Advisory Committee, Mr. David Barrett, has communicated with an assistant deputy minister of the Ministry of Health, indicating what they propose for the current fiscal year to stay within the guidelines of their budget. Mackenzie Hospital has 18 acute-care beds with an occupancy rate last year of approximately 40 percent. The increase in their budget this year is about 11 percent. For the first time, their operating budget will exceed $1 million. The hospital advisory committee has, by way of letter to our assistant deputy minister, recommended that they consider that the operating room be closed and advise that minor surgery is conducted there. They further recommended for our consideration that the x-ray and lab on-call services be eliminated, a part-time position in the lab be eliminated, maintenance hours of work be reduced by 20 percent, housekeeping be reduced by one position, office staff be reduced by one position, and emergency part-time registered nurse positions be reduced. The chairman has asked to meet with the assistant deputy minister to discuss this proposal, and such a meeting is being arranged.

Mr. Speaker, representatives from the ministry, speaking to the administrator of the Mackenzie and District Hospital today, advised him of what statement had been made in the House today, and he said that no one has at any time considered shutting down the hospital. I want to apologize to the people of Mackenzie and that area for any undue concern they may have felt if any news report or other information may have reached them to indicate that a statement had been made in the House that their hospital had been shut down and that they were at risk. I want to reiterate that the suggestion by the member for New Westminster that that hospital in Mackenzie has been shut down is incorrect, and I trust that it has not caused any undue concern or hardship to any of the citizens of that community.

MR. SPEAKER: A ministerial statement in this House provides for a response.

MR. COCKE: In substance, that hospital has been closed down. That hospital is no longer a hospital. It has no operating room. We were informed by the board....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Ah, come on!

MR. COCKE: I kept my mouth shut when you were speaking. You have nothing further to say.

We were told that that hospital is nothing more than a first-aid post, and that is precisely what it is. It cannot operate as a hospital without an operating room. It cannot operate as a hospital under the circumstances, and the minister knows that full well.

What did the minister say to all the hospitals in this province? What the minister said was: "Cooperate or resign." Those were his words and that is the kind of intimidation that goes on with that minister. He is not going to intimidate me under any circumstances. That hospital is closed down just as sure as you are sitting there. If you don't have an operating room you don't have a hospital. It's clear and simple.

On June 1, if the hospital carries out what they are talking about carrying out and what they informed us they were, that hospital will no longer be a hospital. Has anybody ever heard of anything more than a first-aid post that doesn't have an operating room? The minister is going back to his old work, and that is: "Cooperate or resign." That was his message to the hospitals.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Read your words.

MR. COCKE: I know what my words were. As far as I'm concerned,, if anybody should hang his head in shame it's the minister who has closed down 1,200 beds in British Columbia. The people in British Columbia are at risk. There are 12,000 people waiting now for elective surgery.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, hon. members.

Before we proceed, I have undertaken to bring a decision for the member who raised a question in the House. Yesterday the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) sought to move, pursuant to standing order 35, that the House adjourn in order to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance — namely, the provision of family advocate services to the children of British Columbia. The general restrictions on motions for adjournment of the House are set out in the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, pages 368 and 374. At page 371 it is stated that motions may be refused when the matter could be raised on the estimates. As this ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly or in time, it is my opinion, on the authority cited, that the matter raised by the hon. member does not come within the ambit of standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:38 p.m.

[ Page 7525 ]

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: By adding the following section:

"Vancouver Charter Amendment

4.1 Section 183 of the Vancouver Charter, S.B.C. 1955, c. 53, is repealed, and any liability of the City of Vancouver to make contributions under it after March 31, 1982 is extinguished."