1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1983

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1785 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Property Tax Reform Act (No –– 1), 1983 (Bill 7). Second reading.

On the amendment

Ms. Brown –– 1785

Mr. Howard –– 1786

Mr. Cocke –– 1787

Division –– 1789

Mr. Lockstead –– 1789

Mr. Mitchell –– 1791

Ms. Brown –– 1793

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 1794

Division –– 1796

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to

welcome Dr. Perry Lydon from Cranbrook to the precincts this morning,

and I'd like the House to give him a warm welcome. Dr. Lydon has moved

to Victoria.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, if we are at the stage of our

proceedings where motions would be considered, I would like to move

that the rules be suspended and the House proceed to Motion 32.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, first of all, before

making any motion whatsoever, the member must ascertain if he has the

floor. To do otherwise would be to abuse the rules of the House. I will

advise the member that this is not the time to ask that a motion be

put. We clearly are at introduction of bills. The member rose to his

feet, In effect, gaining the floor in a most improper manner. This is

not the time to put the motion which....

[10:15]

MR. HOWARD: Could I, with respect, advise Your Honour what I

did? I watched the Clerk and the Clerk was about to say "Orders of the

Day" and I wanted to get in before that happened, because I knew that

would be too late. I must proceed at that time when motions are

available. There is no way of my knowing that, unless I am specifically

advised by the Chair that yes, this is the time that motions are dealt

with.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have concern that in asking for

such leave to proceed to any particular item of business on the order

paper, the hon. member, in the opinion of the Chair, would be usurping

the prerogative of the government House Leader. That would be outlined

in previous rulings of the Chair, and I would refer to May 20, 1980.

Nonetheless, hon. member, even though I have grave concern in asking

for such leave, I will ascertain the will of the House. Shall leave be

granted?

Leave not granted.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 7.

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO 1), 1983

(continued)

On the amendment.

MR. SPEAKER: The debate was adjourned by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MS. BROWN: And I have about 15 minutes left, I think.

MR. SPEAKER: The time remaining, hon. member, is about four minutes.

MS. BROWN: Four minutes? How time shrinks, Mr. Speaker, when you're having a good time.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of those pieces of legislation that usurps

the responsibilities and powers of duly elected representatives at the

municipal level. Speaking earlier in this debate, I voiced my

opposition to the government intruding on the rights of people who were

elected by the democratic process at the municipal level. I used as an

example the municipality of Burnaby; I represent one of the Burnaby

provincial constituencies. And I want to repeat that when the residents

of Burnaby go to vote during an election, as they will in November of

this year when they vote for their councillors and school boards and

other people, they do that with the full knowledge that they are going

to bestow on these elected representatives certain rights and

responsibilities, and they expect and anticipate that these elected

representatives will have certain powers.

We are now finding that this is not the case. Through Bill 7 this

government is introducing a piece of legislation that will allow them

the right to override any decision made at that level, and this makes a

mockery of the electoral process at the municipal level. It makes a

mockery of democracy at all levels, provincial as well as municipal.

The minister responsible attended the annual convention of the Union of

B.C. Municipalities last week, I think, in Penticton, and at that time

a number of these municipal politicians expressed their dismay,

disappointment and disagreement with this particular piece of

legislation and requested that this bill be withdrawn. That was the

request: not just that it be amended but, in fact, that it be withdrawn.

As a matter of fact, one of the people who inadvertently spoke in

support of the legislation was the minister's colleague, the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), who, in a rare moment of insight,

then proceeded to disagree with his government's position on this and

other pieces of legislation. Municipally elected members are more

accountable to their electorate than provincial members are, simply by

virtue of the fact that they have to face the electorate every two

years. They not only live in the ridings they represent but they work

there, their children attend school there and they are more

knowledgeable of the community needs. They are more accessible to the

community at large, and they have a deeper sense of responsibility to

the community than can any bureaucrat or any minister in Victoria.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the government members have not

been able to bring the weight of their opinion to bear on the minister

responsible for this piece of legislation to help him to see the folly

of his ways and convince him that despite the fact that a number of

sections of the bill have already been implemented — even though the

bill has not yet passed second reading and is not yet law in the land —

he is not prepared either to amend it or withdraw it.

I think it's very unfortunate when you think about the fact that

everything that the municipal politicians do is done in public. The

community at large can attend all council meetings, their budgets are

open to public scrutiny and question, and any member of the

community....

Interjections.

[ Page 1786 ]

MS. BROWN: May I be permitted to complete my sentence? I

wouldn't like to be terminated in full flight, Mr. Speaker, because

that's been known to have an adverse psychological effect on

individuals for whom that happens.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair regrets that at this time

it must instruct the member to take her place; debate has concluded.

Possibly the time to make the remarks would have been before the red

light went on. I am powerless to extend the time.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling and I

would like to close by just saying that I oppose this piece of

legislation, Bill 7.

MR. HOWARD: This is a discussion on a motion for a six-month

hoist and not for resumed adjourned debate on second reading as the

government House Leader announced when he stood up to announce

business. He's just been away from this place too long. Just a few

days' absence and he loses track of what's happening.

MR. COCKE: He was getting a little sleep.

MR. HOWARD: He's still getting it.

Anyway, I would like to welcome the government House Leader back and

hope that his absence from here wasn't occasioned by his prior

knowledge of the events which are about to take place. That would be a

shame if he deliberately missed all of that.

Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of very fundamental features about

the bill which are objectionable. It isn't new. One of the objections,

in any event, isn't something that's isolated just because it happens

to be in this particular bill. This particular bill seeks to give the

cabinet extraordinary powers with respect to certain matters of tax

rates, the relationship between tax rates, the formulas for calculating

them, and the like. In effect, the provincial government is asking to

be given the authority or the power to completely override the decision

of a municipal council about those matters that I mentioned earlier —

or a decision of the regional district, as the case might be. It gives

the cabinet the power to change any features of the tax system. It can

limit the amount of revenue which it can collect. It's just that

overriding, centralizing, authoritarian power sought by this

government, not exclusively in this piece of legislation but a policy

concept incorporated in quite a number of bills to be considered and

that have been considered so far this session. So it isn't isolated to

this one bill.

We also need to examine the demand that the government is placing

before the Legislature for extraordinary powers in light of what it has

done in years past. Gradually we have seen this government — over the

last five years, to my personal knowledge anyway — take more and more

powers unto itself and away from the Legislature. The government could

argue, I suppose, that within the framework of responsible government —

namely government that is responsible to the Legislature — it could

justify seeking to have that extraordinary power by regulation, because

under a responsible government system it is responsible to the

Legislature. Follow that along to its realities though. We know that

the government is a dictator to the Legislature. We know that the rules

are such that everything is in the hands of the government — even, as

you pointed out a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, to the right of the

government to determine whether or not a particular motion put forward

in the name of a private member shall be called. A private member does

not have that right to introduce a motion and then say: "I would like

that motion to be debated." That prerogative rests in the hands of the

government and the government House Leader. So the question of

responsible government is a fiction. It's a fiction because government

through its majority and its rigidity in the party system dominates the

Legislature. But we need to examine these authoritarian powers in that

light. The government could argue that its extraordinary powers to do

things by regulation as it relates to provincial law generally could be

justified on the grounds of this being a responsible government system.

That's an invalid argument if they put it forward, I maintain.

[10:30]

But when the cabinet seeks to have that extraordinary power to

override local governments that were previously autonomous —

municipalities, regional districts, school boards and, more

particularly, hospital boards, which are voluntary associations of

people — they are asking or demanding too much. And that's one reason

for my objection to this particular bill. It's part of the pattern of

the fascist-like tendency incorporated in many of these pieces of

legislation. As has been pointed out on many occasions in discussing

the political ideology of fascism, it comes along with slow and gradual

stealth. It approaches its authority and its zenith of power step by

step and by encroachment, not by dramatic resolve or revolt. That is,

unfortunately, what may very well occur with this concept being

incorporated more and more into the legislation of this province. It's

a step-by-step, slow, gradual, stealthy process.

Five years ago it was removing things from the Legislature's

authority and depositing them in the hands of the cabinet. Three years

ago it was an intrusion into the operation of college boards. It was a

gradual approach whereby the government demanded — and got — the right

to appoint the majority of members of college boards, and put school

districts, who then had the right under the law to select people to sit

on college boards, in the minority position. This year it took the full

step and said that no longer will there be the opportunity for any

other group in society to have any say in who is appointed to college

boards. That right is now exclusively and entirely in the hands of the

cabinet, and this is the approach that is taking place. That is one of

the reasons we are opposed to this particular legislation.

The variable mill rate concept on merit has favourable arguments for

it, but there are also some unfavourable arguments. There are the pros

and cons to that, and I'm only guided in that regard by municipal

councillors, aldermen and mayors that I know. While the UBCM in

convention may have said, "yes, this is an acceptable course of action,

" there are some mayors, aldermen and people on regional boards who are

not favourably disposed to the variable mill rate system. I know the

government sometimes leans on the decisions of the UBCM and says we are

doing this because the UBCM passed a resolution sanctioning that course

of action, but they're not consistent in that regard. When the UBCM

takes a course of action that the government disagrees with, as is the

case with another bill before this House, they disregard it and go

their own way. On the variable mill rate concept there are voices for

and against it. Not being necessarily involved in the municipal level

of government, I want

[ Page

1787 ]

to be guided and advised by what people at that level say to me about this

particular variable mill rate system.

You will recall that it was mentioned more than a year ago, not by

way of any detailed declaration of its import or structure, that the

government was looking at that particular plan. During the election

campaign it became a matter of some concern to municipalities. They

inquired of the position and complained about the tardiness of the

government in saying that the variable mill rate system was going to be

in effect for this taxation year but not introducing any legislative

authority for that. While they complained about that, they did get from

the government party the commitment that it would bring it into effect.

Fine. That's what we have. They inquired of us, and were advised that

we were not privy to the concept that the government had in mind and

that no details had been released. Therefore it would have been

foolhardiness for us as a party at that time to say, "yes, we agree, "

or "no, we disagree," without knowing what it was that had been in the

minds of the government itself. But we did make the commitment without

question, and I was present when that commitment was made by the Leader

of the Opposition, that if we did form a government — and we didn't —

we would immediately sit down with the UBCM people and examine what

this was all about, and at that time we would have an opportunity to

see what documentation existed in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.

Anyway, that's where we are.

The feature about this that is, I think, objectionable is that it

has a retroactive nature about it, and retroactive legislation is not a

good thing. It is not an acceptable course of action to follow.

Sometimes it may be necessary because of extraordinary circumstances,

but when it becomes the pattern of activity of legislation, then it is

wrong. When that becomes the norm, it's disadvantageous. We find

municipalities working to put it into effect even before the

legislation passes. What that does show clearly is that government —

again back to the concept of government responsible to the Legislature

— knows full well that this particular bill will pass, period; will

become law. Not because their arguments are sensible or rational, but

because they have the majority on their side...

MR. KEMPF: Because you don't show up for the votes.

MR. HOWARD: ...and because people like the member for Omineca

blindly will do what they're told in this House. He always has, and he

always will. There's possibly one exception on the horizon, possibly

one exception with respect to one bill. We'll know that when the time

comes.

But government knows full well that it can count on every one of its

back-benchers solidly to go all the way, not interested in any kind of

logic or rational argument or sensible argument or debate or

examination about any of the fine points on the legislation. Therefore

they are able to say to municipalities: "You put it into effect. We can

guarantee that it won't be subjected to any examination in the

Legislature, that we won't be swayed by any facts or information, that

we'll just carry on and be able to do it."

Those are the reasons in substance, Mr. Speaker — and let me summarize

them very briefly — why I think the motion for a six-month hoist should carry.

It's an opportunity to see whether there are some areas in the bill where

change might be effected for the better. One is that it seeks extraordinary

powers in the hands of the cabinet, a domination by the cabinet over another

aspect of life in our province, namely that of municipalities with respect to

tax matters. That by itself is objectionable enough. But when you put it within

the context of all the other legislation before us where they want to intrude

into the daily activities of people's lives in this province, it's objectionable

for that feature. It's objectionable because it also contains a retroactive

feature which again is becoming part of the normal structure of legislation

introduced into this House.

Mr. Speaker. I've listened attentively to debate so far, and I've

become convinced that I should vote for the six-month hoist. I have

only heard, with respect to this bill, one government voice, and that

was the Minister of Municipal Affairs himself. I haven't heard anybody

else from the government side say a word about it. So I have not been

convinced by the minister that I should vote for it on second reading.

Perhaps if other members would take their places in debate and give us

the wisdom and knowledge that they have, imparting to us their

perception of where we're going in the future and what this means to

their communities and their areas, they might be able to persuade me to

support the minister. But unfortunately I was not persuaded after

listening to his opening remarks, which encompassed a total of 18

minutes, and in which he said very little.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair]

However, it may be that the minister will be able to persuade some

of his colleagues to enter the debate and draw us into their knowledge,

As a free thinker, if you can persuade me it's a good thing, you'll

have an opportunity....

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Well, you can have it now if you want. You can

follow me if you want, Mr. Minister, there's no question about that at

all, and I'll listen attentively. It may be that you can persuade me. I

approach things in that way. There's a possibility — a faint

possibility. The minister wasn't able to the first time around. I not

only listened attentively to what the minister said the first time, I

even tortured myself a little bit and went back and read the words

after they appeared in Hansard , just to make sure that I saw in

writing what I heard through my ears, and they're both the same. So

when the minister or any of his colleagues get up to speak on this

hoist, I'll listen attentively. You might be able to persuade me, but

at the moment I'm not convinced.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Come on. Get up. The minister's not even sitting in his own seat. That indicates how serious he is about speaking.

MR. COCKE: Just so that people recognize the rules of the

House, the minister can speak on a hoist motion without ending debate

on the main motion. And so he could have got up and answered the

questions. He could have got up and elucidated. But let me tell you

instead what he did. Before we began the debate, or at the very

beginning of the remarks of the member for Skeena, the minister said,

and I will paraphrase: It's already implemented. It's already in force.

It's already being used." That is his basis for our support of this

bill.

[ Page 1788 ]

Now the fact that a government, in its infinite wisdom — if that's

what one can call it on a rather dark gloomy day in here, and a bright

sunny day outside.... If that's the reason that the opposition should

support a measure put forward by a government, then it strikes me that

we are on the wrong track entirely. Because, Mr. Speaker, he has

admitted in those words that they don't require legislation, that they

go about their merry way without the authority of the Legislature to do

what they propose doing. They do it first, and then enact the

legislation later. That's kind of reminiscent of a budget that we lived

on for some months before it was put forward in the Legislature.

Decent, democratic process demands the Legislature consider the

proposal before implementation, and yet we have seen time after time

after time implementation of a proposal before it is effected in law.

Is it therefore any wonder that the outgoing president of the UBCM,

Mayor Thom, roundly condemns this legislation, as recently as Penticton?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I didn't say Tonn. I said Mayor Thom.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Oh yes. So is he. They're all supporting it

suddenly. Even the mayor of Castlegar, the new president of the UBCM, a

very highly respected Conservative person in this province....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, isn't this interesting? For that

matter, isn't it ridiculous? The minister had his opportunity, and will

have his opportunity when I sit down, to get up and put these messages

before us so that they're recorded forever in Hansard , and so

on and so forth. But no, he chooses to speak from his seat where there

is no recording of what he has to say. And it is not convincing, Having

said that, let me say that if suddenly some of the people whom he has

suggested, just as Mayor Tonn.... He said he agrees with the concept of

restraint, but to hamstring municipal councils as this legislation

does, he disagrees with entirely. He indicates, as do most people who

respect the democratic process, that when people are elected, provided

with a responsibility by the electorate, then they should be given the

responsibility all the way.

What do we have before us here, and why do we want it hoisted, Mr.

Speaker? We have before us a bill providing tax reform, with some

aspects that one can agree with. But the problem is that it provides

new powers for the government not to come to the Legislature but to

impose tax rates through regulation. Now, Mr. Speaker, the imposition

of tax rates on local municipalities with their own governments just

has to be frowned upon by any right-thinking freedom-loving person.

Just think: the cabinet can lock itself behind those oak doors, come up

with a definitive judgment of what the tax rate in New Westminister

should be and say that our council, which is duly elected and given the

responsibility of administering that city, have nothing more to say —

all through this piece of legislation that the minister says is so

benign. Well, it's not benign. I must admit that it isn't the worst

measure that's come before this Legislature during the course of this

session, and we're not treating it that way. We're not treating it as

though we're prepared to go to the wall, the mat, the roof or whatever

on it. But it does have that flavour, and it echoes the government's

original decision to centralize power within that cabinet room, which

we resent and which most people in this province are beginning very

seriously to question. People are saying that no government has the

right to impose its will on a junior government in areas where that

junior government is provided the original responsibilities.

[10:45]

So in a wave of the pen, this government has decided that they can

reset the tax rates by regulation and provide for relationships between

tax rates and formulas for calculating those rates and relationships.

In effect, the provincial government would be in a position to

completely override any municipal village or city council in our

province.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You're so negative.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, just for the record, so that Hansard knows, the minister says that I'm so negative. Will the minister at some time explain to us why he needs these powers?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Read the bill.

MR. COCKE: Well, he can talk to people that are far more

knowledgeable than I am in municipal matters who have said, to a person

virtually, that they do not like the fact that the provincial

government is moving into areas of their authority, as they are doing

in so many other measures which are being put forward by this

government.

It must be the key to the policy decision that the Social Credit

government has taken — very slowly to begin with at the beginning of

their mandate in 1976 — and which has been accelerating over the years.

Part of the reason that I support this hoist is that I have been

watching legislation come before this House, act after act, that has

taken away the decision-making ability of this House by providing a

clause or clauses within legislation that give the government authority

to make such changes by regulation as they thereafter wish to make.

That means that you have no public debate on cabinet regulations.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: No NDP obstruction.

MR. COCKE: No NDP obstruction. Did you hear that? Now there

he made a psychological slip. In other words, Mr. Speaker, the minister

admits that the opposition, who happened to garner 45 percent of the

vote in this province, have no right to oppose — which is the exact

responsibility of an opposition in the British parliamentary system. He

said: so that we cannot obstruct. He admitted right there to the

obscenity of this situation, the dictatorial and totally unacceptable

attitude of this government. If he reflects this government, then it's

no wonder we have a bill before us that, once again, not only erodes

the power of the Legislature, which is supposed to be supreme,

according to the British parliamentary tradition, but also will take

away all powers from municipal government.

Mr. Speaker, what more can one say? The minister admits his guilt

while sitting here on the floor of the House. He is not standing up

with a mike before him, but he admitted his guilt. He said that that is

in order to obviate obstruction from the opposition, and I'm

paraphrasing. You see, they don't even

[ Page

1789 ]

understand the process. They don't even understand that they should be

answerable to the public.

Mr. Speaker, we just discussed the piece of legislation that says

that regulations don't even have to be published the way they used to

be. Now we see a minister who is going to provide himself, through this

act, with the ability to do things, through regulation, which don't

even have to be published.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: You've only got two of your own people listening to you.

MS. BROWN: What's that supposed to mean?

MR. COCKE: It's supposed to mean that maybe they're going to

have a lunch break early. They didn't get one yesterday — or breakfast

breaks and all the rest of it.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Would you like to speak? If you could make as big a fool of yourself today as you did yesterday, I'd like to see you do so.

To carry on just for a moment on this hoist, I want to register my

particular opposition to the basic intent of the bill, which not only

erodes the power of the Legislature but also takes away power from

local municipalities — cities, villages and so on. I want it made very

clear that our opposition to this bill is being amplified by putting

forward the hoist motion. The hoist motion asks that we delay the bill

for six months in order to give the public opportunity for their input,

which, in my view, is essential. Time after time, day after day, we see

reforms — sorry, I'm using their words, not mine.... We see acts coming

forward, which are called reforms, that have never been tested by the

public.

We have committees available as part of this legislative process. We

have a committee on municipal matters, and that committee could have

been moving around. Do you know what I heard the minister say? I heard

the minister say that he went around and listened. Could you imagine a

person, who doesn't even understand the parliamentary process within

which he works here in Victoria, being able to get through to him in

terms of putting forward their ideas or in any way modifying his.

Shocking behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, I serve notice that we're prepared to vote on this

hoist motion now. However, we'd like to hear from the minister first,

if he has sufficient courage to speak.

[11:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS –– 12

Howard

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

Brown

Hanson

Lockstead

Mitchell

Rose

Blencoe

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Strachan

Mowat

Ree

Segarty

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

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

On the main motion.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I thought perhaps one of the government

members would care to get up and speak on this bill. The minister says

I was wrong, but I knew they wouldn't. Now look at that Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who, after I've taken my place in this

debate, gets up and says: "Sit down." Now he'll speak. Oh yes, I know,

Mr. Minister. But you won't get up after I sit down.

Bill 7. As long as I keep saying Bill 7, I'm in order.

I almost enjoy the hon. Provincial Secretary and his interjections.

He's almost got a grin on his face, even if he is taking away all the

rights of the working people all over the province of British Columbia.

I just had orders from our House Leader to stay in order, Mr.

Speaker. He's helping you; he's on your side. But I did want to say a

few words, seriously, on this bill. We have to look at this bill as

part of a package.

Interjections.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I'm going to put that one in Hansard .

Mr. Speaker. The interjection from across the floor was one of the

ministers asking me why I should stay in order; nobody else has been in

order for three weeks.

But I do want to speak seriously on this bill because as I've said

it's part of a package of bills put forward by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) — Bills 7, 9 and 12 — and you have

to look at all three of these bills collectively, even though we're

discussing this particular bill, called the Property Tax Reform Act,

1983; it does tie in with Bills 9 and 12.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The reason I'm on my feet on this particular bill... First of all, I

want to say that, as a previous speaker in this House this morning

pointed out, the government's intentions regarding this bill and the

variable tax rate were announced by the government prior to the last

election. It wasn't an issue in my riding, but people — municipal

aldermen, mayors, regional board people — asked what our party position

was on the bill and we explained it quite carefully. Fair enough. I

took the trouble to check, as best I could, with all of the

municipalities in my riding — regional board people — and how they felt

about the proposal, because by that time, as I recall, the government

had in effect implemented the bill anyway. In other words, municipal

councils, planners or

[ Page 1790 ]

finance people were preparing for a variable tax rate in any event.

But I asked about the rate and that part of the bill. There were

some qualms about it — some inequities — but generally speaking, I

didn't receive a lot of letters, telegrams, phone calls or those kinds

of things on that part. However, what distresses me now that the House

is finally in session.... We should have been here last January or

February, prior to the last election, so these issues could have been

discussed. Here we are in September; we have not discussed the spending

estimates of the government one iota so far, and we are discussing this

bill. And guess what, Mr. Speaker? The Social Credit treasury benches

have done it again. They could have brought in a bill that introduced

the variable tax rate. Fair enough. They said they were going to do it,

and we said we would look at it carefully. They could have brought in a

bill quite simply, but what do we have? What kind of bill did they

finally bring in and drop on the people of British Columbia on July 7?

They brought in a bill which, to a large degree, takes away the

autonomy of municipal governments all over British Columbia. They

slipped that into this bill along with the two accompanying pieces of

legislation I mentioned earlier. That's what they've done with this

bill.

While we are not to discuss individual sections in second reading —

and I will avoid doing that — the bill, in effect, says to the

municipal elected people at the local level, regional districts and the

municipalities: "We don't trust you."

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit offended by the minister — and I'm not going to ask for a withdrawal; he's not even in his seat; Hansard

has a habit of picking these things up — when he says: "Tell the

truth." I think I am. I'm certainly expressing the feelings honestly

that I have regarding this bill. If I'm wrong, fair enough; one of the

government members will get up on his feet and correct me, and I'm sure

the minister will have the opportunity, when closing the debate in

second reading, of correcting me. But when a member and a minister of

the Crown says to me, "Tell the truth, " he's implying that I'm lying,

and I'm offended. But I'm not going to ask for a withdrawal from that

minister, and I won't even name him for Hansard .

The point I started to make was that the government.... If we're

talking about truth, the government, during its recent election

campaign, which they won, did not go to every municipality or write to

every municipal council, or say at the previous Union of B.C.

Municipalities convention, that they were going to reduce local

autonomy because they didn't trust locally elected aldermen, mayors or

officials.

It was interesting to me when a short while ago in this House the

minister, while the member for New Westminister (Mr. Cocke) was

speaking, said from his seat that the reason they're taking away a

great deal of autonomy from local governments and taking that power

unto themselves is so that in the future the opposition can't obstruct

legislation in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that we're obstructing legislation in this

House; I think every elected member in this House has the right to get

up and speak on every piece of legislation, on every

section of every

piece of legislation, and on every amendment to every piece of

legislation, and I think they have a duty to do so. What we don't see

is government members getting up and speaking for their municipalities;

we don't see them speaking for their locally elected governments. We

don't even see the Premier in the House very often. He comes in at 4:30

in the morning, makes a speech that everyone in the province has heard

500 times before — the same old garbage — and then runs out of the

House, back onto his couch for more sleep. But he did shave before he

came in early this morning; I guess he knew he was going to be on

television.

Anyway, I was offended by that remark. In effect, what the minister

was saying to the member for New Westminister when he made that remark

across the floor was that not only will the opposition in this House

not have the opportunity to discuss legislation regarding municipal

governments and changes to legislation regarding them, but the locally

elected governments will not have the opportunity of any voice, or will

have a greatly reduced voice, in their own affairs. That's what the

minister in effect was saying, and I'm offended by that as well. That

bothers me a great deal.

But it's been a pattern of this government. Just about every piece

of legislation is reducing the autonomy of school boards and regional

districts everywhere you look — taking away the independence of public

sector groups and wiping some out them out completely. So we shouldn't

be surprised; it's been a pattern of this government all along.

Another thing that should be mentioned — I'm not sure this has been

mentioned, and I'm not reflecting on previous legislation when I say

this — is that legislation has gone through this House, I believe,

which will allow the government to make regulations without publishing

them. One of the things that could happen if this bill is passed.... I

shouldn't say "if, " I should say "when, " because the government, with

its huge majority and its inclination to bring in closure and all of

these things, will eventually pass this bill in its present form.

They've not indicated their willingness to bring in amendments, to

withdraw bills or drop sections of bills, or to listen to the people of

British Columbia now that they've won the election, so I suspect this

bill will pass in its present form.

As I've said, one of the things that really bothers me about this

type of legislation is that when you take away local autonomy in a bill

like this or other pieces of legislation, and pass regulations without

necessarily having to make those regulations public, how are people

supposed to know what the government is doing in cabinet? You could, in

fact, be breaking the law and not have it known, believe it or not. If

you really look at it, a municipality, individual aldermen, who, by the

way, are now subject to $2,000 fines if they don't carry out the wishes

of the provincial government in certain areas.... That's not in this

bill, it's in another bill, but the fact is that they are subject to

those fines, as are schoolboard members and other locally elected

officials. How are these people to know, if those regulations aren't

published? I hope the minister, although he is busy at the moment, has

made a note of this and will respond to that particular question when

he closes debate on this particular bill.

[11:15]

Another point I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister just

recently had the opportunity to discuss this legislation with the

representatives of regional districts and municipalities from all over

British Columbia, with aldermen and representatives at the municipal

level. In fact, although I didn't personally attend that convention in

Penticton, I understand that the minister came under a considerable

[ Page 1791 ]

amount of criticism and was asked by those people

in Penticton to withdraw or revise the legislation; they didn't like

any of it in its present form. I know the minister has not consulted

with those people, and that bothers me as well. The minister had the

opportunity to consult with those locally elected people from all over

the province.

I might add at this point that municipal governments are the most

trusted type and form of government in British Columbia. I'm sure

you've heard that a hundred times, but it happens to be true; they're

closest to the people and they're trusted. They have easier access. As

an MLA, I would like to have access to each and every one of my

constituents every day or every week. It's totally impossible; we spend

a great deal of time here in Victoria, and some of our ridings are so

large that you simply can't do that kind of thing. Locally elected

regional board members and municipal councillors can work with these

individuals on a day-to-day basis regarding their problems, whether it

be property taxation, roads, sewers, sidewalks, lighting, garbage

collection or whatever. They can, and do, attend council meetings and

regional board meetings. But it's going to be almost pointless, in a

number of instances, for ordinary citizens to approach their aldermen

or go to a municipal council meeting, because they're going to say:

"The power to assist you has been removed, has been stripped from us.

It's now centred in the minister's office in Victoria." That's the

primary feature that I object to in this particular bill.

Mr. Speaker, I have quite a number of notes dealing with individual

sections of this bill which I guess would be better dealt with in

committee, but I do want to say this for the minister's benefit before

I sit down: the minister still has the opportunity — he can get up in

this House; he is the minister.... I think one of my colleagues

suggested earlier that a motion should be drawn up and put on the order

paper empowering the Committee on Municipal Affairs, a legislative

committee composed of a majority of Social Credit government members,

to travel the province and go into every municipality, to talk to

locally elected people and come up with a fair and equitable scheme

which will work.

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: The minister interjects that that was done once already. I'm sure the minister will at some point, in closing the debate....

Interjection.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: For Hansard 's sake, he says: "Studies

on top of studies on top of studies." That, Mr. Minister, is not how

democracy works. First of all, last night the Premier of this province

said: "We want to consult." That's the very way he made that statement

— consult on this, consult on that. The minister now has the

opportunity to get up when he's closing debate and say, "Yes, we will

consult with local governments, in a meaningful way, and bring in

legislation to comply with their wishes, generally speaking." But the

minister has already answered my question and I won't get an answer

now, or when he closes debate. In fact, in effect he's said no.

Mr. Speaker, I did get up to have it on the record and to voice my

objection to this particular bill, for the very reasons I have

outlined, and I want to thank you for your attention.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm happy to see my favourite Chairman in the chair, and my favourite critic in his place.

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: My favourite critic is already giving me

instructions that I should address you as my favourite Speaker, and not

Chairman, and I apologize to my favourite Speaker. Thank you, Mr.

Critic, for bringing that to my attention.

I think it's important, when we review this legislation, to review

it in the package that it is a part of, and that is the package

commonly called the budget package of bills. When you go through each

and every one of these pieces of legislation, I think you see exposed

the insidious feeling of government: that with their 50 percent

majority against the opposition's 45 percent, they are determined to

control, in one way or another, every facet of the democratic life of

British Columbia. They feel they should get into not only the public

employees of their own government, but feel they can impose their

wishes, their power, on every form of public servant. We have various

levels of democratically elected governments. We have democratically

elected governments at the municipal level. I find it insidious that a

provincial government should have the right to tell that level of

government how they are going to collect their taxes, and what level of

taxes they will collect.

We as a party, prior to the election, were very outward and upfront

and said we would support the rights of a municipality to have variable

levels of taxation. We supported that. If this bill stated that the

municipalities had that right, then we would support it; but why do we

have

section after

section that allows the Minister of Municipalities

to direct, or have the opportunity to direct, the municipality as to

what those levels will be?

It's like me as a parent. When my family grows up, they move out. Do

I have the right to say they will spend X number of dollars on

mortgages, X number of dollars on entertainment? It's my family's right

to make their own decisions. As you know, Mr. Speaker, with your vast

experience at the municipal level, the municipal governments have the

closest contact with the voters in the community. That is so in my

riding, where I have not only the Esquimalt municipal council, but also

five regional directors. Some may support me, some not, but when I talk

to them — and I talk to them on a regular basis when I'm travelling

throughout the riding, or when I bring them down to meet the Minister

of Municipalities — we have a rapport. I can get their opinions on what

they feel is needed in that municipality or in that regional district,

because they get their directions from their neighbours in their part

of the community. And if there is one regional director who feels that

he should have additional funds coming in for a park or a recreational

facility, I think that that municipality should have the right to raise

the money in their own community. If they're wrong, then they will be

informed at the next election, which comes every two years in their

community.

I look at the record of this government. When this government will

bring in special legislation to accommodate a certain land developer —

as in the Spetifore case — when this government will bring in

legislation that will wipe out regional plans that have gone back over

10 or 15 years in British Columbia, when they will use their power of

50 percent or their 35 elected votes in this House to change the

[ Page 1792 ]

laws to satisfy one land developer.... When I see

that example being set, then I worry that we will have certain powerful

political figures in one industry. That industry could be the apartment

owners' association. They may go to the minister at a Social Credit

convention in one of the hospitality rooms and they may say that in a

certain municipality the council happens to be of a political support

that is not....

HON. MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am

seriously sitting here taking notes, and I have some notes that I've

taken in response to questions and remarks of the previous speaker.

This member here is totally distorting this with his irrelevant speech

and making it very difficult for me to respond later when my turn

comes. I'd ask that he go back onto the motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Mr. Minister, I must remind you with all due respect that that was not a point of order.

MR. KEMPF: My point of order is that I took very great

offence at the accusation that was just made by that member, and I ask

him to withdraw.

MS. BROWN: What did he say?

MR. KEMPF: Well, don't you even listen to your own speakers?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the Chair didn't hear this accusation. I'm sorry, I can't....

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I take offence at the accusation that was made, and I ask that member to withdraw.

MS. BROWN: What accusation?

MR. KEMPF: Read Hansard tomorrow and you'll find out.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Perhaps the member for Omineca could identify the accusation for the Chair.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, there was an accusation that deals

are made in the back rooms and the hospitality suites at a Socred

convention, and I take offence at that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Hon. member, offence

has been taken by another hon. member from your remarks. I would leave

it up to you, hon. member, to respond in a proper way.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your wisdom and I have to appreciate the dedication of my official critic when he....

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, I heard no withdrawal.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the member for Omineca knows full

well that if the member wishes to he can withdraw it gratuitously, but

certainly there are no standing orders in our parliament that would

demand a withdrawal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair's problem

in this particular instance is that the Chair doesn't consider that

there's been any unparliamentary allegation made. I think, hon.

members, that it would probably be most appropriate if the member went

ahead with his speech.

[11:30]

MR. KEMPF: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I'm not

concerned whatsoever with what it is the Chair thinks. I took offence

at the remarks made by that member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Order!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that's going a little bit far, I

would suggest. The Chair has made a ruling. If hon. members on either

side of the House don't like the ruling, they can challenge the Chair.

MR. ROSE: On the same point of order, I was shocked to hear

the member for Omineca savaging the Chair. The Chair has been held in

contempt, and I think the Chair has every right to ask that member to

withdraw those accusations or to leave this House. I don't think

anybody in this House should allow the Chair to be savaged in that

manner. It was most unparliamentary and uncalled for.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, I would

just like to add that I do not believe that in the 100 years of this

parliament a Chair has been so badly used by a member of this House. I

am shocked, dismayed and disappointed. I think that you have no option

but to ask that member to apologize forthwith, because to insult the

Chair is to insult the entire House, the Queen and everyone else as

well.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, if I have cast any aspersion on the Chair, I apologize. I still take offence at the remarks made by that member!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your apology is accepted by the Chair, and I

would ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue with his

speech. Just before you start, though, hon. member, latterly in your

speech you were just straying away from the rules of relevancy. I would

ask if you would please direct your remarks to Bill 7, which is what

we're talking about.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for protecting me from my official critic from Omineca.

You know, last night when I tried to read some of the political

advertisements that came out prior to May 5, my official critic would

jump up every time I read what was printed under the name of the Social

Credit or those who supported them. If he would like me to dig out the

particular news clipping that referred to what he was very offended by,

and that was the support of....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, please, we're being irrelevant again.

MR. MITCHELL: No, no, I am trying to be very constructive and positive to that irrelevant critic. Anyways, getting....

[ Page 1793 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Let's move ahead and discuss Bill 7.

MR. MITCHELL: That's what I was dealing with until we had all this interruption.

I was talking about a positive, definite reference to types of

variable rates that are set for apartment owners and industry. If a

municipality in its wisdom — and sometimes, like any one of us in the

democratic view, we make the wrong decision — wishes to set a certain

rate for their industry, their particular apartment buildings, their

co-op housing or their commercial development, I believe that they have

the right to do it.

I'm worried, and I say this with all sincerity, when powerful groups

that are organized can approach certain ministers. I don't care how

they approach them. If my official critic feels offended that they meet

at hospitality rooms at their Social Credit conventions, I will

withdraw that, but when these powerful lobby groups can meet secretly

with any minister....

Interjection.

MR. MITCHELL: And I say you're right. You're very right. When

any group, including the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, the lumber

mills and the pulp mills, can divide this province up into five

sections, and it's all done in secret.... It's the same as they are

doing with municipalities in Bill 7.

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, the member for Omineca made

a rather unparliamentary attack on the member of the New Democratic

Party. He called the member a crook. I would ask him to withdraw that

remark, Mr. Speaker.

MR. KEMPF: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I made no such accusation.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair didn't hear any such accusation, so

I would ask the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew to continue with the

debate. Let's just have a little bit less heckling and get on with

speaking to Bill 7.

MR. MITCHELL: Bill 7 is what I am staying to, except I do get

interrupted by certain members. I'm not even going to look at certain

members. They can stand and shout and criticize, and if they don't like

the facts or my philosophy, that is their opinion. I hope they will get

up and openly debate the issues that we are debating and not take the

back door method of criticizing by referring to the little red book.

MR. REID: Stick to the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: I'm sticking to the bill. We on this side of

the House do support the rights of municipalities to have a variable

mill rate. We support that, but we oppose the right of the minister to

directly interfere and enforce on any municipality how those rates

should be set and what they should be. We're opposed to a minister

being able to set a level that a municipality can put their taxes at.

I know, as an ex-active official at the municipal level, that

municipalities do make mistakes. At all the municipal conventions I

have attended, I have yet to see anyone walking around with a halo

above his head. But I feel they have the right, in the two years they

are elected for, to make their decisions honestly; and the people who

will determine whether they are right or wrong should be the voters,

the taxpayers in those municipalities. The part that I resent is that

the cabinet, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs.... He has taken

it upon himself to be the person who makes the decisions — that he has

the right to go in and tell the municipalities what rates and what

levels of taxation they can enforce. Basically he has followed in the

footsteps of his colleague, when he changed the community college

legislation — at one time they had locally elected people on their

community college boards. They wiped that out, and the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) took over the sole power of appointing.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, just a moment, please. The

Chair was just about to intercede. The hon. member who is speaking on

Bill 7 knows that he is not to refer to other items of business that

have been or are coming before this House. We are discussing Bill 7

and, please, hon. member — I don't like to say "for the last time"; it

seems to me I said that last week — would you make your remarks

relevant to Bill 7. You're going to run out of time if you don't, you

know.

MR. MITCHELL: I've run out of time, Mr. Speaker. I thank you

for that advice. I may disagree with you, but you're in charge; you

have the power. We were discussing the principle of the bill and I am

comparing the principles of the package.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for protecting me

from the interjections. I have laid out my main opposition and my main

support to the bill. When we get into the clause-by-clause discussion

in committee, I will take further the debate that we have had so far.

Until then, I thank you for your assistance.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be relevant. I just want

to, first of all, express my disappointment that none of the government

members is concerned enough about this piece of legislation to

participate in the debate or, for that matter, in any of the debate

that has taken place on the floor of this House since the beginning of

this week. We hear — as the minister disappears.... The first member

for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) couldn't get a bathroom break yesterday when

he needed one, but the minister can leave whenever he needs to. In any

event, Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about the government members being

here for the vote, and I think the records should show that that's the

only thing they do here. At great cost to the people of British

Columbia, they just hang around and come in and vote and then hang

around again. They have no voice. They have not participated in any of

the debate on any the bills, including Bill 7.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I take

offence at the member saying that the government members just hang

around here. Goodness gracious, if we hadn't produced the legislation,

the member would have

[ Page 1794 ]

nothing to talk about. So I wish she'd perhaps just withdraw the innuendo that we're sitting around here.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, that minister is really quite confused.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. minister, I hear what you say, but I

really can't see any requirement for that kind of thing. Hon. member, I

know you're just building up to your speech, but perhaps you could just

build up a little bit quicker so that we could get talking about Bill 7.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister is now back. I thought that the record should show — if we ever get a Hansard

in this House again, because we haven't received one since Monday of

this week — that the government has not been participating in any of

the debates on any of the pieces of legislation before us and that, in

fact, all they've been doing is coming in to vote, at great expense to

the taxpayers of this province. They are non-participants; they are

doing absolutely nothing but, as I said before, hanging around. So

whenever I hear comments about the fact that 28 of them were here for

the vote, I just think that the community at large should know that

that's all they're doing — they're just here for the vote. They are not

contributing one iota to the decisions being made around here.

[11:45]

On Bill 7, now that the minister is back, I just want to read a

resolution which was moved at the annual meeting of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities, voted on and passed by that august body. That

resolution is in opposition to Bill 7, and specifically in opposition

section 6 of the bill, which is the

section in which the minister

takes unto himself all of the rights and the responsibilities of the

locally elected municipal politicians, in terms of varying limits on

tax rates and relationships between tax rates, prescribing formulas for

calculating the limits or relationships referred to in earlier

paragraphs, and allowing the inspector under prescribed circumstances

to vary, by order, the limits, relationships or formulas established

under the previous paragraphs. Really, Mr. Speaker, that's where the

power lies. The power lies in the municipalities, duly elected by their

constituents at the local level, to prescribe these limits on taxes, to

be responsible for prescribing the relationships between the tax rates

and the formulas for calculating them. What this bill has done in

section 6 is take away those responsibilities from the duly elected

representatives at the local level and vest them all in the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and his cabinet.

So the UBCM passed a resolution at their recent convention in Penticton....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, one moment, please. Does the minister stand on a point of order?

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I was just wondering, the member's thoughts

aside, if the House would be kind enough to allow me to make a very

special introduction at this time.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I'm really delighted to introduce to the House

today some very special guests, particularly as this debate's going on.

We have with us Alderman Dick Winkelman and his wife Rose. Would the House please

welcome these people who come here today from Nanaimo to hear this debate.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, it's a rather long resolution, but I would

like to deal with some of the "whereas." The UBCM states: "Whereas

the general objective of assisting economic recovery is well demonstrated by

local government; and

whereas the capability and willingness of local government

to play its

part in economic recovery has been demonstrated.... " It

goes on to talk about its self-imposed expenditure restraints, the reduction

in programs and staff, developments of innovations to improve efficiency and

continued cost-effective provisions, and to say:

".... and

whereas the current consultative process between local and provincial

government no longer follows the established practice of meaningful discussion,

and has failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of local government concerns;

therefore

be it resolved that the UBCM states its position that our provincial

government, in implementing restraint and other actions needed for economic

recovery, respect the following: (1) that there be no further erosion of the

autonomy and powers of local government; (2) that there be no added cost burdens

or reductions in revenue-sharing grants; (3) that the competence and success

of the local government restraint initiatives be recognized; (4) that the full

extent of the current legislation be revealed by making all relevant regulations

public" — they're not even printed yet; they haven't even been tabled

in the House yet — "and (5) that the knowledge and experience of local

government not be ignored by our provincial government, but be used through

open and meaningful consultation in developing and providing workable legislation

that will enable local government to continue to play an effective role in economic

recovery."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, as I'm addressing myself specifically to

section 6, I

realize that when the bill goes into committee stage I will be able to

go into more detail at that time, speaking on behalf of Burnaby

municipality, and the concept in general, as outlined by this

resolution by the UBCM. What I would like to do at this point, Mr.

Speaker, is take my place so that the government members can

participate in this debate, and so that the minister certainly — and I

hope that you're not closing debate.... I hope that we'll hear from

some of the government members and that when the minister closes

debate, he will give some indication that he has taken this resolution

seriously and has a commitment to implement it.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 42, the House is advised that on Bill 7 the hon. minister closes debate.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: The last speaker has suggested that I take

that resolution seriously. I take all things seriously in relation to

this ministry. I take seriously all of those things that are conveyed

to me by the people at the municipal and regional level. I do, however,

avoid taking too seriously any remarks made by the member who just

spoke. However, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that some notes were

taken and I

[ Page 1795 ]

will make sure that the words of that member, along

with the words of other members who have spoken in this debate, get out

there so that the people know exactly what is going on.

There was some reference by one opposition speaker today to a speech

by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) at the UBCM. I would

like to have it known here today that I was indeed very proud not only

of the way that our Minister of Education spoke but also of the way he

was received by the convention. Any gutter-type comments or reflections

made there are strictly something that has developed in the minds of

the opposition, who at the moment are obviously on the run and fighting

against something that they were supporting during the campaign in May.

Mr. Speaker, the member for New Westminister, I believe it was, said....

MR. COCKE: Minster.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: How's that? New Westminster?

AN HON. MEMBER: Like monster.

MR. COCKE: That's what you've made of this.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, he suggested that I made an

awful fool of myself at the UBCM, and it's for that reason that I am

delighted that we have with us today Alderman Ed Winkelman, who, I can

assure you, could tell this committee, if he were free to do so from

the gallery, that that is an outright lie.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Just one moment, please. To the

minister, the Chair would have to ask if there was an improper

reference in that last statement to the hon. member for New Westminster.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Oh, no. I could call him a liar, Mr. Speaker....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please, just indicate that there was no improper reference.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Well, the description would be fitting, but I won't do that. If the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The minister will withdraw.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: If there is any offence, I will withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Please proceed.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: But, Mr. Speaker, the record will show that

he called me a fool, and I would take it that I should be able to

return the compliment and make it quite clear that he is the fool in

this particular case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That also will have to be withdrawn. It's said inside the Legislative Assembly. Please withdraw.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, you forget you're dealing with a man of limited vocabulary.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very well, Mr. Speaker. It is very

difficult and somewhat muzzling to find that the opposition may accuse

me of things and call me a fool when I'm not allowed to do likewise.

However, be that as it may, we will carry on.

There's also been some suggestion made that we haven't been

listening. Mr. Speaker, I said in my opening remarks, as this

legislation was being introduced, that the Minister of Finance and the

Minister of Municipal Affairs of the day toured this province and

listened and communicated and came back with a program that has indeed

been very well accepted. Why on earth they would waste so much time

here opposing something that has already been well accepted, as

demonstrated by the fact that it is in place and working very well....

Only one municipality has not gone along with it, and I'm sure that as

time progresses we will see that that is going to happen as well.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: You never told the people that you were going to strip those municipalities of local autonomy.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Thank you for the protection, Mr. Speaker.

They talk about losing power at the municipal level, and that

clearly indicates to me that they haven't read the bill, they don't

understand it, and it's a lot of useless talk, What this really does,

Mr. Speaker, is put into the hands of municipalities the opportunity to

vary the tax rate as they feel it would be best varied for their

communities.

Just as an example of why this is good, and to prove that it gives

them that authority and that autonomy, let's assume that you have a

municipality that decide they want to attract industry to their

community; they want to attract commercial development to their

community; they want to attract residential to their community. Well,

the very first thing they do is make sure that their municipality is

managed well and that, generally speaking, taxes are fair — not too

high, but fair. Of course, from that stage on, they decide to make it

very attractive for industry to come to this municipality, because they

need that extension of the tax base and it's also going to create jobs

in this community. By having the opportunity to vary the tax rate, a

municipality, in their wisdom — on top of fair tax rates, and where

there is no waste because of good management — will be able to set a

tax rate for industry that will attract industry to their community.

That is healthy. That is good. That's good for the taxpayer; that's

good for the province. That's what we should be doing.

Mr. Speaker, I could go on with many notes here, but I really think

that would be a waste of time because there was nothing said by the

opposition. I would like to thank those who did try very hard to

contribute something. I was disappointed, however, to note that all

during their debates only two or three — sometimes four — of their own

members suffered through their talks and were present in the House.

This morning we listened to the debate from the opposition, and most of

the time they only had two members with them — and even they weren't

listening.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me I great deal of pleasure to move that the bill now be read a second time.

[ Page 1796 ]

[12:00]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Chabot

McCarthy

Nielsen

Gardom

Bennett

McGeer

Davis

Kempf

Mowat

Waterland

Brummet

Rogers

Schroeder

McClelland

Heinrich

Hewitt

Richmond

Ritchie

Michael

Pelton

Johnston

R. Fraser

Campbell

Strachan

Segarty

Ree

Parks

Reid

Reynolds

NAYS — 12

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

Lea

Nicolson

D'Arcy

Brown

Lockstead

Mitchell

Passarell

Rose

Blencoe

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

Bill 7, Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983, 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 moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:06 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1984,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada