[ Page 689 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Mr. Blencoe –– 689

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

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

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO. 1), 1983
(continued)

MR. BLENCOE: Yesterday I tried diligently to give the government some insights on the concepts of constitutional democracy and of equity in taxation law.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I missed the McMath report. You can go back to that later.

MR. BLENCOE: Later we'll talk about the McMath report and some of its recommendations. This morning I would like to go over very quickly for my government colleagues across the way some of the things I was mentioning yesterday in terms of constitutional democracy and the concept of equity in taxation systems.

It's our belief that the variable mill rate concept being introduced by the government is an attempt to improve the taxation system at the local level. I suppose that to some degree they are to be complimented for trying to make a stab at that particular problem. A number of governments over the years, not only in British Columbia but across this country, have taken on that chore. Unfortunately, most, if not all of them, have not been able to come to the root of the problem.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I have said over and over again, and I will reiterate it this morning, that the real property tax is a system that has outlived its time. It was established at a time when the services maintained by civic governments were small. Indeed, very few services were supported by local government, and the property tax system of 100 years ago, say, was probably quite adequate for maintaining those services. However, like everything else in an evolving and progressing society and, hopefully, a fairly sophisticated and civilized society, things change. Circumstances change; people's perceptions and priorities change, their requests of government change. They wish government to reassess their priorities and to remain flexible in their endeavours to do their best for the people of British Columbia and, in terms of this bill, for the taxpayers at the local level.

That evolutionary process is very important. Yesterday I tried to give a background provided by learned professionals in the area of taxation: that indeed taxation systems are an integral part of the democratic system, an integral part of constitutional democracy. In a constitutional democracy, even taxation systems can evolve to meet the changing times. One has only to look at the kinds of services municipalities carry out today, the kinds of projects they are involved in, and the kinds of priorities they've established for themselves, and one soon learns that the kinds of things they provide now have gone far beyond what civic government was involved in 50 to 100 years ago.

It's very important to set that framework for this debate in terms of the variable mill rate legislation in Bill 7, and later on in Bill 12. There is an impression or perception in the community, I think, one put out by this government — and one that is creating some misapprehension, I believe — that the variable mill rates and the real property tax reforms that have been introduced by this government are a significant change for municipalities, and that in many respects they will resolve the tax problems that municipalities face. I think if we all were honest and candid with ourselves, and if we all were prepared to admit among ourselves, over a cup of coffee...we would say that what we're doing is really not very much.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Go have a coffee.

MR. BLENCOE: Have one for me, Mr. Minister. I'll see you when you get back here in a few hours.

It's very important that we talk and try to impress government that taxation systems are fundamental in a democratic society. The levels of taxation you impose are very important to people's everyday livelihood, particularly in these difficult times, when many thousands of British Columbia families are struggling to maintain their homes and the health and welfare of their families. We talk about equity, the common good, public interest and the general welfare in the taxation system. Those are all phrases or terms that have been used many times over the years in parliamentary debate at all levels of government. I think that more and more today those are phrases or terms being utilized and talked about in this province, not only in terms of Bill 7 but also in terms of the other pieces of legislation before us.

Bill 7 is part of a package that this government has decided to deliver to the people of British Columbia. But I have to tell this government that in many respects they are under a cloud of illusion if they believe the people of British Columbia are buying this thing called restraint.

MR. REID: On May 5 they told us.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, with respect to that member, on May 5 they were sold a bill of goods that in no way really reflected what this government intended to do with the legislation that is before us.

Bill 7 is very much a part of that package. The overall concept in terms of tinkering or applying a band-aid to the municipal tax system in the short term may be adequate. It may be satisfactory. But there are some particular sections in this bill that I'm sure many municipalities did not realize would be introduced. Later on I will go back into some of those aspects and some of those things that are creating some concern among many of the municipalities to which I refer. Mr. Speaker, it's like Bill 9, which the minister now, I believe, is reviewing in a discussion with municipalities. Bill 7 is very similar to Bill 9.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, the minister wants to get on and pass these pieces of legislation as fast as possible. We know that. That's their intent, to get these things through as fast as possible. But as I said yesterday, there are groups and individuals involved with municipal operations on a daily basis that exist

[ Page 690 ]

for consultation. They exist to try and achieve some consensus about various pieces of legislation.

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's how the bill was made up in the first place.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, no, it wasn't. This is the first time, Mr. Speaker, that those municipalities have seen this legislation. They knew it was coming in. They were told it would be retroactive, and to prepare for the legislation. But they had not seen the wording of the bill until it was tabled with the other 25 or 26 pieces of legislation that we have before us. If, like with Bill 9, the minister and this government want to work diligently and set up a long-term relationship with the UBCM that is meaningful, we would suggest that he take some time to go through the regulations and the various components of this act, which I've already said are creating some concerns — things like exemptions in section 10 — and explain to those municipalities what their real intent is in this legislation. This is not just the variable mill rate we have before us; there is a remarkable move to centralize municipal decision-making in the hands of the provincial government. We're seeing that with a number of pieces of legislation before us.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I said as I started this morning that municipalities, like any other institution, are part of an evolving process. The nature of their operations have changed. As a consequence I think the processes that should be in place when new legislation that affects them is being developed should be one of trying to achieve consensus through deliberation over new legislation. I don't think that's too much to ask. After all, every citizen in British Columbia is represented by some form of local government, whether it be municipal council or regional district. That's very important. So the legislation that affects that very profound level of government, and therefore every citizen in British Columbia, must be thought through carefully and scrutinized with ultimate care. Because it is to affect every single British Columbian directly, particularly over taxation measures, it should be done in a process of consensus through deliberation. That process has not really been utilized very well. The UBCM would very much like the opportunity to meet with the minister to discuss the various regulations that will be forthcoming on this bill.

There is some concern that without the correct regulations there could be all sorts of abuse of this legislation. Let me give you some examples. As I said previously, one of the things that taxpayers, whether they be single homeowners, industrial property holders or the business community, really require is a formula that they know is in place. They need to know what the rules are and roughly what kind of taxation system is going to be there on an annual basis.

The difficulty with this particular bill, although giving a degree more of flexibility to local government in terms of how it taxes people is not a bad thing.... The concern of local municipalities and many taxpayers is that certain councils will utilize the flexibility of this bill to pass on heavier tax loads to particular categories of land or property. It highly politicizes the taxation system at the local level. There's no question that taxes and the process behind it have always been political; there has always been much debate and discussion as to who should pay what share. Under this legislation the political pressures that will come to bear on local councils from those who have the loudest voice or are the biggest lobby group will shift the taxation system from their particular property category to another. That kind of lobbying will intensify. What conceivably could happen is that those property holders with the least amount of clout will start to pay a far higher share of real property taxes in the province of British Columbia — unless the minister has regulations that he can put before the House that say there will be limits to the shifts.

For example, I would not like any particular council that is heavily dominated by the business community to say: "We don't want to pay 25 percent of the property taxes, although we benefit by more than 25 percent from the services we get from those taxes." What could happen with intense lobbying.... We all know that the various chambers of commerce, business associations and things like that have intense lobbies that could say to local councils: "Hey, we don't want to pay 25 percent; we only want to pay 5 or 10 percent." That's all very well for that lobby group and that particular category of property holder. But where is that load going to be transferred to? What conceivably could happen is that additional taxes could be put on the single-family property-owner who is already facing financial constraints not seen since the Depression.

This bill is not really that well understood by many of those single-family property-owners, because there is a perception that somehow it's going to resolve their tax problems and save them dollars. They should know, once and for all, that this Bill 7 has nothing to do with changing the root problems of the real property tax. All it does is allow local councils to play heavy politics with tax assessment and tax levels on particular categories of land. At the same time, this bill more and more centralizes the power of cabinet to limit by regulation tax rates, the relationship between tax rates or formulas for calculating tax rates. In effect, the provincial government would be in a position to completely override any municipal council or regional district, to change any feature of their tax systems, or to limit the amount of revenue they could collect through overall property taxation or in any of the eight classes of property.

That kind of deliberate move into the traditional area of responsibility of local government is unprecedented in Canadian municipal history. Local councils, local school boards and local regional districts — well, regional districts are elected, but this government took away that right — are directly elected by the local taxpayers. Those aldermen and school trustees run — the majority of them, I hope — on platforms of fiscal responsibility. They are trying to introduce budgets based on priorities and the ability of the taxpayer to pay. That municipal system has been in place for years, and that autonomy has been sacrosanct. They are responsible for setting the tax levels, administering the budgets, and setting the priorities and the allocations of local tax dollars.

I urge the provincial government to rethink this centralization move into the traditional area of responsibility by municipal governments. After all, the provincial government has enough on its plate in terms of trying to get this province back on its feet. To take on the responsibility of financially managing school boards and municipal governments and regional districts, as well as their own provincial finances, I would say is a task they are not capable of carrying out.

I would suggest to the provincial government, with respect, that you take care of your own back yard first.

[ Page 691 ]

Straighten up the $12 billion debt that you have loaded on the people of British Columbia — $5,000 for every British Columbian — get the province back on course, straighten up your own provincial financial arrangements, table a four-year budget that shows how you're going to repay that debt, tell us how you're going to resolve the problems, get back to the budget debate so the opposition can start to point out the flaws in your budget and in your figures, because it's full of flaws — full of underestimate and overestimate in terms of deficits and revenues. I would very much love to get into that, Mr. Speaker, but I know you wouldn't let me do it. Don't get involved in municipal government and school board jurisdictions and financial arrangements. Take care of your own back yard first. That's your responsibility. That's what your mandate is. This government keeps using the phrase "getting off the backs of people." If there was ever a government climbing on the backs and shoulders of the people of British Columbia, it's this government.

[10:30]

When Bill 7 is considered in the context of the government's entire legislative package and practice, the existence of these powers is cause for concern. This year, the government has said that it did not want to see any increases in tax levies. Do you remember saying that? Do you remember denying to the people of British Columbia...? Well, that's not the fact now. For the most part, municipalities cooperated in keeping tax increases in line with last year's levels. Certainly in the city of Victoria we tried diligently to cooperate with the provincial government. As a matter of fact, we went beyond their expectations because we knew that when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) was talking about expenditure increases, trying to give the impression to the people of British Columbia, he was saying tax increases, and that expenditure increases of 5 or 10 percent could mean tax increases of 10, 15 or 20 percent. Yet that minister was trying to give the impression to the people of British Columbia that he was saying municipalities could only have 5 percent increases in taxes. Well, that was ludicrous, and he knows it. However, in the city of Victoria, because we spent six to nine months in extensive deliberations with department heads and the unions and the representatives of the rank and file, we were able to bring in a budget that saw a reduction in taxes in the city of Victoria. We did that not through heavy firings, heavy tax increases or heavy confrontation with our workers; we did that within that framework that I've been trying to sell to this government: the framework of achieving consensus through deliberation. Hours and hours of work by council members, department heads and union representatives, looking at the budgets, the revenue problems, the dwindling revenues that our municipality faced, and at the same time looking at the implications of what we have before us now — Bill 7. That was done within a framework of conciliation and consensus through deliberation, and the result was quite remarkable.

For the first time that I know of in the history of the city of Victoria, those directly affected by our budget discussions and our utilization of the variable mill rate.... Some of the members across there are wondering how I'm staying on Bill 7, but needless to say, the implications of Bill 7 were, of course, involved in those budget deliberations. What we did with our union representatives was try to understand the problems of the day. A number of my colleagues on council were very nervous about that particular process. The finance chairman for the city asked: "How can you open the books to your union representatives? That's one heck of a precedent, " to use slang, ML Speaker; but it was certainly appropriate at the time. They felt it could be a dangerous precedent to sit down with the over 1,000 employees of the city of Victoria and discuss with them, as the policymakers for the city of Victoria and the taxpayers of Victoria, in a meaningful dialogue, what the implications of our budget deliberations might be for them. But not only what it might mean for them; we wanted to know how they could participate in the decision-making. They were not making the decisions; I make that quite clear. As the members, we would, in the end, have to make the ultimate decisions.

We were saying to those union representatives: "Look, we're all in this together. We all have the same problem. We all would like to maintain our jobs and ensure that the taxpayers who pay for those jobs are protected and safeguarded against huge increases in property taxes." Some of my colleagues were somewhat nervous about sitting down, for the first time in the history of the city of Victoria, around the table with, I believe, 10 representatives of various unions, and saying: "Here is our budget. Here are the fiscal constraints we're facing. Here are the revenue shortfalls. Here are the shifts that are happening in those property categories. Here is this new variable mill rate and what it could mean, and where we might want to shift a little bit, but we're only just tinkering with the system" — I'll get back to that a little later on. "Here is the scenario that we might have to introduce, given that we're living in the worst times since the 1920s and therefore want to try to save dollars for our taxpayers. These are the options that we face in trying to bring in no tax increase for the taxpayers of the city of Victoria." We tend to forget that even those public employees, who at the moment are the scapegoats of this provincial government, have generated millions and millions in taxes over the years in this particular city. Those public employees, close to 24,000 provincial employees and about another 5,000 employees in various other public areas — and that's an underestimate — have over the years provided and paid municipal taxes. Something we should all remember is that they have an interest in what happens at the local level.

What I'm trying to indicate to this government is that even with vested interest groups.... There's no question that unions and their membership are interested in dollars and in their jobs, but even within that kind of framework, and knowing those tensions, we were able, intelligently and rationally, to enter into a reasonable debate on how to resolve our problems in the city of Victoria.

What I'm trying to point out to this government, Mr. Speaker, is that there are some novel and unique approaches to resolving problems that really have to be tried in these difficult times. I believe that if there's one area in which we can try unique and novel ways of resolving problems, it has to be the municipal area.

As I say, in the city of Victoria we managed to resolve a number of problems that we never thought we could with the various players in the city. Agreed, Mr. Speaker, initially there was much suspicion on both sides. After all, we've had years and years of the same type of decision-making at the local and senior government levels. The decisions are made at the top and they filter down, with very little discussion or input from those directly affected by those decisions.

What I'm suggesting today, particularly in the municipal field, is that this government enter into a new avenue of making decisions for municipal government, particularly in

[ Page 692 ]

tax systems. I believe that now is the time in the history of this province and this country that all taxpayers want to know that the legislation that is in effect for them, and therefore taxes them, is achieved through consensus, deliberation and input from as many people who are affected by that legislation as possible. Let's turn the decision-making process for British Columbians at the municipal level around. We have the opportunity to do that. I would suggest that we must do that, because the cynicism....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: When we get back to Bill 9, I'll show you how you're wrong again.

If there were ever a time during these difficult times that British Columbians asked their provincial government to slow up on legislation that has a dramatic impact on their lives, families, homes, neighbourhoods, cities and on their very living environments, it would be now. You cannot continue to make decisions in isolation from those who are directly affected by your legislation. Do not forget that constitutional democracy has some basic fundamental principles behind it.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: It's coffee-break time, Mr. Speaker. I was on a train of thought there, and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, as usual, continues to be the rudest member on the government side.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You haven't said anything since you stood up.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Minister!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The House will come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: The Premier is usually here, Mr. Speaker, when the minister of small industry is in the House, and the Premier is able to control that minister.

MR. BARRETT: No one is able to control him.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, the Premier has a go at it. The people in the gallery must wonder about this member, as a member of the cabinet, and his performance and decorum in this House, which leaves a lot to be desired.

Before I was interrupted I was talking....

[10:45]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Perfect himself

MR. BLENCOE: Thank you. I'll tell you what, Mr. Speaker. We know that minister is beginning to have trouble with his cabinet colleagues. We hear the rumours that he is really deeply concerned about what this government is doing. We hear that, and we really have support for your concerns. Perhaps as you start to look at yourself in the mirror again, and you can live with your own conscience, you might start to stand on your feet for the first time in this session. You might actually start to advise your cabinet colleagues of their wrong ways and try to see if you can change them a little bit. There's hope for you yet.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it's a good thing that during this session, with all the serious pieces of legislation before us and the dramatic inroads into long-standing traditions of democracy and principles at the local level and rights of workers, we can still have a little laugh every now and again and allow the minister to interject and have a bit of fun. We know it's the only way that he can get by.

But there are serious things before us. I was trying to indicate to this government that during these difficult times, when citizens are wondering what's going to happen next, particularly with the tax systems and variable mill rates, there should be in place processes that allow those citizens to actually participate in the legislation development that's going to affect them directly. I will give you an idea of how we did it in the city of Victoria. There were some suspicions when we talked about the variable mill rates and the shifts that we would utilize. I could see some of the future problems that could exist. Luckily, the city council of Victoria well represented various political spectrums, so what we were able to do in the utilization of that tax rate was reasonable and had very little impact on all taxpayers. Mr. Speaker, what concerns me is that that might not happen with many other municipalities. If you get a council made up of, or dominated by, a particular property category group, you could get, through the variable mill rate, an incredible shift onto one or two particular categories. Those who have been involved in municipal governments, on the other side, I hope you have, seen the regulations which ensure that that kind of dramatic shift won't occur and that there will be limits to that. I hope you will ensure that happens. It's very important, Mr. Speaker, that whose who have been involved in municipal government over the years be allowed to say what this act and this legislation means. In terms of the actual details of this bill, I know that many municipalities, particularly Vancouver, said they wanted some flexibility. The city of Vancouver have seen the bill for the first time and like all municipalities would like to know what regulations are going to follow.

Mr. Speaker, most municipalities have tried to cooperate with this government in terms of municipal taxes. In the city of Victoria we went far beyond what the provincial government was suggesting, but that process was not done in isolation from those directly affected. Indeed, there were many opportunities for the public to participate in the budget deliberations. There were invitations to various property-owners and in particular I asked the chamber of commerce and the business groups concerned about property tax. I gave them the opportunity to prepare briefs and ideas on what should happen with the budget, and what should happen with the variable mill rate. Mr. Speaker, we could do this in the city of Victoria only because we decided that rather than start the process of the budget in January or February of this year, city council decided to start that process much earlier. We started around September or October of last year.

We recognized that there was a lot more work entailed in discussions and input from those directly affected and that it meant a lot more meetings and, sometimes, a lot more heated debate. But it allowed us to sift through the various problems, the policies and the options before before us and to perhaps take a little longer to see what the implications were for all those to be affected by the budget and the various shifts in tax we were about to use, what effect those would have on the people of Victoria and also upon the loyal workers, many whom have worked for the city of Victoria for many years. That process is something that I think we've all got to support

[ Page 693 ]

and allow to grow. That's a part of what I was saying earlier on, that all levels of government evolve and change and meet the circumstances of the time. Today the circumstance in our municipalities and regional districts is one — as I mentioned a few minutes ago — of a degree of cynicism, apathy, misunderstanding and misapprehension about what the government is doing and what it is purporting to do on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

Bill 7 is part of a package that the people of British Columbia have never seen before. They've never see this kind of legislation before. They have never seen moves into traditional areas like municipalities and school boards before. They've always believed that when they elect a municipal alderman or a mayor or a school board trustee, those persons will be responsible for making the decisions at that local level. They will be responsible for setting the budget, the tax levels, and the priorities for saying how much will go into planning, neighbourhood development, sewer operations or underground services. I have to say, once again — and let it be well known in the province of British Columbia that Bill 7 goes far beyond the idea of the variable mill rate. The province has moved to control the expenditures of municipal government, and therefore to control the budgets. Now, through Bill 7, it would give itself the power to control the amount of property tax revenue which a municipality might collect. It should be noted that this is a new power on the part of the province. Just how it will be employed remains to be seen. Is the government going to use it to force back certain levies, achieving an indirect form of expenditure control? Presumably the province will go one step further than this year's request for no tax increases, and will maybe effect a rollback in 1984 or any subsequent year. What municipalities have to realize is that their autonomy, by this bill, is being seriously eroded.

The UBCM, the city of Vancouver and the city of Victoria say that the legislation before us, in terms of the overall principle, is not a bad one in many respects. They recognize, as I have tried to indicate in the last day or so, that it's only a tinkering with the system that really doesn't get to the root of the problem, but they've all indicated some concern about the sections that give cabinet power to make regulations setting limits. There's section 10, section 6 and section 13. Section 6:

Limits on variable tax rate system.

"(1) The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations in respect of the variable tax rate system referred to in section 273.1.

"(a) prescribing limits on tax rates,

"(b) prescribing relationships between tax rates,

"(c) prescribing formulas for calculating the limits or relationships referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), and

"(d) allowing the inspector under prescribed circumstances to vary, by order, the limits, relationships or formulas established under paragraph (a), (b) or (c)."

Subsection (2) of that section says:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, under subsection (1), prescribe different tax limits, relationships or formulas for each class of property, different municipalities or different classes of municipality."

That is not just the variable mill rate.

What this government is doing is taking on the job that municipalities and civic governments have done in the western world for hundreds of years. They are virtually saying to local government: "We no longer trust you. We no longer trust the citizens who elect you to those positions. We no longer trust your ability to set the priorities and limits on your spending in your budgets. We no longer believe that you have the responsibility to rationalize your financial business to your electorate, and the province of B.C. and the cabinet is going to have that particular role." That's serious. No one has any problem with the concept of trying to resolve our financial matters in these difficult times, but we have some particular problems with the procedures and aspects, with some of the draconian measures you wish to utilize. We have some deep concerns about the stringent limits you are putting on municipalities and school boards in terms of being able to administer their jurisdictions satisfactorily. The government is saying that the electorates in those local municipalities did not elect the right kind of council or the right kind of school board; that they don't trust the citizen at the local level to make the right decision about who should represent them at the civic level. That is really a serious indictment of this government.

Over and over again I have said that municipal government, rather than being hindered and strapped and having its operation curtailed by Big Brother government, should be permitted the opportunity to take on more and more of the responsibilities that senior governments have been centralizing to themselves. I have seen surveys and polls where, when people were asked which level of government they support or trust the most, every single time municipal government comes out number one. That's because those locally elected people are accessible. They are often personally well known to hundreds of people, people who have a little extra time and can give a few hours to serve their community. They are your neighbour, your local businessman, your local social worker or teacher — people who are not necessarily interested in politics as a way of life, but who just want to give something to their community. They run for that particular office because they believe in their community. They believe in their ability to make decisions for themselves and their neighbours, and they believe that local government must maintain that autonomy.

[11:00]

This government's move, not only in Bill 7 but also in other bills — Bill 9 is going to have a dramatic effect on regional planning — is, in my estimation, unprecedented in Canadian municipal history. I haven't seen a move by any other senior government — unless the government can produce it — to take over the role of civic government in such a dramatic fashion as this government has decided. By section 6, they can virtually say what municipal governments are going to spend their dollars on, where their priorities will be, how much money they can spend and where it's going to go. Those local people elected by the municipal electorate will have Big Brother looking over their shoulder virtually 23 hours out of 24 in a day.

In the province of British Columbia we have the passing of local autonomy at the local level. Local autonomy, local decision-making and direct relationships to the electorate who elect those mayors, aldermen and trustees are being eradicated by this government. They are taking it away under the guise of this thing called restraint, which nobody believes anymore. It's not restraint; it's vindictiveness. You have

[ Page 694 ]

decided to take on some fundamental issues that those people in British Columbia have supported for years and years. It's no longer restraint. You want to control as many walks of life in British Columbia as you can. That's what you're up to. You're despicable and evil for doing that.

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's leadership!

MR. BLENCOE: No, that's not leadership. This government is on a mission to take over as many areas of the province as they can. Yet they can't even get their own yard cleared up. When are they going to show the people of British Columbia that they can fix up and take care of their own financial arrangements? Heaven forbid! They throw cheques worth three quarters of a million dollars in the garbage can.

MRS. JOHNSTON: That's rubbish!

MR. BLENCOE: That's right!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member will continue on Bill 7.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, it's quite true. They throw cheques away in the garbage can.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: To the bill, please.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, I'm trying to speak to the bill. Bill 7 starts to take over other levels of government in terms of financial operations. What I am saying is that you should bring in Bill 29 or Bill 30, or whichever number you haven't devised yet, that says in four years you will pull British Columbia out of the recession and that you have the ability to eradicate the highest debts in the history of the province of British Columbia.

MR. REID: That's leadership. That's good government.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, your financial bungling is going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $7 million this year in terms of a loss of credit rating and $120 million over the next four or five years. It's money that this government, which couldn't manage a pop stand, could put into child-care workers, could put into essential services. Their inability to manage the financial arrangements of this province are so well depicted now that we even see them throwing cheques into the garbage can!

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It's no wonder the press are disgusted with you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I call the House to order.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House will come to order, please. The second member for Victoria continues on Bill 7.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the minister refers to the press. To be quite truthful, Mr. Speaker, I don't particularly care what the press think. I believe that what is before us in various pieces of legislation is wrong for the province of British Columbia. The press know exactly what we're up to. They know that we are dedicated to preserving some basic fundamental rights and principles in the province of British Columbia. In terms of Bill 7 and in terms of a fair and equitable taxation system under a constitutional democracy, we believe this government has introduced a piece of legislation that does nothing to resolve the tax problems at the local level. Nothing at all! All it does is remove more and more of their responsibility to participate in those real property tax problems that municipalities and school boards face.

Before I was interrupted, I was trying to say that if the government wants to indicate to the people of British Columbia that it is capable of handling the financial arrangements of this province and capable of resolving the highest debts in 111 or 112 years — since we've been in existence — they will show to the people of British Columbia their program to eradicate the $12 billion debt; but they're not doing that. They don't even want to debate the budget. We're going around and around on various pieces of legislation. Let's get back to the real financial matters. Why has your budget gone up 13 percent? Human resources has gone up around 14 percent because of the unemployment you have created.

On one hand, you talk about trying to ensure that the private sector pulls this province out of the recession, and on the other, through your various pieces of legislation and your tax increases, you hammer the private sector and hinder its ability to participate with the government of British Columbia in ending the recession. Bill 7, if abused by local councils, could also hurt that local level of government by transferring heavy tax burdens onto their properties.

The UBCM is concerned about the scope of the proposed regulations. Apparently the regulations have not yet been drafted — at least, that's what I understand; although perhaps the minister can inform us about that — and none of the above have had any input into this process. The UBCM in particular has expressed the desire to be consulted regarding the regulations inasmuch as their scope is so broad. I would certainly urge this government to enter into the process of consensus through deliberation with the UBCM before they pursue this particular bill.

The other sections of the bill that are of concern to the UBCM are sections 10 and 13. Section 13 is a very short section, but....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Generally the committee stage is where one discusses the specific sections of a bill. The member can make passing reference to a specific section.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, the sections really reflect the overall principle of the bill in terms of eroding the autonomy of local government. There are many sections, but I'm referring to only a couple of them, because they reflect the overall principle. In section 13 the minister may by regulation vary the limit on the tax rate specified in subsection (6).

Municipalities would not necessarily mind — quite so much — this kind of legislation which hurts their ability to maintain their services properly if the province would maintain the essential revenue-sharing grants to sewers and storm drains that have been in place for many years. I would urge the minister, if he indeed wants to control these local municipalities so badly, to ensure that they have enough revenue to maintain their essential services adequately. Otherwise we are going to see deterioration of municipalities across this

[ Page 695 ]

province such as we have never seen before. If the government continues to erode the autonomy and the ability of local municipalities to control their own destiny, then he has to ensure that there are financial arrangements in place that permit them to run their infrastructures properly and safely. Otherwise we are going to witness the same kinds of problems that have been seen in the United States where municipalities or local counties — or whatever they call them in the United States — have put off maintenance of essential programs to the point now that the local taxpayers in the United States face billions and billions of dollars in extra taxes to fix up the essential ingredients of their cities, towns, districts and counties.

[11:15]

It is all very well and good to talk about heavy limitations to municipal governments in terms of spending, and where they can allocate their resources, but there are certain basic things which have to be maintained properly in our cities, and upgraded on an annual or biannual basis. What concerns us is that the heavy limitation on government in terms of making a decision, in consultation with its taxpayers, to spend or to increase in taxes in one particular year, because the infrastructure is in serious trouble.... They will not be able to because of this bill. They will be hamstrung by Big Brother provincial government saying: "No, no. You're not allowed to do that." That's unfortunate, because municipalities in British Columbia have generally maintained their operations satisfactorily; generally they rank high in terms of standards and maintenance. However, these particular sections that I have referred to as reflecting the principles of this bill have some direct consequences for the ability of local government to maintain those operations satisfactorily — and safely, I might add.

This morning I want to talk briefly about something this of deep concern to local municipalities. It's something that I'd like to bring to the attention of this government because it deals with taxation and revenue-generating problems that municipalities face. I refer to the whole problem of municipal policing costs in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Bill 2? Have you got a bill on policing costs?

If this provincial government is so dedicated to taking on the traditional roles of municipalities in terms of how much money they will have to spend and what their priorities will be, then I would suggest that this government had also better take a look at some of the other problems that municipalities have in terms of budget allocations. A major one in B.C. is the cost of policing, particularly for those municipalities that have to maintain their own. It is a serious problem, so serious that this government itself authorized a task force on municipal policing costs in British Columbia in 1978. It was a very good document. Unfortunately, nothing has been done with it, because I suppose the general principle, the recommendation, was that the provincial government should play a far greater role in terms of the cost of policing in municipalities.

The reason I bring this up is that if this government limits the ability of the local government to set its own spending and budget priorities for things like policing and fire costs, which are ever-increasing to keep up with changing times — unfortunately, in the policing area there are growing crime rates in major cities — municipalities will be limited in their ability to carry out policing operations to the level they feel is appropriate. Bill 7 limits the spending and erodes their decision-making in terms of financial matters, and yet with ever-growing costs, nothing has been talked about as to how municipalities are going to continue to pay for high policing costs. It's something that has to be.... There are many other things that I've said this government should take a look at in terms of the taxation problems municipalities are facing, and this is another area they should be seriously considering.

I'd like to go through this task force very quickly and give you some of the highlights and thoughts, and perhaps some ideas for the future in terms of your taking far more responsibility for financial matters at the municipal level.

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: No, they don't understand.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let's take a look at policing in British Columbia, because it's one of the fastest growing areas in terms of costs to municipalities, and one that has been virtually ignored by the province in terms of trying to come to grips with it.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: No, no. The point, Mr. House Leader, is that Bill 7 makes some major inroads into the ability of municipalities to collect enough money to deliver the services they traditionally have delivered. If this government is going to do that, then it better take a look at things like policing costs which slowly but surely are becoming an incredible burden on local municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, let's quickly go through some of the points in this report. I don't think it's seen the light of day for a number of years, but it is a very important document. It is one that I know we are all interested in in terms of public safety and policing.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Bill 7.

MR. BLENCOE: This is part of Bill 7 because it costs the local municipalities, and, as I tried to say, Mr. Speaker, Bill 7 makes some inroads on the ability of municipalities to pay for their services.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Principle of Bill 7.

MR. BLENCOE: If you listen you will find out.

Mr. Speaker, policing in B.C. is financed in four different ways by one or more of the three levels of government. Under Section 17 of the Police Act it is the duty of every municipality with a population of over 5,000 to provide policing for the purposes of adequately enforcing municipal bylaws, criminal laws, the laws of the province and of generally maintaining law and order within the municipality. As well, under Section 702 of the Municipal Act — and for Vancouver, Section 481 of the Vancouver Charter — it is the duty of each municipality providing policing to bear the expense necessary to generally maintain law and order in the municipality, to provide an office for the police force in the municipality and to provide premises as a place of detention. Under

[ Page 696 ]

the Police Act there are two options provided for municipalities once their population reaches 5,000: the municipality may, subject to the approval of the Attorney-General, provide policing by means of a municipal police force, or alternatively, the municipality may enter into a contract with the Attorney-General under which he will provide through the RCMP policing within the municipality. That's section 18(l). The remainder of the province is policed by the RCMP as the provincial police force, and provincial policing is provided under contract between the B.C. and the Canadian governments. The RCMP also performs federal policing which covers such fields as drugs, customs and excise, immigration and passport and criminal intelligence.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Let's hear about good government.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm going to give you some ideas for good government in terms of improving the policing costs. If this government is dedicated to eroding municipal decision making, then they will decide to take up their own reports and improve the policing cost to municipalities. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, if they continue to limit municipalities the way they intend to do, such services as policing will be dramatically affected and they will not be able to keep up with those escalating costs and maintain safety and the standards for their election. I know that's of deep concern to this government, and that's why I want to give them some insights into the policing problems of the municipal scene.

"While a major emphasis of this task force has been on municipal policing costs, it's also been the task force's responsibility to outline the contributions for policing by level of government and the cost sharing arrangements involved. No costs of accommodation have been included in any of the following figures. However, some municipalities do not actually include costs for accommodation as a portion of the police budget. Frequently facilities for police departments are part of the municipal hall and for those municipalities it would be necessary to estimate their share of the costs and therefore introduce an unknown degree of error."

Mr. Speaker, municipalities with their own police forces 1976 is the latest statistics we have according to the task force on municipal policing — paid $43,321,400. The provincial contribution to those municipalities, with their own police force, was nil; not one dollar came from provincial sources. They felt they had no responsibility in that area. In 1976 there were 12 municipalities with their own police force — as I said, they spent over $43 million paying for it. That is an incredible burden on local taxpayers. If this government is to take seriously what currently it believes is its mandate, which is to take over many responsibilities of local governments, it had better take a look at the policing problems that many municipalities face, and the costs associated with them.

MR. REID: We got a mandate for leadership and good government.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, leadership and good government. If they believe in good government, they will consult the very people who are going to be affected by their legislation, particularly Bill 7. The UBCM knows nothing about the regulations that you're going to have in place. They knew

Nothing about the centralization of power in Bill 7 in terms of heavy limitations on their ability to administer their own budgets and collect their own taxes. They have no news of that at all.

I want to look at some of the alternatives, as reported by the task force on policing — alternatives for sharing police costs. Current contributions by federal, provincial and municipal government towards policing in B.C. have been outlined in this report — $43 million by 12 municipalities. That's in 1976.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I am having some difficulty in establishing the relevancy of the extended discourse on policing costs as it applies to Bill 7.

[11:30]

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, for your edification, I will do my utmost to give you the reasons why I'm doing it. First, for those municipalities, policing costs take close to 20 percent of the overall revenues that they generate. It's very important. Policing is the highest consumer of local tax dollars. Second, this bill, in its wisdom, has decided to make some inroads on the ability of local governments to collect sufficient money to maintain those essential services — particularly policing. I pick on policing because it's probably one of the number one things on people's minds in terms of problems at the local level. We continue to hear about escalation of the crime rate, etc. So if this government, in its wisdom, is going to take over more and more responsibility of local government in terms of how it's going to get money to maintain its services, then this government had better understand the costs and the problems involved in maintaining services like policing. It's directly related to the principle of this bill. If you limit local government's ability to pay for services, then you must ensure that there is a system in place which will take up the slack, in terms of the lack of revenues to maintain those services. That's why I'm trying to give some insight into one particular issue at the local level that is creating deep concern in terms of the ability of local government to pay for it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Let me try to go on and give you some insights into alternatives for sharing police costs. It was the major purpose of this task force in 1976 to consider alternative methods of cost-sharing that would distribute the policing cost burden on a more rational and equitable basis throughout the province. Yesterday I was talking about a rational and equitable tax system for municipal government that was based more upon the ability to pay taxes, not upon what is happening in the real estate industry and with the unearned wealth syndrome that the real-property tax system is based upon. This task force tried to bring in — or suggested to the provincial government — a rational and equitable basis by which they could try to pay for policing costs in British Columbia.

In considering alternative cost-sharing arrangements, they first examined the contributions of the three types of government and formed the following opinions. "It is inequitable that taxpayers in unorganized territories and municipalities with less than 5,000 population do not contribute directly towards policing." It's inequitable, and yet there are many who don't. "Municipalities with RCMP contracts receive benefits from the federal government which are not

[ Page 697 ]

available to those with their own force. The task force believes that municipalities with their own police force should receive assistance from senior levels of government." On behalf of all the municipalities in British Columbia that have to pay totally for their policing costs, I request that the provincial government, if it's going to introduce Bill 7 and erode the ability of municipal councils to generate enough revenue to pay for services like policing, introduce post-haste a cost-sharing formula for municipal policing. They have a responsibility to do that if on the one hand they erode the ability of local municipalities to collect enough money or to generate enough revenue to pay for those services. This government is now saying that they are going to be responsible for allocating funds and setting the limits.

Some municipalities incur greater police costs as a result of special problems they experience. The task force believes that these municipalities should receive special assistance. Listen to this: "Current municipal contributions for police protection place a strain on local taxpayers in the municipalities responsible for policing." I reiterate: if this government, through Bill 7, is to control the ability of municipalities to generate enough funds to pay for essential services like policing, then there has to be a responsibility on the part of the provincial government to ensure that those essential services have adequate resources to maintain their operation, to ensure that British Columbians are adequately protected. I can say this today, not in an atmosphere of trying to create concern: what this government is doing by this bill, in terms of policing, will start to limit the 12 or 13 municipalities that have to fund their own police forces and will ensure that they have to start to cut back in their police forces. Therefore public safety and public standards in terms of protection will be eroded.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The implications of Bill 7 are immense. What I'm trying to get across to the people and to this government is that if the government goes ahead with this erosion of local autonomy and its ability to pay for essential services, you will start to see things like police forces being understaffed; they won't have adequate material or resources, or the ability to react to crimes, because they won't have the revenues to do it. This bill has serious implications for policing in British Columbia. That's why I want to continue to go through some of what the task force recommended the provincial government should do with policing. If you proceed with Bill 7, you have a responsibility to bring in cost-sharing for municipal policing in British Columbia.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Armchair expert.

MR. BLENCOE: For six years, Mr. Minister — two years as chairman of finance, the last two years in the most difficult times in the city.... I do bring some experience to this chamber that indicates that unless this provincial government deals properly, sincerely and efficiently with local governments, they are going to create incredible problems within the next few years. I really wish this government would listen to those people who do have some experience. If you don't want to listen to members of the opposition, listen to the members of the UBCM; listen to some of your own supporters at the local level, in terms of what you're doing with your legislation.

"The federal government is not a likely source for additional funding of policing costs. In fact, indications are that the federal government may play a diminishing role in municipal policing over the next few years."

If that happens, the provincial government will have to take greater responsibility in this essential service. Another basic recommendation of the task force:

"There should be increased provincial involvement in municipal policing costs."

I would hope those members of government over there are listening, because they're the ones who ordered this task force report to be written.

"Increasing the provincial government's contribution would appear to be a logical way to shift a portion of the cost-sharing burden from the municipalities."

If this government is so interested in the local taxpayers and their problems of paying taxes, they will think seriously about trying to relieve the local taxpayers of policing costs. "However, before considering methods through which the province could share a greater portion of the costs, it is worth considering at this time the reasons why the province should become involved in financing an increased percentage of the costs. First, it would be consistent with the general trend of provinces" — except in British Columbia — "assuming greater responsibility for services to people in areas such as health, welfare and education." Interestingly enough, we are going in the opposite direction in this province. However, I believe that we will get the message across to this government — and if we repeat ourselves enough times maybe the message will get across — that local government is very efficient but it has to have the resources to continue that efficiency. In Bill 7 you are limiting municipal government's ability to achieve those resources.

"Secondly, the provincial government is able to use methods in addition to property tax to raise the necessary funds."

On, how true. You have the ability to alleviate that incredible burden on taxpayers at the local level: the property tax. The reason I am talking about policing is that, having dealt with budgets for six years at the municipal level, I think policing is about the biggest........

MR. REID: Have you dealt with any other kind of budget, one where you have to pay the bills and you've got to pay the payroll? Have you ever done one of those? Go out for six years into private enterprise and see if you could make it pay.

MR. BLENCOE: They don't like to hear that someone from this side of the House could actually be involved in administrating a $45 million to $48 million budget for a number of years, and, I believe, establish a level of spending and priorities in keeping with the times. They have a tough time seeing that someone on this side of the House can do that. Earlier on I tried to share with these members how we did that in the city of Victoria. It was done with a process of deliberation and consensus resolution. I know it's hard for this government to admit that maybe there are some different ways of approaching the economy and taxation systems. There are some different and novel ways that might alleviate some of the concerns of local taxpayers and bring in a tax system that allows the local taxpayer to pay for services at the local level based upon their ability to pay. That's the overriding principle.

Bill 7 only tinkers. It does nothing in the long term to resolve the ever-increasing problem that municipalities face — that is, paying for their essential services. I'm trying to give you probably the worst example, but it's policing costs.

[ Page 698 ]

If you're going to continue with Bill 7 — and I hope you won't in terms of some of the particular principles in Bill 7 — I hope you will amend some of the particular principles in Bill 7. Otherwise municipalities, in terms of policing, will be hamstrung.

[11:45]

I was saying the provincial government is able to use methods in addition to property tax in order to raise necessary funds. Because municipalities currently tax solely on the basis of property, it can be argued that this does not equitably distribute the cost. That is so right. You have a responsibility, if you're gong to be government in British Columbia for the next four years, to introduce a taxation system at the municipal level that ensures that the costs for services are equitably distributed among those municipal taxpayers. We've lived far too long with a real property tax system that has nothing to do with one's ability to pay, in terms of income or with the fact that the majority of people who own their own homes don't want to sell them — yet they pay taxes based upon what some real estate agent might get for their homes in the marketplace.

MR. REID: At least they can still sell them. Under your rule nobody would have anything to sell.

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, now there we go with the scare tactics coming out from these right-wingers — the scare tactics and lies they used during the election. They're still here. They lied to the people of British Columbia about what they would do. They didn't tell the truth in terms of the legislation they were going to bring down, and they certainly didn't tell the truth with Bill 7.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the member, perhaps inadvertently in his speech, has attributed to other hon. members of this House a dishonourable motive, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MR. LAUK: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was listening with a great deal of interest to the hon. second member for Victoria's speech, and I think the remarks were of a general nature and did not target any member of this House. I therefore think that the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food was perhaps a little precipitous, having that vestigial recollection of his days in the Speaker's chair.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Further, on the same point of order, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, we could resolve the matter in the traditional fashion, and ask the hon. member whether he did indeed attribute to any hon. member any dishonourable motive.

MR. SPEAKER: And in rebuttal....

MR. LAUK: With respect to the rules of order in this chamber, no member is required to answer any question from the hon. Minister of Agriculture and Food, Perry Mason or anybody else. Either the hon. member leading the debate has breached the rules or he hasn't. Obviously he hasn't, and he should be allowed to continue his speech uninterrupted by the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Further on the same point, Mr. Speaker, I think that the proper way of handling all points of order is through the Chair. Rather than any one member asking another member to withdraw, I would ask the hon. Speaker to perhaps intervene in the matter.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. Prior to recognizing the member for Prince Rupert, as soon as the Chair has an opportunity, the Chair will so do. Bu in the meantime, the Chair is bound to recognize members who are seeking the floor on points of order, whether they be real or otherwise.

The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to consider whether or not it was a frivolous point of order, because the Minister of Agriculture got up on a point of order and now it becomes obvious that he himself isn't even sure what the member said and whether there was any motivation. Now the Minister of Agriculture wants the member for Victoria to tell him whether indeed there was an infraction of the rules. So obviously the Minister of Agriculture doesn't even know himself. I would ask you possibly to look into whether you shouldn't chastise the Minister of Agriculture for a frivolous point of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On the frivolous point of order, the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is my experience in this House that when it appears that a matter which is a point of order has occurred, it needs to be raised by any hon. member and then its determination is made by the Speaker of the House. If it were left for me to determine, I would have already declared it out of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.

MR. SPEAKER: Now that we have entertained the various points, I would ask the second member for Victoria if in his remarks he did attribute.... Would he withdraw his remarks.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, no, Mr. Speaker. If there are certain members who get up on their feet because of guilt feelings about what I've said, it's up to their own consciences. I can't deal with that, Mr. Speaker. I was making the statement that I believe that this government lied to the people of British Columbia in terms of what it was going to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, on various occasions the Chair has suggested that the use of that word in debate is most inappropriate. While it might be used in a hallway or a barnyard, it certainly is not appropriate in this chamber. I would ask all hon. members, in debating in this House, to remind themselves of that guiding principle which has in many cases served us well in the past, and which would continue, I suggest, to do so in the future.

The second member for Vancouver Centre seeks the floor.

[ Page 699 ]

MR. LAUK: Your reference to a barnyard was not, I hope, in any way a slight to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), who leaped to his feet to raise his point of order. If it's a general statement on whether a certain political party lied or misrepresented themselves, that's permissible parliamentary debate. What isn't permissible is the suggestion that one of the hon. members of this chamber did so. While it may appear that those kinds of accusations in this chamber, or in the province generally, about a political party lying seem to be directed at the government party on a continuous basis, that's no fault of ours; but I would suggest that a general accusation is not a breach of the parliamentary rules.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the point raised by the member has some merit. Nonetheless, the use of the word "lie" in this chamber.... Certainly we all have a very good command of the English language.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Most of us, hon. members, and I would advise that there are other words which possibly have the same connotation but meet the very strict standards of parliamentary debate.

MR. BLENCOE: Your words are well taken. There are indeed times in this House when we use certain descriptions of the government that may be taken out of context, given the times and the occasion. However, there are times when there are no alternatives but to describe the government for what it is, and in my estimation there is no other description for this government. They did not tell the people of British Columbia what they were going to do when they got elected. They didn't. No, you did not tell the people of British Columbia you were going to bring in 26 pieces of legislation that would eradicate some of the very basic social fabric of this province. In my estimation we can get into semantics and try to utilize different words, but they didn't tell the truth. That's all there is to it. And the people of British Columbia now know that. Have you seen the poll results done by Goldfarb? The people of British Columbia overwhelmingly are saying that the package of legislation that you have introduced is not what they want or voted for. As I mentioned to my colleagues across the way yesterday, I had the opportunity to participate on an open-line program by one of your candidates, Mr. Joe Easingwood: a candidate, a well-known Socred, a supporter of this government for I don't know how many years, who ran for you. He's now saying that you didn't tell the truth. He's also saying — along with many other candidates that represented this party — that if he had to sit over there now today he would have to cross the floor. They could not live with what this government is doing.

I'd like to close — if I'm allowed to close — for the morning session....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: What you're doing with this bill is far too important. I feel too strongly about local government and its ability to make decisions. For hundreds of years it's had that ability, and this government's going to take that away. That's too important to sit down for. We're not going to do that. We're going to let the people know and you know that we defend local autonomy and we feel that it's important that they be allowed to continue to make those decisions for themselves, as they've done for hundreds of years.

I'd like to share with the government something of great financial import. It's to do with how this government is going to collect taxes, how they're going to allocate revenue-sharing and how they're going to try to support Bill 7.

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned this morning that the credit rating lost by the province is going to have a dramatic impact on the taxpayers of British Columbia — $7 million minimum this year. I think it's very important to let this government know something. This government that continues to attack many local municipalities for their decision-making process, and in Bill 7 continues to attack that process by eradicating their ability to generate enough revenue for their services.... One of those municipalities that this government continues to attack — and particularly the mayor of that city — is Vancouver. How many times has this government said: "They don't make the right decisions"? We had the second member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Mowat) attack them and say their charter should be stripped away. Well, Bill 7 actually just about does that in many forms. This government, that is going to cost the taxpayers of British Columbia $7 million this year because of its bungling of the financial arrangements of this province, lost its credit rating. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? The municipality that this government continues to attack on a regular basis — which, indeed, has one of the best mayors this province has ever seen, Mayor Harcourt — that mayor and that council are still managing to run the affairs of that municipality. That municipality has a triple-A credit rating.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

[12:00]

MR. BLENCOE: You lost your triple-A rating and you attack Vancouver. You're a disgrace to the people of British Columbia. I say that if this government is serious about the financial ratings of this province, they should learn how Vancouver got that triple-A rating and get on with eradicating the debt in this province as quickly as possible.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the clock.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

I recognize the Acting House Leader, the Minister of Agriculture and Food.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

[ Page 700 ]

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I think the House Leader made a mistake. He asked for adjournment of the debate instead of adjournment of the House.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the proper motion is adjournment of the debate until the next sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: That was the motion, hon. members.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, could you just clear up one thing for me? With that motion does our speaker still have the floor?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, hon. member. The motion is the adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02.