[ 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

NAYS — 29

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 to 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

NAYS — 12

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.