[ Page 1965 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Compensation Stabilization Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 11). Second reading.

Mrs. Wallace –– 1965

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 1968

Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 1983 (Bill 12). Second reading.

Ms. Sanford –– 1970

Mr. Mitchell –– 1971

Mr. Blencoe –– 1973

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 1975

Division –– 1975

TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 27, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, this week the province of British Columbia is hosting the forty-second annual conference of the Canadian Association of Administrators of Labour Legislation. They have a very full schedule. People from all over Canada, government labour officials from all the governments of Canada, will be talking about a number of important topics, including labour standards, occupational health and safety, and of course a broad range, of questions regarding labour, relations.

This morning in the Legislature we have a number of wives and companions of the delegates to that convention and I would like the House to make them very welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: In the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, we have a couple who are celebrating their honeymoon in Victoria, very strong supporters of mine and our party, Mr. Don Rempel and his bride. Would the House please welcome them.

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

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on Bill 11.

COMPENSATION STABILIZATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this bill, I think there is no question but that we have to relate it to the main act it amends, the Compensation Stabilization Act. In introducing that act a year ago last May, the minister made some rather interesting observations. He stated that it was in fact similar to the federal procedure under the anti-inflation program, and said that while there was only one set of rules under that program, there were two enforcement mechanisms. Under the AIB some leeway was allowed; however, when a case was referred to the administrator the rules were far more stringent. The parties recognized this and avoided the rigid application of the rules by the administrator. to the extent — I think this is significant, and I'm quoting now, Mr. Speaker — "that he heard only 350 of the 100,000 cases filed with the Anti-inflation Board." I think that is significant, in that it indicates what has been said before by my colleagues in debate. I think it was the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) who pointed out that under our collective bargaining system the matter of settlement of wages adjusts itself and takes care of itself if the collective bargaining system is allowed to work freely and effectively, and if the legislation under which it works is balanced and fair. I think that was proven with the Anti-Inflation Board.

The minister went on to emphasize that the government, in introducing the Compensation Stabilization Act, hoped and expected that the measures called for under the regulations side of the legislation would not be utilized in the majority of cases. He said that as with the AIB, the voluntary side of the process would dispose of most of the compensation plans filed, and to the degree that that occurred the compensation stabilization program would be self-administering. Once a compensation plan fell under the regulations, however, he said it should be kept in mind that the commissioner would have to administer the law in all respects, I think the same thing did prove true here, and the minister said as much when he introduced this amendment: that in fact very few cases actually went before the compensation officer.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The minister also said, when he was introducing that act in the House a year and a half ago, that the plan as set forth by the Premier in February — I can't find the exact quote here — was the effective one. We remember in the Premier's address over television — he usually legislates in this province by way of TV — that there was in fact to be a plus or minus 10 percent, or a plus or minus something, for productivity. When the Minister of Finance introduced the Compensation Stabilization Act in the Legislature, he said those rules would apply; but while he was doing that. the Premier was out in the hall, again on television and radio, saying that things were different now and it was going to be plus or minus 5 percent. There was a change. In fact, it got to the point where we might have a minus increase — a reduction.

So we were bouncing around in something, not knowing know where we were, and we're still doing exactly that same thing. The one thing we did have an assurance of back in 1982 was that this was for two years only. Now we're going to make this go on ad infinitum. Why do we need to do that when it is so obvious there have been very few instances when it was required? Not that many cases have been referred to Mr. Peck. We're paying him a pretty extravagant salary. What is it, $900 a day that he gets? It's $300? Okay, I stand corrected. But he's being well paid and doing very little. In fact, in the initial stages he was complaining about being lonely. He sat for months with nothing happening. This is in the name of restraint, I would point out, Mr. Speaker. Now we are perpetuating ad infinitum something that was bad enough for two years. That certainly is one of the major things about this bill that concerns me.

[10:15]

Mr. Speaker, some interesting things were said at the time the bill was introduced. One of the most interesting came from a chap named John Crispo, who in 1982 was — and I imagine still is — a member of the faculty of management studies at the University of Toronto. He was on leave as the Chevron visiting professor of management at Simon Fraser University at that time. He was very interested in this particular bill, and I think he put it very well: "If anything, controls and guidelines are used to distract public attention from the very real and tough fiscal and monetary measures that are usually required." That's true. "The illustration I've given of distracting people's attention is the amount of money poured up against the wall in northeast coal, without any explanation to this province, in a one-week, $45 million slip through the cracks of the government warrant without any explanation to this House. So what do you do to distract them?" This is a comment from the Leader of the Opposition on that particular remark by Mr. Crispo. Mr. Crispo indicated in his remarks that controls were simply to distract, and I think that's what we're into again, Mr. Speaker. We're trying to distract.

[ Page 1966 ]

Allan Maslove and Gene Swimmer discussed the anti-inflation program in their book, Wage Controls in Canada. Talking about the anti-inflation program, they said it marked the "most radical peacetime direct intervention in the economy in Canadian history." Questioning its success, they found that it was not successful, and they held out little hope of success for any similar program in the future. This is the economist's point of view on measures like this compensation stabilization bill, indicating that from an economic point of view it is not a good way to go.

The public service accounts for something like 14 or 15 percent of unionized employees in British Columbia. Unionized employees represent something like 42 percent of the total workforce in British Columbia, so we're looking at a very small percentage of the workforce that will be controlled under this compensation stabilization bill. The point I'm making is that it is a very small portion of the inflation and total expenditures that face us in this province. Any rollbacks caused as a result of this will be very minor in relation to the total dollars expended within the province, but very major for the people directly concerned.

I think we need to look at the people who are directly concerned. We know it's more difficult for people on low income. When you face a person on a low income who is barely managing to survive, and there were certainly some figures presented in the debate on this bill when it was first introduced.... The total bill indicated that a great many of the people that were going to come under this very careful direction were going to be, in a lot of instances, single parents — mostly women — working in the low-paid categories in the government service. Their take-home pay would be something like $700 to $900 a month. Yet we were going to reduce that under this bill with a plus or minus allowability. It could be reduced. Certainly there would be limited improvements in those salaries; in fact, not as great as inflation.

There was no attempt to control the kind of moneys they had to put out. For example, if you were involved in buying a home, or trying to buy a home, the major costs in that home were the interest components and the land costs. There were no controls on the flipping of land — speculation. High land costs resulted as people were making some pretty massive profits out of those land transactions. Then when you got into buying the house, your interest costs were.... You could go on for years and pay a very small portion of your principle. The greater part of those payments reflected interest. In fact, many people found that they could not even maintain their home on their existing incomes. So not to allow any increase, or to hold them as they were, or to cut them back, works a very real hardship on people on low incomes.

You can't just view this bill in isolation or in one short period of time. If you look back on the history of the B.C. Government Employees' Union, they bargained very responsibly over a period of some three years. They maintained an 8 percent increase over three years at a time when inflation was 11 and 12 percent. In effect, they had already fallen behind. Then they were faced with this compensation stabilization. They have been under that now for a year and a half or two years. They felt that at last they were going to be in a position where they could perhaps recoup some of their losses — because, really, they have suffered losses. Instead, we're now being faced with a continuation of this without really knowing what it's all about. We cannot tell exactly what the government is proposing without having a look at the regulations that they're going to bring in, or without knowing what the actual limits are to be.

As I mentioned before, we had the plus or minus 10 in the initial stages. Then we got down to plus or minus 5 or plus or minus 2 or zero increases. We don't know what the government is proposing with this particular amendment, except that they are going to continue it. They are wiping out the sunset clause; it's going to go on and on and on. We're still stuck with the same old rules which are not public knowledge, and they seem to be changed to suit the particular requirement.

A case in point relates to some of the people who work in the upper echelons of the public service where, by changing their job description, they can enjoy a 50 percent increase and come within the guidelines, or the process of appointing through the regular selection process may be abandoned, as was the case in the past with government agents. Under the terms laid down in the agreement they can simply declare those jobs non-bulletin jobs and appoint whom they please without any regard for the terms of the compensation stabilization regulations and the plus or minus percentages.

They talk about productivity. I don't know how you regulate productivity. They never come up with a conclusion on how you judge and grade productivity. If you were talking about people who work as nurses, perhaps if they worked in the maternity ward you might have something to govern productivity, but I don't know what you would do if they worked in extended care. How do you judge productivity for a nurse? How do you decide whether or not that particular nurse, or nurse's aide, or whoever it is...? The people in the diet kitchen: how do you judge their productivity? How do you judge the productivity of a schoolteacher? By the number of pupils in the room? Or the number of A's those children receive?

And how do you relate that to wages? This is such an absolutely vague procedure, Mr. Speaker. It's a tool for the government to use to reward whom they wish and to punish whom they wish. It's another tool that draws more control into the hands of government and breaks down long-established social programs that we have builtup in this country and policies and philosophies that relate to cooperation and working together to work out our problems through the free collective bargaining process and joint negotiations, putting it into the hands of cabinet, through their appointee, who, of course, is at their beck and call. He can come up with decisions that are in line with their thinking, or of course he is subject to recall.

During the election campaign the Premier promised that he would continue wage restraint. We're continuing it, but we're making it much different, because we're making it permanent and we're putting more and more authority into the hands of the cabinet. The cabinet will be able to order any group of employees to take a pay cut as great as 5 percent — or more, if they change the regulation. Or they can order an increase, or they can reclassify somebody and give him a 50 percent increase.

They say this will work hand in hand with collective bargaining. That's not the case. To say that we still have collective bargaining in this province, alive and well, working freely as it is intended to work, is a farce. There is no room for collective bargaining under this kind of legislation.

You talk about productivity and incentive. You have to have good morale if you're going to have good productivity

[ Page 1967 ]

and if there is going to be an incentive for people to produce and do a good job. What's been happening to the public service over the last two years has destroyed that morale. They have begun to feel that they are second-class citizens, and that their work is not appreciated or respected. They feel very insecure; they do not know when they are going to be pink-slipped and have a notice that their services are no longer required. They have worked with their duly elected representatives through their organization to present their ideas and get them included in an agreement for protection of their jobs, for seniority clauses, for provisions for layoffs if there is a change in government programs. They have worked very hard to get that built into their agreement, and now they find that their agreement will be null and void and that this and other pieces of legislation this government has introduced will be the things that govern their working conditions and security on the job. That does not promote good morale; that does not promote productivity, that does not give incentive to employees to do a job.

[10:30]

This bill affects every public employee in British Columbia. They can be fired, pink-slipped, terminated — notice of termination. Whatever you want to call it, it still comes out "fired" under the guise of restraint. It has been going on to a point where the public service has become very demoralized since February 18, 1982, when we had the famous statement of that date; then we had the legislation and now we have an amendment. At each step of the way it's been changing for the worse.

When the bill was first introduced by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), he assured the House, the province and the public servants that it would be for only a two-year term and then phased out. That assurance apparently means nothing, because we're now into a total continuation ad infinitum. That sunset clause is being simply wiped right out.

Earlier I mentioned — and I think I can reiterate — that the government has been very selective in how it uses and interprets the guidelines. I talked in general terms about some of the people who had somehow managed to get much more than 5 percent. One case was Mr. Bailey, who works in the Premier's office and who was reclassified. He changed his job title, and suddenly he's receiving a 50 percent increase. What do you think that does for the morale of the working mother with two kids who is taking home $780 a month and trying to pay rent — with rent controls now lifted — and trying to meet a grocery bill; trying to clothe her children on that kind of minimum salary, when the price of children's clothing keeps escalating? Today it costs $40 for a pair of children's shoes. Mr. Speaker, you and I can remember when $4 was more like the price we paid for our children's shoes.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Those are the problems, Mr. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder).

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: I can remember that too. Blue jeans for a couple of dollars; they're $16 now. That's the problem that these women — and many in the lower-paid bracket in the public service are women — are facing. What does it do to their morale and to their desire to do a good job? They see someone in the Premier's office getting a 50 percent increase, and they're told that if they don't smarten up they'll get a 5 percent cut — in the name of restraint. Restraint has to be fair in order to work. Restraint as applied by this government is not fair.

Doug Heal. We've heard a lot about Doug Heal. It's the same thing: a transparent reclassification, and an 18 percent increase. That's not restraint. If you're going to have restraint, you must begin with yourselves. That has not happened.

In question period yesterday we heard something I could hardly believe. This government that was telling all of us that we must restrain ourselves is using a $60,000 facility at B.C. Place to host the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, so they can watch the football game. I have nothing against the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I certainly have nothing against the football players or football, but I do have something against a government that spends taxpayers' money in a time of restraint. I think that is so demonstrative of the difference in priorities on this side of the House and that side of the House. We have seen it coming; we have seen those expense estimates in ministers' offices escalating. We have seen the votes for travel expense, advertising, office furniture — all those things that make for creature comfort for the ministers — going up and up. After they had escalated quite extensively over the years we began to call attention to them in this House. You were not here, Mr. Speaker, but if you had been here I think you would have supported us. We saw increases of 600 percent in some ministers' travelling expenses. We said: "Wait a minute — it is time to stop." We moved motion after motion in this House, just reducing them to last year's level. For two years we did that. The first year they were all turned down. The second year we only tried to move them back to that already escalated figure, and they were all turned down — something in the vicinity of $175 million in total. That is not much in the total budget, but those were items that we were easily able to identify in excesses in ministers' offices.

You have to set the example. As my colleague for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) said, charity begins at home. If you are not prepared to practise restraint as ministers, cabinet, government, then you cannot expect cooperation from those who can far less afford to tighten their belts. We have seen this government remove rent controls, tax credits, shelter grants — things that were helping those low-paid groups to cope — and at the same time say: "We are not going to let your income be raised along with inflation — in fact we may be going to roll it back."

Those are the things that make us concerned on this side of the House. Those are the things that make us recognize that this kind of legislation simply will not work. If this province persists in this direction it is certainly a short-sighted way to go. If ever we need to cooperate one with the other, we need to do it in a time of economic difficulty. What this government seems to be determined to do is to create confrontation. When you create confrontation, then the economy suffers extremely. That's what's going to happen if the government persists in its headlong determination to create confrontation. That is the only possible thing that can result from legislation like this. When you have a group of people who feel that they are and have been treated unfairly, then you are simply asking for confrontation when you impose further controls and further unfair treatment on them.

[ Page 1968 ]

It seems to me that it has been deliberate on the part of the government to bring about this confrontation, and that is nothing short of disgraceful. Never before have we needed more cooperation than we do now. Never since the thirties has our economy been in such a difficult time.

[10:45]

We always talk about the taxpayer's and the employer's ability to pay. The public sector employer's ability to pay is determined solely by the cabinet. It approves the operating budget of funded agencies. It has — or has given itself — the authority to order the imposition of an operating budget on any institution. They're moving out to control every public body in this province. So it's not just with government employees where the confrontation is resulting.

In my mail this morning there was a letter from the executive officer of the UBCM which outlined quite clearly their concern about this bill — and others, but this was one of the bills they were talking about — where the provincial government is gradually spreading its control over those areas that local municipal governments under the UBCM have had sole jurisdiction over. They are very concerned about this bill and about other bills. They're pleading with the government to back out and not move legislation that will not work. They're saying: "Wait a minute. There is not that much wrong with some of the bills, but there are some bills that will not work and will cause nothing but difficulties and confrontation. They're impractical and unworkable. Take time to consult. Listen to what we're saying."

MR. MOWAT: I've been listening for three months and I've heard every word you've said.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MRS. WALLACE: I'm not talking about what we're saying in the House; I'm talking about the UBCM, who are asking your government and your Minister of Municipal Affairs to listen to what they are saying. The government is not listening, and that kind of confrontation is building up.

School trustees and teachers, two groups that historically have opposed one another and been at the opposite ends of the bargaining table, are now united in opposition to the measures the government is bringing in.

It would seem to me that the government would recognize the number and variety of groups and the scope of the opposition to this and other measures; that the government would move to make some changes, to listen. Certainly the Social Credit government during the years of W.A. C. were famous for the second looks. If ever there was a time for a second look, this is the time. This is the time for the government to say: "We may have made a mistake."

They keep saying that the public doesn't understand. I think the shoe is on the other foot. It's the government who doesn't understand what the public is saying. That Minister of Municipal Affairs didn't understand — or didn't listen to — what the UBCM was saying. I had another note on my desk this morning from the School Trustees' Association saying they had met with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and had a very open and frank discussion and they were hopeful. But did he listen? Are we going to have some changes? Is he prepared to listen? Is that government prepared to listen? Are they prepared...?

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Not just the things that we are saying here. We're fighting a battle on behalf not just of ourselves but of those many thousands of people out there who are trying to get through to the government. We are here simply saying to that government that if you won't listen to us, at least listen to the public. I certainly oppose Bill 11.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take my place in this debate to support Bill 11.

It's rather interesting to hear that member now, and some of the other members, talk about cooperation; that the government should really get involved in cooperation. It seems to me that since some time in July, we have been listening to their version of what cooperation was: "Withdraw every one of the bills and then we'll cooperate." That hardly seems like cooperation. I can assure you that this government does listen to the people when rational arguments are made. The member asks, "Does the government listen?" and in the same breath says: "We are fighting this battle." That is precisely the problem. They are still fighting the election battle; they are still fighting the partisan battle. They dig in their position and say: "You must absolutely withdraw all that legislation and then we'll cooperate." For heaven's sake, is that cooperation? Do you mean to say that because it's a Social Credit government that has brought in 26 or 27 bills, every single particle of every one of those bills is evil and wrong with no good intentions? That's the impression you're giving to the public. So if you want cooperation, I think maybe you should start listening to some rational debate. Listening, according to the NDP version, means to do everything that they want us to do. If that's listening, our society is going to get into some pretty great difficulties. If every time a frustrated and defeated minority says, "You must do everything we say; we represent the people....

That member talked about collective bargaining. Bill 11 gets into this area. And yes, collective bargaining does work when all the factors come into play. But all of the factors do not come into play when we're talking about the public sector or Crown corporations. If, in collective bargaining, the bargaining unit is successful enough to win a large increase or whatever, and if with that success they make that employer uncompetitive in the marketplace, if the costs go up too high, the employer simply folds and all the jobs go down the tube with it. That is a check and balance that has not existed in the public sector. Therefore there has to be some other method than pressure and intimidation to decide what should be paid. Unfortunately, the opposition keeps looking at it from the short-term view; it's very short-sighted. To use an analogy, if one person in this society gets into financial difficulties and, say, is losing a house, that is tragic. But the NDP answer is to sock it to the business, increase the taxes and save this person's house. They seem to forget that if that business goes down and another nine people lose their jobs, then another nine people are in danger of losing their house. That kind of thinking is reflected over and over again in their short-term philosophy of: "Give everybody something now — whatever they need. Worry about where it comes from later."

MR. HOWARD: That's nonsense and you know it.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That's what I say. I agree with you that it's nonsense. Unfortunately it's your policy. That's why it can't be accepted.

[ Page 1969 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The members will come to order, please. The minister has the floor. If there are any more outbursts such as the ones heard, and the language used, members will be wise to consider standing order 20.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I have to agree, Mr. Speaker, that their policies are nonsense, by their own admission. They cater to each vested interest group in hopes to buy these few votes and to buy those few votes, hoping that they'll add up to enough votes. I think the public of this province has seen through that and is looking at a little longer term.

I can well remember the protestations that the opposition made when the original compensation stabilization bill came in. Some of those vested interest groups said: "This must not be allowed to succeed, because if it succeeds it will spread." The fact of the matter is that it was accepted. It did succeed, and it spread across the country. Now I can see why you have federal unions and organizations from across Canada stepping in and saying: "They must not be allowed to succeed in this program, because if they do it will spread across the country." I would suggest this, and surely those members who are such great supporters of democracy must recognize that if this government succeeds, that means that what they are doing will be accepted by the vast majority of people, and therefore, yes, it will spread. So I can see the concern, because they said well over a year and a half ago: "This must not be allowed to succeed in British Columbia, because it will spread." Now they're saying: "This must not be allowed to succeed, because the people may end up liking it." The people may end up supporting it as they have, not only in British Columbia but across this country. So if democracy means anything, when a government succeeds with the program that they are attempting to implement it is because there is acceptance by the people. We have put out this program, we've put it forth, and we will be judged by it. But we'd like to be judged by having it placed into effect. Yes, I can see the concern that it would succeed.

That member talked about the terrible things about inflation, as though their policies don't feed inflation. When did inflation start coming down? After compensation stabilization came in. It may not be the total factor, but it certainly has had its effect. Again, you have to look at the long-range view that when one part of the economic situation is brought under control, then others will follow.

So we have this situation where the NDP fails to see the broader implications and fails to see the benefits of this bill, as they failed to see the benefits of compensation stabilization in the first place.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, as you can hear from the comments across the floor, they seem to feel that it failed. If it was such a failure, why was it picked up across the country and why has it helped across this country?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Where? Who picked it up?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The original compensation stabilization concept was picked up. Even your NDP friends in other provinces have had to practise restraint. Even in Ottawa, where they at first did not agree, they finally decided that maybe there has to be some restraint on government spending. They still haven't got enough of it.

MR. HOWARD: What are you crying and whining about?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Well, I think if there is any crying and whining in this province it's from the people who are concerned about the policies of the socialists. Despite the realities of life they go on trying to buy votes by catering to special vested interest groups in each case, and actually doing a disservice. That member talked about lack of morale in the public service. I think a lot of that morale problem has come from illusions, from false impressions and false hopes created by the NDP in this province, which said: "Stick together, stick with us and everything will work out well. You will get great increases. You will get everything that you want, despite the fact that the economy can't stand it." That is what the NDP has said.

[11:00]

AN HON. MEMBER: We said that?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, time and again you said that if you stick together...

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. BRUMMET: ...things will be terrific. So these people were given a false impression. They're still going out and saying to Solidarity: "Stick with us and you'll get everything you want." Never mind what the economy can afford; never mind what can happen. Just stick with the NDP and....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Who said it?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: The NDP, over and over again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: When? Where?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: That member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) continually makes some of the most intelligent contributions to debate in this House. Unfortunately some of them aren't recorded.

I'd just like to point out that we have had, in this bill, an opportunity to actually preserve jobs in this province in the long run. I think more and more people are realizing that in order to continue to have jobs, somebody has to afford to pay the wages, and if those costs don't become excessive then people will be able to retain those jobs. Certainly in the short run you can pay anybody anything you like until the end of the month and get away with it, but sooner or later the day of reckoning comes. I think the government recognizes that; I don't think those members on the opposite side will ever recognize that, because they seem to feel that somewhere there is a sort of a bottomless pit where money just keeps coming from without having any destructive effects.

So I support this bill because I hope it does work and I hope it does succeed. Those who fear its success think

[ Page 1970 ]

they've got to stop it because it just may be what the people of this province want.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to adjourn debate on this motion until later today.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS –– 28

NAYS — 19

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

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's a matter of grave concern; however, I did listen very carefully to the resolution moving adjournment of debate, and that was precisely what it was. Under those circumstances, I don't think that the "later today"....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I said "later today."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, you didn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. May we at least hear the point before we jump to any conclusions as to what the argument might be?

MR. COCKE: I would assume, Mr. Speaker, that having heard the resolution to adjourn debate, period, therefore it would go, along the way of most resolutions, to the next sitting of the House after today. I'm just going to nip down to Hansard and listen to it, but....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair clearly heard the motion, "until later today." I would invite any members who feel there is some confusion to attend at the Hansard office to hear the exact words. I'm sure they will find that the motion was clearly put as "until later today."

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 12.

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO. 2), 1983

(continued)

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker. I wonder if you could advise me how much time I have left on the debate under this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Approximately 15 minutes, hon. member.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We'll just wait until some of the people leave and the House becomes more orderly.

I can't understand why this government is so afraid of democracy. I can't understand why, in bill after bill that appears before this Legislature, the government is assuming more of the powers unto itself that were formerly held by either boards, municipal government or school boards. This government seems to be terrified of the word "democracy." Why, when they have been democratically elected, would they be so afraid of democracy? It's something I cannot understand. But we are faced with a dangerous trend in this piece of legislation, as in the other pieces of legislation, because we are becoming more and more centralized, more and more controlled by the cabinet of this province. That's something we should be worried about.

It's something the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie), who is responsible for this bill, should be worried about. In this piece of legislation the minister says that the people at the local level can determine the mill rate and can vary the mill rate between the classes of property, but "we will establish the classes of property," or "I, as Minister of Municipal Affairs," will establish the classes of property. or, "if you decide to vary the mill rate between the various pieces of property, as is allowed under this piece of legislation, then 'we' or 'I' will approve that variable mill rate before you're allowed to implement it. In other words, you can make the decisions at the local level as long as it suits me, as long as whatever you decide suits me, then go ahead and make that decision. We are the ones who are dictating how this province is going to be run. We are doing it behind the closed doors of cabinet and we, through legislation which centralizes more and more power, are going to tell the people of the province how things are going to be done in British Columbia. We don't really care if you have been elected by the people in a given regional district, in a given municipality or in a given school district, because we are going to make the decisions here. We will give you some leeway as long as the decisions that you make suit us. If they don't suit us, then we will not approve your decisions. In other words, we are the dictators here in Victoria. We are going to ensure that this province is run as it suits us, and it doesn't really matter what those people who are elected democratically at the local level think or decide. If it doesn't suit us, it won't happen."

[11:15]

This minister spoke out the other night, really in a very impassioned way, about democracy and democratic principles. He got quite carried away. The Minister of Municipal Affairs was reminiscing about the kind of thing that his family, his friends, his community was fighting during World War II. He was fighting that. He talked about being awakened at night to be taken into air-raid shelters and so on, and this minister spoke in a very impassioned way about democracy and democratic principles. Here in this legislation he is

[ Page 1971 ]

denying the very kind of democratic process that he spoke with such passion in favour of the other night. The minister cannot put those two together. He cannot see that through the centralization of authority that is taking place in one piece of legislation after another, he is in fact supporting the kind of thing that he spoke so eloquently against the other night.

On the one hand this minister speaks about democracy and democratic principles; on the other hand he takes them away through legislation such as this Bill 12, Bill 7 and a number of other pieces of legislation in his own ministry. We saw the same thing happen in Bill 9, Mr. Speaker. It's the same procedure, the same approach, the same tactic that is used by a government that wants to run the province as it sees fit. It doesn't matter what anybody else elected to office says; as long as they do things their way, then it is going to be okay. I cannot understand why the minister is so short-sighted on that particular issue that he cannot connect the two. I really feel he spoke with sincerity the other night when he talked about preserving democracy, fighting against fascism, fighting against Nazism. He gave us quite a long speech the other night. Yet through this bill he is indulging in the kind of centralization that took place in Nazi Germany at the time; the kind of thing that he talked against the other night. That is exactly what happened in Germany. It was centralization of authority — "Do as I say." The same kind of thing — diminishing human rights, decision-making in the hands of a few. Not only that, but a lot of what is happening through this kind of legislation also happened in Germany, where fear was put into the population. That fear is being promoted here in British Columbia through other pieces of legislation that are under debate — threats of firing, removal of collective bargaining. All of these are part and parcel of the same thing.

The municipalities and regional boards are going to have quite a job to come up with a variable mill rate that reflects equity and fairness within the municipalities and regional districts of the province. Most of the people who are elected to regional boards or municipalities are very busy people. For instance, the mayor of Courtenay has a very important position at the biggest senior secondary school in the school district, at the same time as he serves as mayor of the city of Courtenay. He is a very busy person. The people who serve on regional boards within the various parts of the province are also very busy people. Most of them have jobs, families, other commitments. They belong to clubs, they attend this, they volunteer here, they volunteer there. It seems to me there are some issues they are going to have to determine in order to set up this variable mill rate, issues which they really don't have time to determine. For instance, a regional board, in trying to establish a variable mill rate, has to come up with the mill rate for farmland. Before they can determine what the mill rate for that farmland is going to be, there are certain things that they have to understand and know, or they certainly will not be able to determine the ability of a farmer to pay X number of taxes based on the mill rate they establish for farmland.

I don't expect the people who serve on regional boards, and who are going to be making these decisions, will have sufficient information about the cost of farmland, about the costs of production, about the complexities of the farm income insurance program. Nor will they understand farm credit. How about the ARDSA program or the ARDA program? If municipal officials and regional board officials are going to determine the ability of that farmer to pay X number of dollars in taxes, it seems to me they will have to understand all of the problems farmers face. They will have to understand the GATT program — general agreement on tariffs and trades — and understand the problems they face when produce is coming in from the United States at a much lower price than they are able to provide.

I want to ask the minister whether he is prepared, when he winds up debate on this, to make available to every municipal council and every regional board in the province information related to farmland, commercial premises, industry, so that the municipal officials, when they are determining the variable mill rates, can come up with figures that the farmers, the commercial premises, the industrial premises and residents are able to pay, There's no way we can expect municipal officials to understand. I have dealt here with a few of the problems related to farmland and farm income. How can they determine what a farmer is able to pay? How can they set up a variable mill rate to apply to farmland when they do not have that information; nor do they have the time to come up with the information.

Interjection.

MS. SANFORD: "Ability to pay," he says. But how can a municipal official, who is already so busy, possibly understand the ability of farmers to pay when they don't know the cost of the machinery and the land, or the cost of transportation to haul in fertilizer? How can they know about the complexities of the farm income insurance program? How about the GATT? How about ARDSA? How about ARDA? How about Farm Credit? Each of these is a very complex issue. It seems to me that in order to determine the ability to pay, they would have to have information about those various aspects — and I'm talking only about farmland, which is one of the nine classifications.

If the minister wants this to work successfully, and if he wants the municipal officials to come up with reasonable variations in the mill rate, then it seems to me it is his duty to provide those municipal officials with expertise so that they can at least base their decisions on some knowledge, some information and some direction from people who understand farmland, and understand the complexities of farm income, the complexities of operating a farm in today's world. That's the least they can do. The same applies to the other land classifications. Unless they have that expertise and that information, and unless the government is prepared to make that information available, then I think they're asking a great deal from the many dedicated municipal officials who do the best they can to serve the interests of those people they represent, yet are expected to make these decisions without that expertise. Why is the government afraid of democracy?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I was a little slow in getting up because I was quite sure there must be somebody on the other side of the House who has a few concerns about this piece of legislation. First, I'd like to express my concern — again I'm going to repeat something I've said before — that the policy of this Legislature, insofar as getting some kind of orderly debate, has gone completely out the window. This morning we started off on Bill 11. We were on that for a couple of speeches, and now we're back on Bill 12.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, while members may have concerns in that regard, it is not in order to discuss those concerns when addressing the principle of a bill. I appreciate

[ Page 1972 ]

the member's concerns; nonetheless, we must go by the rules, and the rules simply say that we must debate the principle of the bill and not refer to other House business.

MR. MITCHELL: I agree with you one hundred percent, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to express that we've got to have some orderly rules.

Getting on to this particular bill, when you look at it as part of the budget package you realize that the one driving force behind this government is to put the mismanagement which they have created in the last seven or eight years onto the backs of the taxpayers of this province. We talk about variable mill rates and changes. What this government intends to do is to put onto the property tax payers, and onto those renting property, more and more of the burden of debt that they have created. Go through the bill and see the amendments to the education act, to the transit act and to the Hospital Act; each one is laying the groundwork. When the minister closes this debate, I hope he will explain just how much of this debt is going to be put onto the taxpayers. I think this is done with a purpose. It is done in order to drive home a message to the public. The message is that governments cost money, and the benefits that a government may have should show up somewhere on the tax notice. Where will it show up? It will show up on property taxes each year.

[11:30]

When you look at the massive debt that the ALRT is going to lay on the backs of the people of British Columbia, you are going to see that debt pushed off onto the municipal taxpayers and the property owners of this province. They can say, "Oh, no, this is not what we're going to do," but it's so predictable and so obvious that the government have got themselves into a mess by poor planning and because they kept wanting to build bigger and bigger projects to say how great they are. But the day of reckoning is coming, and the day of passing that debt onto the property owners has to come to a quick conclusion.

I have certain reservations when I see the variable mill rate different for industrial, business and commercial. My first reaction was that this government will give benefits to their friends in industry and their friends in commercial business. But since last year, when this government confiscated the municipal tax revenue from the industrial and commercial tax base, I have been wondering if this government is intending to find another avenue of getting more revenue to cover their particular programs that they will be stuck with.

B.C. Place is a wonderful example; right now, today, the people of British Columbia are paying $26 million just for the interest on that particular building. I know that the Minister of Municipal Affairs enjoyed his Sunday afternoon there, and he stated in question period yesterday that any costs he incurred will be sent to his office on a voucher form. I don't know what he consumed or ate or drank....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Whatever it was, it's immaterial to the discussion at this time, and I must ask the member to return to the principle of the bill.

MR. MITCHELL: But I think you should listen to my argument before you start cutting me off. What I'm saying is....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. Please be seated. The Chair, at the outset, advised the member that we must be discussing the principle of the bill before us, and clearly the course of argument that the member is now engaged upon cannot be related to the bill. I would ask the member to return to the debate on the bill before us — the principle thereof.

MR. MITCHELL: I would never argue with the Speaker, because I know you're supreme, but I hadn't got to my punchline. My punchline was that that $26 million will be pushed out onto the property owners. That $26 million of interest that the property owners will be picking up should have been related to the cost of running that operation and any cost that comes through to the minister. This is what I was getting at. I say that if we are going to show the true cost of the debt of this province, of the programs this government has embarked on, of the buildings, etc., that the government have campaigned on, those costs and debts should never be allowed to be sent out into the municipal field to become a part of the debt of the taxpayer.

This is the great danger that I can see with the centralization of this bill. This is what this bill does: it centralizes all the money collection of this province into the hands of the cabinet. And it gives the power to the cabinet, through the Minister of Municipal Affairs, to shuffle off onto the municipal taxpayers some of this debt, some of the collection of moneys needed to cover transit, hospitals and recreation buildings. The great danger is that although we are passing a variable property tax rate for the province, we are opening the gates for the government to negate the responsibilities that governments have been taking.

I remember in 1972 when the provincial share of education tax was something around 33 or 35 percent, and the municipal taxpayers picked up the balance. When the NDP came to power and studies were made of where the true cost of education should come from, it was found that it should come from the resources of this province; and the NDP embarked on a program to take the cost of education from the taxpayer and bring it to where the money is — that is, the revenues of our natural resources. That was to be done in a step-by-step program until 75 percent of the cost of education would come from the province. What happened? By 1975 that percentage of taxes for education had come up to where 50 percent of education costs were coming from the province. But immediately the Social Credit came back to power, they kept more of those resources and added more of the tax burden for education to the property tax. Now we're back to where the province was in 1972, where the province is paying between 30 and 35 percent of the cost of education, and the rest is being laid on the property owners of this province.

This bill definitely opens that gate to allow the province to go on and on, shuffling off their debt responsibilities onto the taxpayers. I know that this debt will be passed on to not only those who own property and live in their homes, but also to tenants, no matter if they are in a strata title, a co-op or an apartment.

This is what the government is doing. They embarked on these big programs that they could not afford, and now that the day of reckoning has come they have opened the gates to shuffle that debt into the municipalities. Who will get blamed for the increased taxes? It will be the elected municipal governments, who had no chance to say if they wanted the particular programs they are being burdened with; but when

[ Page 1973 ]

the taxpayer gets their tax notice it will show this massive increase in municipal taxes.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I predict that it will go on and on until maybe the session just before the next election, and then the government will bring in an amendment and raise the homeowner grant, trying to buy off the votes of the municipal taxpayers with another bribe. This is consistent with Social Credit philosophy and the Social Credit track record, and it is because of that, because of the danger it's going to be to the people of British Columbia, that I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker — and you can pass it on to the minister — that I will be voting against this bill, mainly because of two issues. It centralizes the power of money-collection into the hands of the cabinet, not only for their immediate needs, but to cover the cost of programs they have embarked on but do not have the resources to pay for. Secondly, I know that this amendment will increase taxes heavily on those property owners who are living in their homes.

MR. BLENCOE: Much has been said and considered with these two bills, Bill 7 and Bill 12, over the last few months, and it's not my intention to go over much of the information that has been shared from this side of the House. Suffice it to say that we have tried to indicate to the provincial government that perhaps there are some alternative ways of tax structure that should be considered by senior government, and that one of the ways to resolve the long-term problems of the real property taxpayer in the province of British Columbia is to establish a proper standing committee to take a serious look at that particular tax system.

This morning I want to wrap up the debate for our party on this particular bill with a couple of things which I think could do a lot of good for this House and for municipal government.

There is deep concern in the province among elected officials at the local level that senior government, for some unknown reason — and we haven't been able to determine that yet — has decided to abandon the traditional partnership that existed between senior government and local government. There has been a tradition of working together, sharing problems and concerns, and where there are difficulties the provincial government and the local government, through the UBCM or other elected officials, get together in a spirit of consensus to try to find some resolution.

[11:45]

There is a real feeling about the province now, one that I picked up definitively at UBCM from elected officials of all political stripes: a feeling that the current provincial government has decided not to listen to local government, and that the senior government now knows what is best for those duly elected 1,400 people who work long and hard in the interest of their electorate at the local level.

I am not just reiterating the position of those who would traditionally be opposed to this government in many respects, but I am reiterating the position taken by such people as Mayor Thorn, past president of the UBCM, Don Ross, the mayor of Surrey and the chairman of the GVRD, and Audrey Moore, the new president of the UBCM. They are not traditional supporters of the New Democratic Party, but have been quite strongly voicing a concern that senior government has decided, in many respects, to abandon the traditional process of deliberations over problems with municipal government.

That has to be a concern to local government, and I have known them for many years and worked with many of them over the years. There has always been an attempt that where there are problems the senior government, which in many respects is the father or the mother, whatever side you want to take, of municipal government.... The rules are laid down by senior government; it is all in the Municipal Act. But there always has been a respect for the autonomy of local government. In terms of years in the Canadian system, they are the senior, and they have developed a good handle on their operations. They have, I think, been extremely effective in developing policies and long-term solutions to their problems, and they have been financially responsible and indeed financially efficient in the management of their operations.

We only have to take a look at when restraint became the operative word for the provincial government. I won't go into the description of the kind of restraint they are putting in this province, but it is true to say that local government has been showing restraint because restraint has been a tradition of local government. They don't have the avenues open to them to run substantial deficits, and by law they have to balance their books. I would also remind all senior governments, particularly the provincial government, that local governments' financial affairs are open and above-board, their budget sessions are wide open to the public and the various codes and descriptions of financial arrangements are available. That is highly regarded by the local taxpayer.

What's happening now, by decision of the provincial government, is a concerted effort by the provincial government to say, for whatever reasons: "We will now constrain you in your financial arrangements." As Mayor Thorn — I think a former supporter of this government, perhaps still in many respects — said: "Restraint maybe, but restraints on local government, no."

I would like, just for the record, to remind the government.... There are many members who have perhaps served an apprenticeship in local government, and I am sure over the years have defended local government autonomy and its rights and privileges. I would like to highlight a very important resolution that was recommended by the UBCM executive to the floor of the convention. They list certain bills they objected to, seven of them including 7 and 12. "The UBCM has stated its objection to certain aspects of these bills and its total opposition to any bills being introduced that provide for government by regulation." I won't go into the various "whereas"'s but there is a telling component to this resolution at the end: "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...." I may go off on a bit of a tangent, as those words are very important. The UBCM executive is saying this resolution was endorsed unanimously: "...established practice of meaningful discussion and has failed to provide a satisfactory resolution of local government concerns....". I think deep down all members of the government do respect local government, and perhaps there is some need to rethink their approach to local government. As a member for six years of the city of Victoria, I certainly would urge the government to think about their actions and perhaps return to the days of high regard, respect, understanding and

[ Page 1974 ]

support for autonomy of local government in its decision-making.

Let me complete this resolution: "Therefore be it resolved that the UBCM state its position that our provincial government, in implementing restraint and other actions needed for economic recovery, respect the following...." Again the word "respect," something we all need to reflect on. I don't say just the government side, but our side as well, to be fair. I think we all need to reflect on such words. The resolutions are: "1. That there be no further erosion of the autonomy and powers of local government." Collectively, close to 600 people, representing 1,400 people in local government across the province, said to the government, to the minister, to the Premier: "No more erosion of the autonomy and powers of local government."

I would remind the government, as I have done during over the debate of the last few months, that if there is a government that is regarded and respected by the general electorate, it is local government. Always when studies ask which government do you feel you get the most value for your dollar from, it is local government. That is a well-known fact. Basically, I think that's because most people know where their dollar goes at the local level. It is clear, it is enunciated properly; it is not hidden in particular reserve accounts and certain things like that. It is visible, absolutely. I think the government should respect that. Those local governments have done a good job on their own. They are, as I have said before — and I want to reiterate it on behalf of local government — dutifully elected by their voters, their constituents. If you will, they are a board of directors on very important matters such as financial arrangements. And like the senior government, if they blow it or make mistakes, or if the people don't like what they are doing with their dollars and how much they collect, they are accountable at the polls every two years, or every year, depending on what municipality you live in.

That's the process the government should support and encourage. What I am concerned about, and what our party is concerned about, is that you could be — and you may be — neutering that particular aspect of local government. If local government in its wisdom, those councils, decide that taxes have to go up by 5 percent to maintain their infrastructure properly so the children and their children don't have to pay tomorrow for short-term solutions and savings today, then I would suggest it is up to that local council to defend their position at election time. That's the name of the game at local council. We have always accepted that. Many times those voters don't accept that 5 or 10 percent increase, and those people get voted out of office. Fair enough; that's the way it should be. But the ball game changes when through Bill 7 and Bill 12 we have particular aspects that say cabinet can say at will, "You will only collect so much in taxes," or "You will only have so much money to run your operation." With respect, I would suggest to the government that the people who know best what is needed for the infrastructure of local government are the people who are elected to do that.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You're not there to do that. You don't know the problems on a daily basis. And if you constrain them from making sure their municipalities and their regional districts are maintained properly, I would have to say that the episodes and the situation.... In the United States the situation of incredible short-term solutions, in terms of dollars spent at the local government level, is now a whirlwind back on the local taxpayer. Billions and billions of dollars will have to be spent to maintain those basic infrastructures. A local taxpayer, a local government, should make that decision.

I urge the government to reconsider their position. Go back to the second part of the final resolution: "That there be no added cost burdens or reductions in revenue-sharing grants." The main thing the senior government should be concerned about, rather than interfering with local government and its financial arrangements, is ensuring they have satisfactory revenue-sharing grants so that the local taxpayer hasn't got to bear more and more the load of property tax. Unfortunately, we have had a situation where the minister and the government have decided to reverse the formula for sewer and storm drains, which is a major shift in provincial tradition.

"3. That the competence and success of the local government restraint initiatives be recognized."
Again, local government, by the very fact of the fundamental criteria that are working at the local government level, has been showing restraint, has been responsible. I would again remind this government — they don't like to hear this — that the Vancouver council just got a triple-A credit rating, whereas the provincial government's rating, for reasons which I won't go into on this particular piece of legislation, was dropped. If there's any kind of legislation that should come into effect, it should be legislation that sends senior government, in terms of the provincial government, to the local government for lessons on how to manage money. Those local governments have managed money effectively and efficiently for years, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask the government to respect and recognize that, as the UBCM has done.

"4. That the full extent of the current legislation be revealed by making all relevant regulations public." We've said that a number of times.

The fifth and final one is the one I will finish on: "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." There is a wealth of knowledge, experience and dedication at the local level which is being turned aside by senior government in this province. You are spurning those years of experience that could be a major factor in turning recovery around in this province. Rather than alienate and jeopardize that traditional partnership, the provincial government should be entering into a partnership of recovery with municipal government. It's there we have the planning regulations. Well, we had the planning regulations, but it's there we have the dynamics that are at work with senior government to ensure that development is continued, economic growth is enhanced, economic development commissions continue to grow and attract industry.

Working with senior government hand in hand in partnership, rather than alienating that partner, is the future for recovery in this province. They can be the major factor in bringing this province around. They have the knowledge, they have the experience. I would suggest, on behalf of our party, and on behalf of 1,400 people at the UBCM, that this government is spurning that advice and that partnership.

[ Page 1975 ]

We support Bill 12 in terms of the variable mill rate, but in terms of your centralization, your lack of consultation, in terms of your lack of respect for the autonomy of local government and as a partner in recovery, we cannot support the basic principles involved in Bill 12. Our party, the UBCM and local government officials urge this government to reconsider their course of action, recognize the attributes and ability of local government, and turn back the course of action you have embarked upon in terms of your legislation against local government.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party, I finish. We will be voting against Bill 12.

[12:00]

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

HON. MR. RITCHIE: I can be very brief, because in spite of all the debate we have heard from the other side, there is really nothing that could be considered really constructive that I could respond to with a great deal of sense. There is a thread that runs through all the speeches that have been made: that is, that municipalities are losing their autonomy. If those members who had the courage to make the statements that they have made would indeed read the bill and understand the bill, they'd find out that this bill, and other bills introduced by this minister, give more autonomy to the municipality. The reason for that is because we consider them best able to respond to the needs of the people that they represent. They're a great deal more flexible. I think this is demonstrated very well in the way the change from the old system to the new took place under Bill 7. It was very smooth indeed, very well accepted and all municipalities were very supportive.

They talk about all sorts of approaches to how you come up with formulas for arriving at taxes and so on and so forth. Well, I put it very bluntly to all of those members over there that the only real answer to low property tax or any tax is to cut spending. It's the level of spending at the municipal level or the regional district level that determines the amount of tax that must be raised.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Along with that, we also have under this variable tax rate the opportunity for municipalities to establish rates according to the needs of their community. If municipality councils do an excellent job in their management, and we're seeing many examples of this throughout the province — most recently it was announced by one council that it would be shooting for a zero this year — then those municipalities, along with controlled spending and the opportunity to set a rate, say, for industrial taxpayers, could attract a greater industrial tax base to their communities.

All we're hearing, Mr. Speaker, is gloom and doom the world is coming to an end. But it's the other way around. The bill gives more and more autonomy to the municipalities.

I would like to close my remarks by saying that my door will continue to remain open to all municipal officials, irrespective of what is being said by the opposition or may be reported by some reporters. My door is open and will continue to be open, and I will always be available to listen to any advice that is coming my way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that doesn't mean to say that I am going to agree with everything that is said, because if I did that I would get nothing done. But I have heard the little chatterbox from the other side, the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), on the radio in my constituency on Monday morning, totally confusing the public, as he did during the UBCM convention with his so-called bomb that he's going to drop, which turned out to be a land mine he stepped on himself.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Chair recognizes the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the minister doesn't need to cast aspersions on other hon. members to make his point. He can do it, I'm sure, using whatever resources he has available to him. Ask him to withdraw those remarks.

MR. SPEAKER: The second member for Vancouver Centre has asked for the withdrawal of a remark which he finds to be of an unparliamentary character. I would ask the member, in the spirit of cooperation, understanding and good will to withdraw.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Very well, Mr. Speaker.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 27

NAYS — 17

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

Bill 12, Property Tax Reform Act (No. 2), 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.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on September 22 last, the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) raised as a matter of privilege the content of an answer given during oral question period which, in his words, were "not entirely true." It has been consistently held, both in this House and in other jurisdictions, that a dispute between members as to

[ Page 1976 ]

allegations of fact does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege, and I so find in the present instance. Some of the more recent examples on claims of breach of privilege on these grounds are to be found in our Journals, 1982, on pages 12, 34, 55 and 132; in Beauchesne's fifth edition, page 12; and in the federal Hansard of the House of Commons, Ottawa, 1972, pages 490, 993, 1593, 1965 and 2541, and in 1976, pages 3268 and 3598, and in 1973, pages 3047, 4802 and 5775.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:15 p.m.