Manitoba Committee Hansard — 10 January 1990 (Management Commission Committee, Sitting 12, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-ma12

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MA NITOB A THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS Wednesday, January 10, 1990. TIME - 3:15 p.m. LOCATION - Winnip eg CHAIRMAN - Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli) ATTENDANCE - 11 - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Connery, Cummings, Penner Mr s. Charles, Me ssrs. Harp er, He lwer, Pankratz, Patterson, Plohman, Roch, Taylor WIT NESSES: Mr. Bob Brown, Provincial Municipal Assessor Mr. Gerald D. Forrest, Deputy Minister Ms. Dianne Flood, Crown Counsel (Civil Legal Services) Mr. Norm Larsen, Crown Counsel (Legislation) Ms. Shi rley Strutt, Cr own Counsel (Legislation) Mr.

Rob Walsh, Crown Counsel (Legislation) MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill No. 79- The Municipal Assessment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Chairman: The Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs is called to order to consider Bill No. 79. We last met Tuesday, January 9, 19 90, at 8 p.m. to consider clause by-clause consideration of the said Bill. Last night we were faced with a number of proposed amendments that may or may not be out of order. However, I cannot at this time give you my rulings since Legislative Counsel has not comp leted their opinion. Therefore, this matter is pending until further notice.

I suggest that we continue with this matter when Ms. Strutt, the Legislative Counsel, appears with their opinion. Before we continue with this meeting, I would ask for guida nce from the commit tee with regard to an adjournment hour toda y. Wh at is the will of the comm ittee? Mr. Roch. * (1 520) Mr.

Gilles Roch (Springfield): We are prepared to go till six o'clock tonight because it appears unlikely there will be any Private Mem bers' hour in the Chamber, reconvene at eight o'clock and then till whatever hour it takes to deal with the Bill, and then have it dealt with at third reading tomorrow in the House. 348 Mr. Chairman: Oka y, that would be fine. Mr. Plohman. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Chairman, I would rather see us, depending on how much progress is made in the next two and a half hours, go to 7 p.m. or 8 p.m. and complete it, if that was possible rather than come again at 8 p.m. tonight.

I do not know if the Liberal Opposition and the Government would be amenable to that, but I would like to see us leave that adjournment date to see how we progress. Mr. Helmut Pankratz (la Verendrye): Mr. Chairman, I bel ieve we will have di ffi cult y in mee ting that suggestion. I think in our case, we would like to see us adjourn at 6 p.m. and if possible, reconvene then at 8 p.m. Mr. Chairman: Oka y. Mr. Roch first. Mr. Roch: Unless there is some other matter which I am not aware of, Mr. Plohman's suggestion was quite reasonable.

If we find we have made progress and within an hour or so we can finish it, that would be acceptable too, but if we seem to have a lengthy amount of items to deal with, I would just as soon adjourn at 6 p.m. and return at 8 p.m. We might even decide to just call it around that time. I do not know, I am willing to listen to the advice of the commit tee. Mr. Chairman: We will take the advice of Mr. Plohman then and start and go as whatever, and if we think we should adjourn at 6 p.m., when we get to it, we will consider that. Is that okay? The will of the comm ittee? Thank you. We will continue with

Part 8, which is the Revision and Appeal, Clause 35(1), Appointment of Board of Revision. Shall the clause pass-Mr . Roch. * (1 525) Mr. Roch: Mr. Chairman, there has been a number of problems with the Board of Revision which has been brought to our attention. lt was originally my intention to bring forth major amendments to address these shortcomings. However, we are also commi tted to having this Bill dealt with in accordance with the three Party agreement.

Therefore, if it is the will of the committee, I would be willing to just simply table the amendmen ts which I was going to pr opose for discussion purposes. Following the coming into force of this legislation, we intend to monitor the extent to which the legislation has accomplished its intent of reducing the appeal bureaucracy. We will also be monitoring the number of appeals made to the Municipal Board and the Court of Queen's Bench to determ ine the effectiveness of the various Boards of Revision. We intend to take these

Wednesday, January 10, 19 90 proposed amendments to all local Governments for their input, which is essential. When this process has been comple ted, we may introduce amendments to the Act. At this time I would just like to quickly outline some of the problems that have been identified by various members of the public to us in regard to the Board of Revision. There seems to be a high rate of appeal, high taxpayers and assessors.

There seems to be a problem with Board of Revision mem bers hearing appeals due to the fact that they have friends, relatives and neighbours in very small communities who may be sitting on these boards and may not be willing to hear those appeals. There is a certain amount of burden too on the municipalities. lt is sometimes difficult to find people who are willing to sit. This includes councillors, too. There are times there may be a lack of expertise of the people appointed and this applies, not only to rural areas, but to the City of Winnipeg's Board of Revision as well.

As well, there is a certain amount of financial burden to the local Governments because of per diems and other administrative costs. If there were a way of elim inating this level of bureaucracy, we would be saving those local Governments money. Too, there is a very real concern in many cases where many people apply to the board with absolutely no intention of appearing, simply because they know they will be appealing to the Municipal Board or Court of Queen's Bench anyway, and they also are aware they have to go to the Board of Revision in order to achieve that.

So, rather than take up the time of the commi ttee to dis cuss these amendments now, as I mentio ned, I will be tabling them and we can have them for discussion purposes. Hopefully at some time in the futur e, if necessary , the Government will be co-operative in having this particular part of the Act, if indeed it becomes

an Act, amended. * (1 530) Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Roch. Mr. Pankratz. Mr. Pankratz: Mr. Chairman, to the Minister, I would just like to ask him whether he would be able to indicate to us whether any parts of this

Part 8, Revision and Appeal, has been changed or whether it is basically the same as the old Act. I think if there is any major change I just wish that he would then be able to highlight those. Hon. Jack Penner (Minister of Rural Development): Basically the

Part 8 is as it was. There are some minor revisions in it which we can identify for you if you would like, but the major part of the Bill is as it was. The Boards of Revision, the responsibilities of the Boards of Revision would remain as they are today. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Roch, did you want to table your documents now or do you want us to continue? 349 Mr. Roch: Just continue at this point and I will make copies available. Mr. Chairman: Oka y. Thank you. Mr. Allan Patterson (Radisson): Mr.

Chairman, I do not if it is order, in the interest of time is it possible to approve blocks of clauses rather than individually? Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Patterson. We can do blocks but in this particular case on

Part 8 we have to do it page by page. Mr. Patterson: Well, I consider a page a block. Mr. Chairman: Oka y. We will deal with Appointment of board of revision, Clause 35( 1)- pass; Clause 35(2) Presiding member of board of revision-p ass; Clause 35(3) Term of office of board members- pass; Clause 35(4) Appointment of secretary-pa ss; Clause 36 Duties of a board of revision-pa ss; Clause 37 Protection of board members- pass; Clause 38(1) Designation of board panels- pass; Clause 38(2) Presiding officer of panel- pass. Clause 38(3) Panel has powers of a board-Mr . Minister. Mr.

Penner: I would like to move an amendment to that. The amendment, Mr. Chairman, is of a technical nature. I would move that Su bsection 38(3) be amended

a) by striking out Su bsection 54(2) and substituting

Section 1, and by striking out Su bsection 54(4) and substituting 54(5). Sorry, I have the wrong one. Sor ry, we will start again. I would move THAT subsection 38(3) be amended by striking out "subsection 54(4)" and "substituting 54(5)". (French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 38(3) soit amende par remplacement des termes "paragraphe 54(4)" par "paragraphe 54(5)". * (1 535) Mr. Chairman: On the pro posed motion of the Hon ourable Mr. Penner that Su bsection 38(3) be amended by striking out 54(4) and substituting 54(5) with respect to both the English and French texts. Shall the amendment pass-Mr .

Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Could the Minister just explain what the effect of this is? Is this just a technical mistake? Mr. Penner: lt is a technical mistake really. lt is a correction of the- Mr. Plohman: What was intended and what currently exists. Mr. Penner: To conform with the various sections. Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment pass? Pass.

Wednesday, January 10, 19 90 Mr. Roch: 54(4) which this

section is amending, I just want to take a quick look at it. Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, we cannot hear you very well here. Could you speak into the mike, please, Mr. Roch? Mr. Roch: Is 54(4), it seems to be that-1 am not sure if it is line with the base of this Bill which is to reflect market value. Can the- Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, 54(5) refers to "Upon the completion of the revision process in respect of a year, the board shall report to council that the revision process is completed." lt just conforms that the sections refer to the various subsections in other parts of the Bill.

The previous reference was a mistake and this just corrects that mistake. Mr. Chairman: Ok ay, thank you. Shall the amendment pass- pass. Clause 38(3) Panel has powers of a board, shall the clause pass as amended -Mr . Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Just a question, Mr. Chairman. Did the Min ister have anothe r-h e said he had two amendments for 38(3). Mr. Penner: No. I just had two- Mr. Chairman: Shall Clause 38(3) as amended pass then-L egal Counsel. * (1 540) Mr. Rob Walsh (Crown Counsel, Legislation): I need to explain a technical point here.

The earlier motion the Minister read from included another amendment to subsection 38(3). That is a consequential amendment, consequential to a later amendment made in the Bill. lt seemed presumptuous to assume that later amendment would be made and so the motion at this time is to amend 38(3) as already passed. This other amendment-it is hoped that the commi ttee return to 38(3) and amend it, make it conform with an amendment that might or might not be passed at a later point. There will be others of that kind as well. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Shall Clause 38(3) as amended pass then- pass.

Clause 38(4) More than one panel sitting- pass; Clause 39 Quorum of board or panel- pass; Clause 40 Compensation- pass; Clause 41(1) Annual sittings of boards of revision- pass; Clause 41 (2) Secretary to give notice of sittings- pass; Clause 41 (3) Content of notice of sitting- pass; Clause 41( 4) Method of giving notice of sitting- pass. Clause 42( 1) Appl ication for revision- Mr. Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that I would like to propose here. Mr. Chairman: Can you di stribute it, please, Mr. Plohman? 350 Mr. Plohman: Yes, it is.

This amend ment is the following: I move THAT subsection 42(1) be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (b), by adding "or" at the end of clause (

c) and by adding the following after clause (c): (

d) a refusal by an assessor to amend the assessment roll under subsection 13 (1. 1). (French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 42( 1) soit amende par remplacement du point par un point-virgule a la fin de l'alinea

c) et par adjonction de ce qui suit:

d) le refus de l'evalateur de modifier le role d'evaluation en application du paragraphe 13 (1.1 ). This is further improving the appeal procedures or clarifying them to ensure that what is intended and is actually the right is in fact stated for those wishing to appeal. I believe this is the intent in any event, but this makes it abunda ntly clear that people have that opportunity. So we feel it should be included under this

section as an additional criterion for an appeal. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Plohman to amend THAT subsection 42(1) be amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (b), by adding "or" at the end of clause (

c) and by adding the following after clause (c): (

d) a refusal by an assessor to amend the assessment roll under subsection 13 (1.1 ). (French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 42( 1) soit amende par remplacement du point par un point-virgule a la fin de l'alinea

c) et par adjonction de ce qui suit:

d) le refus de l'evaluateur de modifier le role d'evaluation en application du paragraphe 13 (1. 1); with respect to both the English and French texts, Clause 42( 1) as amended -pa ss; Clause 42(2) No revision of railway rates-pass. Clause 43( 1) application requirements- Mr. Penner: I have an amendment to propose. Mr. Chairman: Ok ay. 43(1)-Mr . Minister. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I would move THAT subsection 43(1) be amended: (

a) in the French version, by striking out "puor" and substituting "pour"; (

b) by striking out clause (

b) and substituting the following: (

b) set out the roll number and legal description of the assessa ble prop erty for which a revision is sought;

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 (French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 43(1) soit amende par: (

a) remplacement, au paragraphe introductif, de "puor" par "pour"; (

b) remplacement de l'alinea

b) par ce qui suit: (

b) indiquer le numero du role et la description cadastrale des biens imposables vises. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Penner THAT subsection 43( 1) be amended: (

a) in the French version, by striking out "puor" and substituting "pour"; (

b) by striking out clause (

b) and substituting the following: (

b) set out the roll number and legal description of the assessable prop erty for which a revision is sought. With respect to both the English and French texts, shall the amendment pass- Mr. Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, no substantial change here, just simply clarifying what was intended in the initial- Mr. Chairman: Again, same as the pre vious amendments. Mr. Plohman: I do not think it is quite the same, it is more clear wording of what was intended. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Plohman, that is exactly right. Ok ay, clarification. Shall the amendment pass-pass. Clause 43(1) shall the clause as amended pass- Mr.

Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Yes, I have an amendment to 43(1) , it is being distributed. Mr. Chairman: Oka y, Mr. Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Yes, I move THAT clause 43(1) (d)(

i) be amended by adding "or causing it to be delivered" after "delivering it". (French version) 11 est propose que le sous-alinea 43(1 )d)(

i) soit amende, dans la version anglaise seulement, par insertion des termes "or causing it to be del ivered" apres les termes "delivering it". End of amendment in both the French and English versions. The purpose of this amendment is to simply clarify that an individual does not have to physically deliver the application but could have it delivered or mailed; in other words, so that it is received. I think that is 351 what is intended, it is a very technical perhaps minor point but, nonetheless, I think, important one. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Plohman THAT subclause 43(1) (d)(

i) be amended by adding "or causing it to be delivered" after "delivering it" with respect to both the English and French texts-pa ss.

Clause 43(1) as amended- pass; Clause 43(2) Non complying application not to be considered- pass; Clause 44(1) Notice of sitting to applicant- pass; Clause 44(2) Notice of sitting to third party- pass; Clause 45(1) Notice of rescheduled sitting- pass; Clause 45(2) Adjournments of sittings- pass; Clause 46(1) Absence of party at revision hearing- pass; Clause 46(2) Board may dismiss where applicant absent- pass; Clause 46(3) Assessor to attend revision hearings- pass; Clause 47( 1) Party may testify or call witnesses-p ass; Clause 47(2) Subp oena powers of secretary- pass; Clause 47(3), Board may call witnesses- pass; Clause 47(4), Service of subpoena, summons or order- pass.

Clause 48, Failure of witness to appear: penalty. Shall the clause pass- Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, this is the identical penalty as at present? * (1 550) Mr. Penner: I am sorry. Would you please repeat it? Mr. Plohman: Clause 48, is that the same penalty as at present? Why would you put the penalty in the statute as opposed to just making it possible to have that done by regulation? Since you are revising the Act, the standard practice is now generally to have the amounts of fines stipulated in regulation instead of the statute. Mr. Penner: This is, Mr. Chairman, a new

section of the Act and therefore identified in this manner. Mr. Plohman: lt is not a very satisfactory explanation, but it is not perhaps sig nificant enough to move amendments at it at this time. I do not see that, since it is a new amendment, it necessarily has to have the amoun ts stipula ted in the Act as op posed to by regulation. Mr. Penner: I understand what you are saying. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): I have a question on the same point, Mr. Chairperson. To the Minister, what is the penalty for the offence under the old Act? Mr. Penner: Mr.

Chairman, the amount, staff advise me, was the same under the old Act. Mr. Tayior: How long has that amount been fixed at the $10 0 amount? Mr. Penner: There were, I believe, revisions in 1985 which established the amount. Mr. Taylor: How does the Minister propose to amend the amount as time goes on?

Wednesday, January 10, 19 90 Mr. Penner: I think the Honourable Member raises a good point. If the amount in fact is specified under the Act, it is only the enact of the Legislature that can change the amount. If it in fact is specified by regulation, then of course the Order-in-Council can change the amount and set the amount. Therefore this amount would remain in effect until such a time as the legislative body of this province would decide that the amount should be changed. So it would stay in effect as long as the Legislature or the Government would want it to remain in effect. Mr.

Taylor: I guess then that we are looking at this as being a transition piece of legislation and not the be all and end-all in tax assessment reform. We can assume that we will see it revised before 19 93 is up. Mr. Penner: '85 assessment;'85 penalty. Mr. Chairman: Cl ause 48- pass; Cl ause 49( 1), Attendance money entitlement- pass; Clause 49(2), Liability for attendance money- pass; Testimony under oath or affirmation, Clause 50(1) -pa ss. Mr. Roch. Mr. Roch: Are we on 51(1) ? Mr. Chairman: No, we are at 50( 1 ). Mr. Roch: Bracket 1. Oka y. Sorry. Mr.

Chairman: Clause 50(2), Admin istration of oath or affirmation- pass. Mr. Penner: I have an amendment for 51(1) . Mr. Chairman: Clause 51(1) . Mr. Minister. Mr. Penner: I have an amendment for 51(1) . The amendment comes as a result of testimony heard before the committee by a presenter, and this reflects the reference made to this section. I would read it to the comm ittee or distribute it to the comm ittee. Mr. Chairman: Yes. Let us distribute it. Go ahead, Mr. Penner. Mr. Penner: I move THAT

section 51 be struck out and the following substituted: Recording of evidence 51(1) Where a party at a hearing requests that the hearing or part of the hearing or the testimony of a witness testifying at the hearing be recorded, the board conducting the hearing may direct, by order, that the hearing or part of the hearing or the testimony of a witness be recorded by a person appointed by the board, with or without production of a transcript copy of the recording. (French version) 11 est propose que l'article 51 soit remplace par ce qui suit: 352 Enregistrement des temoignages 51(1) Sur demande de toute

partie a !'audience, le com ite qui instruit la requete peut rend re une ordonnance par laquelle il enjoint a une personne qu'il nom me d'enregistrer les debats en totalite ou en

partie ou un temoignage et de produire ou non une copie de l'enregistrement. Liability for cost of recording 51

(2) Where a board makes an order under subsection (1) , the board may, at the time of making the order or after deciding upon the application, charge against the party who requested the recording the costs or a part of the costs of: (

a) recording the hearing, a part of the hearing or the testimony of a witness, including the cost of the services of the person appointed to make a recording; (

b) producing a readable transcript of a recording; or (

c) making copies of a recording or a transcript. (French version) CoOt de l'enregistrement 51

(2) Le comite qui rend !'ordonn ance visee au paragraphe (1) peut, au moment ou cette ordonnance est rendue ou apres avoir statue sur la requete, condamner la

partie qui a demande l'enregistrement a la totalite ou a une

partie des depens relatifs a:

a) l'enregistrement des debats en totalite ou en

partie ou d'un temoignage, y compris le coOt des services de la personne nommee afin d'effectuer l'enregistrement;

b) la production d'une transcription lisible de I' enregistrement;

c) la fourniture de copies de l'enregistrement ou de la transcription. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Penner that

Section 51 be struck out and the followin g substituted- An Honourable Member: Dispense. Mr. Chairman: Dispense, with respect to both the English and French texts. Mr. Plohman: Yes, from my understanding, what this simply says as per the representation that was made that if the board decides to record of their own volition then the charge could not be made agains t the individual. However, if the individual wanted it recorded, then the board may assess the charges. Mr. Penner: That is correct. Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment pass? Pass.

Clause 51(1) as amended- pass; Clause 51( 2) Liability for cost of recording- pass; Clause 52 Board may view property-pass; Clause 53(1) Bur den of pr oof on assessor- pass.

Wednesday, January 10, 19 90 Clause 53(2) Burden of proof on applicant-Mr . Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, there was a presentation by the Home Builders Association that seemed to suggest there is a change in onus here, reverse onus. Is this the clause or is it the next-does it also pertain to this clause? I understand the next clause, for non cooperation, was one that I did want to see whether the Minister was preparing any amendments, because it is definitely a change from the current procedure. This particular one is not changed. Is that correct? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Plohman: Ok ay. Pass. Mr.

Chairman: Clause 53(2)- pass. Clause 53(3) Burden of proof for non-cooperation-Mr . Plohman. * (16 00) Mr. Plohman: Yes. Under

Section 16, Assessor may demand information, the individual has so many days, 21 days, to provide that. If he does not co-operate, then what this particular

section is saying now is that there is a penalty for that and that the individual applicant would have to prove his particular position as opposed to the assessor. lt was stated to the comm ittee, I believe, that this was an imposition on an individual that currently does not exist with regard to

Section 16. There was some concern raised about that. I do not have the exact transcripts in front of me as to the precise concerns, but I would assume from the questioning and the discussion at that time that the Minister would have asked the staff to look at what was being presented. Can the Minister then indicate now whether he has an explanation as to why this change is justified in view of the concerns that were raised? Mr. Penner: I could, I suppose, for the benefit of the committee ask staff to give you their views of why the changes are justified.

I think it has to do with the operations of the board and the ability of the assessor to reasonably be able to access and inspect property. Would you, Bob, give us your view of- Mr. Bob Brown (Provincial Municipal Assessor): The Act, as you know, requires the assessor to determine the value of all property, provides the assessor with the authority to request information to assist the assessor in doing that, previously had a penalty clause if one failed to do that.

The new Act proposes that, where a ratepayer refuses to provide information necessary for the assessor to do his or her job, if that person then chooses to appeal, the burden of proof switches to them. Si nce the assessor was required to make a judgment without any information to help him make the judgment on, it seemed inappropriate that he would have to prove that he had made the right judgment, so the burden of proof was suggested to switch to the appellant.

I believe the concern, as I recall from the presentation, was that this could be used for devious purposes, if 353 you will, by flooding the appellant with requests for information at the appeal process, thereby discouraging him from appealing. To comment on whether that sort of thing was- -(interjection)- Trust me, as they say. Mr. Plohman: I am not familiar, not being a lawyer, with the process of discovery. What were the concerns that the individual lawyer representing the Homebuild ers Association, from your understanding, said at that time as to the unpleasantness of this becoming a process of discovery. Mr.

Brown: As I recall his presentation, he said lawyers perhaps use discovery to flood their opposition, so to speak, with requests for information to slow down or di scourage the process and sugge sted , to my recollection, my emp loyers did it, assessors might tend to use it for the same sort of purpose, and he saw it as a similar provision. Mr. Plohman: As I recall, Mr. Chairman, that he was also concerned that this would slow the process down as opposed to expediting something that we want to happen rather quickly. Mr. Brown: I think he felt, it had that opportunity, if the assessor chose to use that way.

An Honour able Member: But it would not, would it? Mr. Brown: No. Mr. Plohman: If you do not have another amendment, I wanted to get an explanation out of respect for the presentation that was made. lt was made with some conviction. I share the concerns about slowing down a process that we want to be undertaken expeditiously in everyone's interest. I think it is important that this kind of commitme nt is on the record in terms of the desire of all parties to expedite this process and not use this kind of provision for requesting information that would be onerous and cause delays.

At the same time, if that were to be the case, I guess we would hear evidence of it from the public and it would have to be dealt with at some future time. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Brown, you have another comment? Mr. Brown: I just might also add, it can equally be argued that without the information it may slow down the process even more in that the Appeal Board without information will take considerably longer to deli berate its judgment than it would if the information was brought forward. I can make the commitment, certainly it would not be used for devious purposes or to slow down the process. Mr. Chairman: Mr.

Minister, did you have a comment? Mr. Penner: Just very similar to that. lt is our intention to make sure that this new legislation and actions taken under this new legislation are able to be done as expeditiously as possible and to the benefits of all Manitobans. Thank you.

Wednesday, January 10, 19 90 Mr. Chairman: We will continue with Clause 53(3), shall the clause pass- pass. Clause 54( 1) Panel reports to board. This is where we have an amendment. Mr. Minister. Mr. Penner: I have quite a substantial amendment, Mr. Chairman, to this section, and I was just going to distribute this

section of the amendment. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, whenever you are ready. Mr. Penner: At the hearings, Mr. Chairman, there was reference made to the abi lity of panels to ma ke decisions instead of reporting back to the boards and the boards then making the decisions. This amendment deals with the concern raised. Order by board or panel 54(1) After hearing an application, a board or, where the application is heard by a panel, the panel, shall, by order, (

a) dismiss the application; (

b) allow the application and, where applicable, direct a revision of the assessment roll, (

i) subject to subsection (3), to raise or lower the assessed value of the subj ect prope rty, or (ii) to change a liability to taxation or the classification of the subject property; as the circumstances require and as the board or panel considers just and expedient. No action except on application 54(2) A board or panel shall not exercise a power under subsection (1) except as a result of an application. No change if fair and just relation 54(3) A board or panel shall not change an assessed value where the assessed value bears a fair and just relation to the assessed values of other assessable property.

Panel report to board 54(4) After a panel makes an order under subsection (1) in respect of an application, the presiding officer of the panel shall report to the board with respect to the application. Mailing of board or panel order 54(5) After an order is made under subsection (1) , the secretary shall, by registered mail, send to each party and, where the secretary is not also the municipal administrator, to the municipal administrator, (

a) a copy of the order; and (

b) a statement informing the party of the rights of appeal available under

section 56 and the procedure to be followed on an appeal.

Board report to council 54(6) Upon completion of the reviSIOn process in respect of a year, the board shall report to council that the revision process for the year is completed. 354 Revision of assessment roll by assessor 54(7) Where an order is made under subsection (1) directing revision of an assessment roll, the assessor shall revise the assessment roll accordingly. (French version) 11 est propose que l'article 54 soit remplace par ce qui suit: Ordonnance du comite ou du sous-comite 54(1) Apres instruction de la requete, le comite, ou le sous-comite si la requete est instruite par ce dernier, peut rendre l'une des ordonnances suivantes:

a) rejeter la requete;

b) accueillir la requete et, s'il y a lieu, ordonner la revision du role d'evaluation: (

i) sous reserve du paragraphe (3), en vue de !'augmentation ou de la diminution de la valeur determinee des biens vises, (ii) en vue de la mod ification de la classification des biens qui font l'objet de la requete ou de l'assujettissement de ces derniers a !'evaluation. Exercice des pouvoirs 54(2) Le comite ou le sous-comite ne peut exercer les pouvoirs vises au paragraphe (1) a moins qu'une requete n'ait ete presentee. Absence de modification 54(3) Le comite ou le sous-comite ne peut modifier la valeur determinee que est juste et equitable par rapport aux valeurs determine es des autres biens imposables.

Rapport au comite 54(4) Apres que le sous-comite a rendu, au sujet d'une requete, !'ordonnance prevue au paragraphe (1) , le president du sous-comite fait rapport de la requete au comite. Mise a la poste 54(5) Apres que !'ordonnance prevue au paragraphe (1) a ete rendue, le secretaire envoie a chaque

partie et, dans le cas ou il n'est pas egalement l'administrateur municipal, a l'administrateur municipal, par courrier recommande:

a) une copie de !'ordonnance;

b) un document qui avise les parties de leur droit d'interjeter appel de !'ordonnance prevu a !'article 56 et la procedure d'appel. Rapport au conseil 54(6) Le comite fait un rapport au conseil des qu'il a termine la revision du role d'evaluation. Revision par l'eva luateur 54(7) L'e valuateur revise le role d'e valuation conformement a I' ordonnance qu'il a re<;:ue en ce sens. * (16 10)

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion-do you want to discuss it first, Mr. Plohman? Mr. Plohman: Yes. I had a motion dealing with the report of the panel and decision by a board that is contrary to a panel's recommendation. As the Minister will recall, I believe Mr. Mercury suggested that it was not in the interest of the rights of an individual who is appealing if the panel were to make a recommendation, the board to overrule that and to change it without hearing the appellant. Does this address that conern? lt does not seem to.

What it simply says is that they can appeal to another body, but it does not address the issue of a board making a different decision than the panel recom mended. Mr. Penner: Yes, this addresses the concern raised by Mr. Mercur y and follo ws very clo sely the recommendation made by him. We do not feel that it is appropriate, where the panel would be able to make a decision, to send the applicant back to the board for another hearing. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, could the Minister just point out where it states that the board cannot make a contrary decision to the panels recommendation? What gives effect to that?

Mr. Penner: Maybe what I should do is ask Legal Counsel to explain the entire meaning of this section. That might expedite the procedure. Mr. Walsh: I belie ve the Mem bers que stions are answered, at least I certainly hope they are, by the words found in 54( 1) where it reads at the opening, "After hearing an application, a board or, where the application is heard by a panel, the panel". Sub (2) says "A board or panel shall not exercise a power under subs ection (1) except as a resu lt of an application".

The intent being that it is only the body that hears the application which can exercise the power under Su bsection (1) , as opposed to the panel, as I understand the Member's concern, hearing the matter and then someone else deciding it. Mr. Plohman: lt does not say that though. In 54(2) it says, except as a result of an application, not of hearing an application. In essence they could have a written application which is all the board would get under the current process, the origina l appl ication that was provided by the individual.

The panel would have heard it but the board would still be dealing with that application, technically. If that is the case and that is the intent, then I would think that we should have that wording: except as a result of hearing. Mr. Penner: That is certainly, Mr. Plohman, the case, and also the intent of the amendment. Mr. Plohman: I appreciate the intent, I am not sure if it is the case. I just want to ask advice as to whether it is abundantly clear, or whether in fact it could be made more clear without harming the amendment. 355 Mr.

Penner: I would again ask counsel to give us their opinion as to whether there is clarity in this

section to indicate that. Mr. Walsh: The only answer I could give apart from the text, is to say that it is a fundamental proposition of law, natural justice, that a body hearing a matter is the body that decides it. That is reinforced by the language of 54( 1) , in my opinion, which gives powers to the board which the board can only exercise after hearing an application. The board does not have the powers under 54(1), unless it hears the applications, or a panel has those powers, if it should hear an application. Mr.

Plohman: Yes, I think that by referring-by saying under Subs ection 1, and in there it references hearing, it does do what has been stated. I would not reference the natural justice or whatever was referenced, because obviously it has not been the case over the last number of years, since the complaint was that panels were hearing applications and boards were making opposite decisions in some cases. Natural justice was not being done. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. On the proposed-Mr . Roch. Mr. Roch: I would like to move THAT the motion to amend this

section 54, by the Honourable Mr. Penner, be amended by striking out subsection 54(3). Mr. Chairman: Ok ay, you have a subamendment then. Mr. Roch: Right. Mr. Chairman, the- Mr. Chairman: Just wait until we get it distributed here. Oka y, Mr. Roch. Mr. Roch: The cu rrent 54(3) in the Min ister's amendme nt reads the same as the previous one, which was 54(4) before the amendment, where it says a board or panel shall not change, and it says value, where the assessed value bears a fair and just relation to the assessed value of other assessable property.

That says, because an area was all assessed wrongly, therefore each and every assessment was wrong. Therefore it is fair, it is okay. I think it must not just bear a fair and just relation. I think they have to be assessed properly . This has ramifications on the amendment that was passed yesterday in regard to dual assessments. If, for example, a certain value is put in for development purposes and another one for agricultural purposes, and then there is a change when the land is sold or it is rezon ed, it could have ramifications at that point.

Just because it is a fair and just relation to the assessed values of other assessable pro perty does not ensure that the property was assessed at market value. Mr. Penner: lt is my view, Mr. Chairman, that the

Section 54(3) is really the essence of this entire Bill. lt refers very clearly to the assessed values, which bears

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 a fair and a just relationship to the assessed values of other assessed properties. We have indicated clearly all along that it is our intent, by the introduction of Bill No. 79, to do exactly that, to add much clearer reference to the fairness and the justness of the values of properties in regard to each other in assessment years, and therefore allowing a much fairer and better way for municipalities to apply levies against those properties for taxation purposes. If we rem ove this

section of this Bill or of this amendment which was previously written into the Bill, it would be my view that it would virtually destroy the intent of the Bill. Therefore, I would strongly recommend to committee Mem bers to reconsider and also to Mr. Roch to reconsider the proposition that we in fact amend the amendment by the removal of

Section 54(3). Mr. Roch: What I am trying to get at here-and maybe the proper way to do it is a change of wording-is that the intent of this Bill is to reflect market value. Here it refers to assessed value. This particular subsection is entitled, No change by board if fair and just relation. I read that as being, the possibility exists that if none of the values are necessarily market values, only fair and just in relation to each other, it is acceptable to the board.

I am saying that they must not just be fair and just in relation to each other; they must in fact be fair and just in relation to the market values. Mr. Penner: Well, 1- Mr. Roch: Maybe, if I can just finish. Maybe, rather than striking out, it can be amended by-1 am just trying to decide in discussion right now-it can be changed to reflect assessed market value. Because there will be a definition of mar ket value in the

definitions. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, again I want to indicate that we should be very careful how we word some of these sections that in fact allow the assessors some room in determining the values of some of the properties in assessing some of the properties. I think we had indicated clearly our intention to clarify "market value" as an amendment under the Bill and that has been done or will be done when we deal with the first

section of the Bill. Again, the wording here bears a direct relationship to that subsection which will be part of the Bill and will clarify what "assessed values" are. Therefore it would appear to me that to write in "market values" here might in fact detract from the Bill and tighten areas where a board might want to make changes because of outside factors, would in fact not be able to do so. * (1 620) Mr. Roch: What do you mean by not be able to do so because of outside factors? What kind of outside factors? Mr. Penner: We spent a considerable amount of time, Mr.

Chairman, yesterday debating an amendment to 356 the Bill which would allow for some external factors to be used to determine by an appeal board, by the appeal process, whether the value of the assessment was in fact correct or not. Now if we defin e this sect ion, dir ec ting the assessments and/or the boards or panels to look at market value only without being able to weigh the other external factors that we amended the Bill to allow yesterd ay, then I am not quite sure what we accomplished by doing what we did yesterday. Mr.

Roch: Well, it seems to me that yesterday the reason for allowing those external factors to come into play was because they have an effect on the marke t value of the land, indeed on the value of the land. So the Minister to me is now contradicting what I have said. I have said that- Mr. Penner: No. Not at all. An Honourable Member: Are we going dancing? Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to contradict at all what the Honourable Member is saying.

All I am saying is that I think we need to be consistent when we are moving amendments or proposing to move amendments to this Bill, and to allow the Act to be consistent throughout. Mr. Roch: Why would this make it inconsistent? Mr. Penner: If the Honourable Member would look at

Section 18 of the Bill, which states, "Presumption of valid ity of assessment," the

section reads: "Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, an assessment is presumed to be properly made and the assessed value to be fixed at a fair and just amount where the assessed value bears a fair and just relation to the assessed values of other assessable property." That is clearly directed, by this Bill, to the assessor; that is clear direction. Now we are saying exactly the same thing to the boards and panels. lt is that same direction under this section. So it is as I said before, this attempts to be consistent throughout the Bill. lt adds a measure of consistency. Mr.

Roch: The concern that I have is if there is a whole area which is wrongly assessed. Now, it may come out that the tax bills are all similar, because the assessed value is not correct. But if it is an area which is within the urban shadows, at one point in time there is a change in the use of that land, a change in zoning, therefore there are five years in which we can go back to tax it. If the values are not correct, the taxes collected will not be correct either. How does the Minister intend to deal with that? Mr. Penner: I think I have explained myself and the intent of this

section fairly clearly, and I do not know what more to add to clarify any further the intent of 54(3), other than just saying that I believe that a panel has all the rights of the board under this amendment and is able to assess and decide whether the assessed value bears a fair and just relationship to the assessed

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 values of other properties. If it does not then it has all the powers to change that value. Mr. Roch: Whether they were assessed rightly or wrong ly. Mr. Penner: Whether they were assessed rightly or wrongly, that is not taken away here at all. Mr. Roch: So if the assessment was wrong it does not matter. Mr. Penner: If the assessment was wrong, the panel has the right to make that change. Mr. Roch: But if they are fair and just in relation to the other wrongly assessed properties, then it is okay. Mr.

Penner: If it is fair and just in relation to the general assessment of the province- yes, certainly. Mr. Plohman: Just to pursue that a little bit further, because it is in the current revision, this section, you had it in 54(4) already. So it is not changing from what was in the Bill. The Member may have been going to amend it in any event. Just to relate it to the amendment we made on agricultu ral property for agricultu ral purposes, the dual system, would this override that in any way? Would there be any confusion or could it say, with the exception of that?

In that particular case it is not assessed in a comparative way with other property that might be used normally if we are just using market value. lt is for agricultural purposes. So there might need to be some clarification in how this applies to that situation. Mr. Penner: I believe, Mr. Chairman, that under the amendment that was made to allow for the dual value, or the use value, there was consideration given of that which would indicate clearly that it would be dealt with other than by this process. So that clarifies that the recog nition of the dual value system is clearly stated there.

That must be made by the assessor or by the panels. Mr. Plohman: So in that case, they would be able to appeal if they did not feel it was fair in relation to other agricultural properties- Mr. Penner: Exactly right. Mr. Plohman: -in the area, and that is clearly outlined, that process, and there are no rights taken away as a result of this. Mr. Penner: Not at all, no. Mr. Plohman: I think that is the key point in relation, Mr. Chairman, to what the Member for Springfield (Mr. Roch) was raising. I do not agree with his concerns, because obviously that is what we want, a comparison with other assessable prope rty.

The only thing I would think is perhaps it should not be left so open-en ded. What we really mean is assessable property that is normally used for comparative purposes in arriving at 357 fair assessment. We are not just talking about any assessable property. lt is again perhaps a moot point, but it seems that there could be more clarity to referencing assessable property, relevant assessable property or whatever; it is not just any assessable property. Mr.

Penner: lt is my belief that that is one of the reasons for the establishment of the market value, that the Bill would actually direct fairly clearly the establishment of the base, of the market-value base and that would determine the fairness in relationship to the assessed values of other assessed properties. So I can if you will Mr. Plohman ask our chief assessor, our Provincial Assessor to add further clarity to it if you so wish. * (16 30) Mr.

Plohman: Well, that may be helpful, I just want to ask one other question, and that is that there is no necessity to reference the definition of value in doing that, in this section. That is understood in the Bill right through. Mr. Penner: That is part of the Bill. Mr. Roch: More clarification of the Chief Provincial Assessor. Mr. Chairman: Okay, Mr. Brown, would you like to explain? Mr. Brown: I was going to clarify the point by Mr. Plohman.

One of the advantages certainly of the market value assessment is a ratepayer should be able to compare his property to any property, be it commercial, residential, or whatever, anywhere in the province, because from here on, everybody will be measured at the same point in time at 10 0 percent of value. So

whereas before you might have had to restrict your comparison to similar properties in a location, now if you can make a case that a high-rise building ten blocks away has not been assessed at full value, at 100 percent, and yours has and therefore they are not carrying some of the tax burden and you are having to make it up, that comes with the market-value system, everyone being measured at the same time. Everyone should be able to demo nstrate that they are at 10 0 percent of value and if they are- An Honorable Member: lt has to be in the area, does it not, I mean- Mr.

Plohman: I am interrupting the questioner, I would jus t like to clarif y. There is no real relevance to comparing a piece of property in Winnipeg with one in Dauphin. Mr. Brown: I am not suggesting they would have the same value, I am just suggesting that they should all be at 10 0 percent of value, and to the extent that somebody is not at 10 0 percent and you are, then you are potentially carrying more than your share of the tax burden for the provincial Education Support Levy for instance, a province-wide tax.

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 Mr. Plohman: But we are dealing with assessable property that is used for compa rative purposes in arriving at that assessment. 1t is in the area or vicinity. lt is not just anywhere in the province. Mr. Brown: Ninety-nine percent of appeal cases would try to compare with similar properties in the area, that is true. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, I think it will work. I mean obviously I think there again there could be more clarification, but you can add thousands of words to everything I guess, but is this wording used in the current act? Mr.

Roch: If I understand correctly what the Assessor has just said, to assess 100 percent if we have a farm in a transitional zone or the urban shad ows and everything else gets zoned residential, how does one know that that particular farm is assessed properly at 100 percent, or vice versa, if it is basically all farming and you have one area which is allowed to be zoned residential, how does one go back? Mr.

Brown: lt is the task of the assessor to determine full value of property no matter what its use, no matter what its zoning, I mean that is his job, to take all of those factors into account that help determine value, and then under the use value amendment that was made for those that are slated for use value, only the agricultural elements would be taken into account in determ ining value. Mr. Roch: But not necessarily be at 100 percent value then. Mr. Brown: Not for the use value assessment, correct.

The use value assessment in an urban shadowed area presumably would be less than 100 percent of value, which is the purpose of that amendment. Mr. Roch: So if a building is rezoned to something other than agricultu ral and there is nothing to compare with in the area, how does that particular person know that he is being assessed at 100 percent of value if the place is not for sale? Mr.

Brown: His assessment notice, the annual assessment roll will show the 100 percent value of his building, no matter what the zoning may be and then it is up to him to judge whether it has been accurately determined, and the burden of proof is on the assessor to prove that he has measured it correctly at 100 percent of value, regardless of zoning or anything else. Mr. Roch: But there is no other place in the area where he can measure with a just and fair relation because he would be the only one there; the rest would still be zoned agricultural. Mr.

Brown: Well, one of the difficulties of assessment gen erally is that there is not always tons of information around to help even the assessor determine value, to say nothing about the ratepayer. Likewise, and this gets into the fair and just relationship, if you are in a 358 reasonably remote part of the province the market information available may be very minima l in dete rmining and helping the assessor even determine value.

He does so to his best judg ment and then it is up to the ratepayer and the appeal bodies, if need be, to see if he has done it properly, and that frankly gets to the point of one of the reasons the fair and just relationship is there, is for the appeal bodies, where market information is sketchy, to assure themselves that, on the basis of the information available, the assessor within that municipal ity at some remote distance has placed all the properties in the fair and just relationship, one to another, because that is really what assessment is about in order to properly allocate taxes. Mr.

Roch: That being the case then I feel that a board or panel should have the power to change an assessed value. Mr. Plohman: I do not agree with the motion that the Member for Springfield (Mr. Roch) has put forward because I think this is the fairer and most just way to deal with this whole issue and we have to have some guidelines for not only the assessor, but also the Boards of Revision.

One of the arguments made for discarding the Boards of Revision by the Liberals in their proposed amendments that were tabled, I believe, was that one of the reasons is that the people that are doing it are not trained in many cases, or find the job very obscure and undefined. This provides greater definition for council to deal with these issues and they have to follow those guidelin es. We do not want them gerrymandering around with all kinds of other things that might come up of a political nature, or whatever they might be at the local level.

So, clearly there has to be the strict guideli nes applied and that is why I think this is the only way to go in terms of the jurisdiction of that board. Mr. Roch: If we are going to keep the Board of Revision placed as is, then they have got to have certain powers and if a person is appealing his assessment and he does not feel that it is fair and just I think the Board should have the power to make that change. Mr. Chairman: Okay, so you want your amendment dealt with. Mr. Roch: Correct. *

(1640) Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Roch, that the motion to amend

Section 54 by the Honourable Mr. Penner be amended by striking out Su bsection 54(3) with respect to both English and French texts. Shall the amendment pass-de feated. What is the will of the comm ittee? All those in favour? All those against? In my opinion the Nays have it. We will go on to Mr. Penner's amendment now. On the proposed motion of Mr. Penner THAT

Section 54 be struck out and the following substituted:

Wednesday, Januar y 10, 1990 Order by board or panel 54( 1) After hearing an application, a board or, where the application is heard by a panel, the panel, shall, by order, (

a) dism iss the application; (

b) allow the application and, where applicable, direct a revision of the assessment roll, (

i) subject to subsection (3), to raise or lower the assessed value of the subject property, or (ii) to change a liability to taxation or the classification of the subject property; as the circumstances require and as the board or panel considers just and exped ient. (French version) 11 est propose que !'article 54 soit remp lace par ce qui suit: Ordonnance du comite ou du sous-comite 54(1) Apres instruction de la requete, le comite, ou le sous-comite si la requete est instruite par ce dern ier, peut rendre l'une des ordonnances suivantes:

a) rejeter la requete;

b) accueillir la requete et, s'il y a lieu, ordonner la revision du role d'evaluation: (

i) sous reserve du paragraphe (3), en vue de !'augmentation ou de la dim inution de la valeur determinee des biens vises, (ii) en vue de la modif ication de la classification des biens qui font l'objet de la requete ou de l'assujettissement de ces derniers a !'evaluation.

Clause 54(1) - pass; the clause as amended- pass; Clause 54(2) amendment-pass; clause as amended pass; Clause 54(3) No change if fair and just relations amendment- pass; clause as amended- pass; Clause 54(4) Panel report to board amendment- pass; clause as amended -pa ss; Clause 54(5) amendment- pass; clause as amended- pass; Clause 54(6) amendment pass; clause as amende d -p ass; Cl ause 54(7) amendment- pass; clause as amended- pass; this with respect to both the English and French texts.

We will go to Clause 55(1) Revised assessment rolls final- pass; Clause 55(2) Amendment process saved pass; Appeal Process, Clause 56(1) Appeal to Court of Queen 's Bench- pass; Clause 56(2) Appeal to Municipal Board- pass. Clause 56(3) Simu ltaneous appeals-Mr . Plohman. Mr. Plohman: In all of these appeals, is there any deviation from the current practice in terms of the jurisdiction of the bodies for appeal? Mr. Penner: I will let the Chief Assessor answer it. Mr. Brown: Is the general statement about items that go to Municipal Board versus Queen's Bench versus 359 Court of Appeal and so on?

Not to my knowledge and not by design. I will just confirm that with the cou nsel maybe. Give me about two seconds here as I check my notes. Mr. Plohman: I am just wondering whether there were any areas where there are, obviously, inadequacies and changes made in terms of appeal to Court of Queen's Bench as opposed to Municipal Board. Mr. Brown: There are no changes of that nature. The items the Municipal Board did consider, they continue to consider; and the liability aspect that Queen's Bench used to consider, they would continue to consider. Mr. Plohman: That is really what I wanted to know. Mr.

Brown: Points of law will go on to the Court of Appeal if need be, as before. Mr. Penner: This

section of the Act was revised in 19 85, so it is a fairly current

section of the previous Act. Therefore, no revisions have been made. Mr. Patterson: I just noted under 56(1) and 56(2) that the references to 54(2) are now 54(1) under the amendment. Mr. Walsh: There will be a motion presented to the committee, which you might call a catch-up or catch all motion, authorizing Legislative Counsel to make the appropriate cost reference corrections that flow from the amendments made to the BilL This may be one of them, and I think that we can take care of it at that time. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. Agreeable?

Clause 56(3), Sim ultaneous appeals-pass; Cl ause 56(4), New hearings on appeals- pass; Clause 56(5), Right of appeal lost- pass; Clause 57( 1) , App eal procedure to Municipal Board- pass. Clause 57(2), Appeal notice to Municipal Board. Shall the clause pass? Mr. Penner: I would propose an amendment here, Mr. Chairman. I would move THA T subsect ion 57(2) be amended -w e are just distributing the bill-b y striking out clause (

a) and substituting the following: (

a) sets out the roll number and legal description of the assessable property that is subject of the appeal; and (French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 57(2) soit amende par remplacement de l'alinea

a) par ce qui suit:

a) indique le numero du role et la description cadastrale des biens imposables qui font l'objet de l'appel; Mr. Chairman: And (

b) is included in that one?

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 Mr. Penner: (

b) follows as currently written in the Bill. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Penner, that subsection 57(2) be amended- just a minute. Ok ay, Mr. Roch. Mr. Roch: Are you reading it first? Mr. Penner: I just did. Mr. Roch: I see. I just want a clarification to know exactly what the purpose of the amendment is here. Mr. Penner: The amendment is, Mr. Chairman, to clarify the procedure, to spell out clearly that it sets out the roll number and legal description of the assessable property, which under the old

section just simply states, "identifies the assessment or the assessable property". This sets out the roll number and the legal description. lt just clarifies it. Mr. Roch: lt makes it specific as to- Mr. Penner: Yes, as to what exactly is- Mr. Chairman: Mr. Plohman, did you have a comment on it? Mr. Plohman: No, just to say that it is to make it consistent also with the earlier amendment, the same wording for the same purpose. Mr. Penner: Exactly. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Penner THAT subsection 57(2) be amended by striking out clause (

a) and substituting the following: (

a) sets out the roll number and legal description of the assessable property that is the subject of the appeal; and and it includes (

b) with respect to both English and French texts. Shall the amendment pass- pass; Clause 57(2) as amended- pass.- (interjection)- 57(2) is okay. We will deal with 57(3), Security for costs on appeal. Mr. Minister. * (1 650) Mr. Penner: Mr.

Chairman, I would move THAT subsection 57(3) be struck out and the following subsection substituted: Filing fee on appeal 57(3) When filing a notice of appeal under subsection (2), the appellant shall pay the applicable filing fee prescribed under The Municipal Board Act. (French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 57(3) soit remplace par ce qui suit: 360 Droit de depot 57(3) L' appelant qui depo se un avis d' appel en application du paragraphe (2) paie le droit de depot prescrit en application de la

Loi sur la Commission municipale. Mr. Taylor: What happens to those fees? They are originally called security. Security has an intent, the intent being to perform. If somebody is going to appeal, and they put down a security deposit, the idea being is that they are ther e to appear . That is my understanding of security. Now we are calling it a fee which is usually just a form of revenue generation. Mr. Penner: These fees, Mr. Chairman, are designated to offset the cost of the board or other such vehicles used from time to time of a similar nature. Mr. Taylor: Yes, Mr.

Chairperson, then what happened before when it was called security? Was it not a deposit that was returnable upon performance, or returnable upon success? Mr. Penner: What happened in the past, Mr. Taylor, is as you described. They were set aside, and, upon success of an applicant, they were returned to the appl icant. Under this new section, under this amendment, the fees would be retained by the board and used to offset the cost of the operation of the board. Mr.

Taylor: That then, if I understand the Minister to say, is notwithstanding the decision-in other words the appeal lost or the appeal successful-in either case it is a fee that is being retained, and this is a form of revenue generation we are seeing initiated here. Is that correct? Mr. Penner: That is correct. Mr. Roch: Therefore, if someone files an appeal they pay a certain amount and it is non-refundable, even if they are successful. Mr. Penner: That is right. Mr. Roch: That is not fair.

Is there no means in there, no provision anywhere in the Act where the fees can be refunded to the appellant if they are the victim of an injustice, which is more often the case than not? Mr.

Penner: When a person appeals the decision of the assessor to establish the value of an assessment on a property there is a certain cost incurred by the board. lt was deemed that those costs must be paid somehow, and that if the successful applicant in actual fact is successful then of course he has for a very small sum of money, in my view, been able to re-establish his or her assessment, and if in fact is not, then there probably should be no difference.

The current fee that is being charged for application by the board is $15 and has been used as you have described, has been previously set aside in a fund, and if there was success of the applicant then it was returned

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 policy of the board, or the policy was to return that amount to the applicant. However, if it was not, then the applicant was charged a fee. This would simply apply the fee to every applicant whether successful or not. Mr. Roch: This fee, I presu me, is prescribed by regulations. Mr. Penner: The fees, Mr. Roch, yes, are established by regulation. Mr. Roch: Therefore the fees can change, and in fact, the successful appell ant is being charged for the assessor's mistake.

You said it has been board policy to return them, but I would be far more comfortable if it was stated somewhere in the Act that they would be refunded if the appellant is successful. lt would be fair and just. They should not have to pay for the assessor's mistake if they are successful. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, it is actually probably beneficial to all of us to go through this process

section by section, because it indicates clearly to us where what has been identified under the Bill. If Mr. Roch and the comm ittee Mem bers would take the Bill and go to

Section 60(1), it indicates that after hearing an appeal, the Municipal Board may by order dismiss the appeal, allow the appeal, and direct a revision of the assessment roll subject to Subsection (2) raise or lower the assessed value of the property, change the classification of the subsection prope rty, or as subject to Subs ection (3) award costs against the party as the circumstances require and as the board considers just.

Then under 60(2) the board shall not change an assessed value where the assessed value bears a fair and just relationship of the assessed values or the other; and then 60(3) In making an award for costs under Clause (1) , the Municipal Board shall take into account the payment made by the appellant under subsection 57(3). That is very similar, or as was contained in the old Bill, which allowed them to refund the money. This is the same thing. Mr. Roch: Can the Minister show me where it obligates the board to refund the money where the appellant is successful? Mr. Chairman: Ms.

Flood is going to explain the amendment here. Ms. Dianne Flood (C rown Counsel, Ci vil legal Services): Mr. Chairman, generally costs in an action are your costs of proceeding and would include such things as filing fees, and may even be as broad as including things like your costs of your lawyer. So if someone is successful, the Municipal Board may order costs against the other party, which would be the Provincial Mu nicipal Assessor who would then be obligated to pay those costs.

They would consider under the following subsections the costs which have been paid as a filing fee. lt is discretionary and it is up to the board, as an independent trib unal, to de termine if costs are 361 appropriate in each and every case. There may be cases where someone is successful, but because of their conduct in carrying out the application before the Municipal Board, that costs should not be awarded in their favour. • (17 00) Mr. Roch: I am talking specifically about the fee here which is prescribed by reg ulation.

What I am saying here is that if a certain fee is paid to file the appeal, and the appellant is successful, that there should be a provision in this Act for this fee to be refunded. I do not agree that the taxpayer should be paying for the assessor's mi stake. Ob viousl y, if the appellant is successful, the assessor was wrong, but yet this Act does not obligate the Board or the Government to refund that fee. lt is $15 now. lt could be $50 five years from now, who knows, $500.00. Mr. Chairman: Have you something to shed some light on here, Mr. Plohman? Mr.

Plohman: I just wanted to add that I think there should be a separation of the two and what Ms. Flood is talking about is something involving costs, and there should be a separation between the fee and the cost. The fee should be automatic. Other costs should be discretionary. Mr. Chairman: Oka y, we have the old Act here. Mr. Minister is going to read us the old Act to see what the difference is here. Mr. Penner: Mr.

Chairman, maybe it would help if I would, for the record, read the part of the old Act that deals with the applicant and the notice of the applicant and the appeal and the accompanying payments. lt says that the appellant's notice of appeal shall be accompanied by payment of costs in the amount specified in the regulation, and that payment shall be taken into account by the Municipal Board in dealing with the cost of the appeal. Upon expiry of the time of the received notices of appeal the clerk shall forthwith forward to the Municipal Board a copy of each notice of the appeal received.

The Municipal Board shall upon receipt, receiving copies of the notice of appeal appoint a date and time and place of hearing the appeals and shall so notify the clerk. The clerk shall mail out notices of the date and time and place. There is no reference made under the old Act of returning any portion of the fee charged. lt is, as counsel has stated , normally a practice by the board in considering those fees. lt is not mentioned under the old Act. There is no reference made to return. Mr.

Roch: The whole purpose of this Bill is to reform it and now is a good time to add another reform to make sure that the fee is refunded to the appellant if the y are successfu l. I am prepared to move an amendment to that effect. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Taylor was next. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairperson, there is a definition that is in most people's minds on security, and it is something

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 that is put forward and returned normally. If we have a problem under the existing Act, I for one would not want to be a party to making the situation worse as what it appears that it is. The legal counsel in her response talked about what the board has done from time to time on awards.

The issue of costs here, that they may return, is quite often from my understanding the same as that in a court. lt often does not include, in fact most often does not include, legal costs nor other costs incurred in getting there: in lost work time, in the preparation costs, photocopying and typing, and printing and all those sorts of things that people who do not have access to this sort of thing could incur.

What we may end up with is we could end up with a successful appeal, the board not award very much in the sense of return, and I just think it is one of those cases of it adds insult to injury, quite frankly. llll r. Chairman: Mr. Patterson, did you have a comment? Are you finished, Mr. Taylor? llll r. Taylor: No, I am not. The fact that it is to be prescribed as a fee takes it further down the road in the likelihood of there not being a return. lt is a fee. lt is a revenue source to cover costs.

I think, without being totally facetious, I could keep a straight face and make a suggestion that there be a fee levy when things go the other way then, and the assessors could cough up. Let us not be too onerous on the ratepayer here. Maybe the legal counsel could confirm that return of legal costs and other incurred costs is not what one would call the usual or the most common set-up or history of awards by the board. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, for the pu rpose of clarification of procedure in matters such as this, might I ask counsel to give us an opinion as to what normally might happen. Ms. Flood: Mr.

Chairman, if I might indicate first off, the amendment provides that the appellant shall pay the applicable filing fee. The appellant would include the Provincial Municip al Assessor if it were the Provincial Municipal Assessor who is appealing. So not only would the taxpayer have to pay when they appeal but the Provincial Municipal Assessor would in fact have to pay if he were the appellant. Secondly though, what is proposed parallels what is done in the court system.

You pay an application or a filing fee on filing your court documents, which if you are successful, is included in the award of cost in favour of the appellant.

A security for costs in court usually are a separate matter and you can have an order for security of cost which is unusual where you think that the party who is bringing the action against you will be unsuccessful and you will have an order of costs in your favour, which you do not believe that they have enough monies available for you to satisfy that order. lt is to protect. lt is a different context and perhaps the original wording in the Bill as indicated by the motion inappropriate, because it is not really being used as security for cost, 362 because the cost to the Provincial Municipal Assessor, the practice generally at the Municipal Board is costs are never awarded in favour of the Provincial Municipal Assessor if we are successful.

There is no cost for which security is being given, because there are no costs that are generally awarded in our favour for which we are trying to make the appellant put up security. One of the reasons why often filing fees are charged is to avoid frivolous or vexatious, and again if they are successful there may be an order for costs if the board feels it is appropriate, which would include the return. llll r.

Taylor: The example gi ven by legislative counsel, that in the case of successful court cases the costs are awarded to the successful party, that is quite often the case in Manitoba, is each pays their own cost too. There is much in the court records on that.

The other point I would raise is what has been the track record of the municipal board where there has been a successful appeal for there to be an award of costs, which would include more than the present you are calling a security deposit, but in any case and in this proposal to become a fee other than, so that it would include travel costs, research costs, preparation of the actual documents and, if necessary, legal fees. Is that a common thing where the board would actually award that full range of costs? I am not aware that it is but I look to hear the advice here. llll r. Chairman: Ms.

Flood, did you want to answer the question? llll s. Flood: Mr. Chairman, I am trying to remember in the cases where we have been unsuccessful, you are correct, that it is rare for the Municipal Board to order any of those types of cost . I am trying to recollect in cases where the appellant has been successful, what it is the practice of the board to order. 1t is my recollection that they do not-with the practice right now, I think that they may order the return of the filing fee.

By the same token they will never award costs, or they award costs with the same frequency against appellants which are unsuccessful in favour of the Provincial Municipal Assessor. llll r. Taylor: Thank you, that is what I suspected it was. Mr. Chairman: Oka y, we will deal with the amendment. On the proposed motion of Mr.

Penner: THAT subsection 57(3) be struck out and the following subsection substituted: Filing fee on appeal 57(3) When filing a notice of appeal under subsection (2), the appellant shall pay the applicable filing fee prescribed under The Municipal Board Act. (French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 57(3) soit rempl ace par ce qui suit:

Wednesda� January 10, 1990 Droit de depot 57(3) l'appelant qui depose un avis d'a ppel en application du paragraphe (2) paie le droit de depot prescrit en application de la

loi sur la Commission municipale. * (1 710) Mr. Plohman: Do we have any idea of how many appeals there are before the Municipal Board in a year, and how many that are successful? Just so I get an idea how many cheques would have to be issued, $15 cheques, if we were to propose that this be refunded upon successful appeal. Mr. Penner: There are, Mr. Chairman-! can give you some round numbers, or some numbers for a number of years. In 19 84 there were 44 cases heard before the Municipal Board. In 19 85 there were 54 heard by the Municipal Board. In 19 86 there were 80, and in 1987 there were 45.

An Honourable Member: Suc cessful ones? Mr. Penner: These are cases heard before the board. I do not have the numbers as to which ones might have been appealed. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, in light of that information, I do not think it would be so onerous upon the Government to issue a refund in instances where it is successful. The fee is $15 now. lt may be more in the future. Why does the Minister not just consider adding a few words to his amendment which would simply say, which shall be refunded upon successful appeal?

We are not dealing with thousands of cheques here, or millions or anything, we are dealing with fifty or a hundred or maybe a couple of hundred at most. Mr. Penner: Just in addition to what I said a little while ago in reference to the amount of the number of cases heard, in 19 87 there were 45 by the Municipal Board and there were another 16 0 heard in the City of Winnipeg. So it would make the total number 205. Mr. Plohman: Just to clarify, we are dealing with a Municipal Board here. Mr. Penner: Yes. Mr. Plohman: We are dealing with appeals to the Muncipal Board.

If this applies also to appeals to other boards-we are not talking about Boards of Revision here; we are talking about the Municipal Board. Mr. Penner: That is right. This is just Municipal Boards. I can also give you some numbers on Boards of Revision- Mr. Plohman: I do not need that. We are talking only about Municipal Boards. I know this is a financial matter, and the Minister may just want to add those words himself. Mr. Penner: I really do not wish to make an amendment to the amendment in that fashion. I think it is fairly clearly dealt with under

Section 60 of the proposed Act. Therefore I think it would be somewhat repetitious. I think it allows clearly that if the board so chooses, it may refund those funds, as it does now. Mr. Patterson: Mr. Chairman, right now we have in process of being photocopied an amendment, such as this, to the amendment. We would like to present it. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Pankratz, did you have a question? Mr. Pankratz: I am satisfied. If the Minister indicates that it is in the Act-we have all put our comments on the record. I am sure that the Minister in haste would deal with it so it would not be acted upon.

I feel confident that the way the amendment reads, and with the explanation that the Minister and his staff have given us, that the board will basically refund the fees. That is basically what we are arguing about. In the old Act it also did not state it so distinctly, and it was always refunded. I think the same practice will take place. Mr. Chairman: Oka y, I have read the amendment with respect to both English and French texts. Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairperson, the Mem ber for Radisson (Mr.

Patterson) just mentioned to you that legal counsel is in the process of photocopying an amendment to the amendment. Surely you are not going to move on this clause at this time, given that notice. Could we move on to the next one and then deal with that when it is back in our hands? Mr. Chairman: Is that the will of the commi ttee? Oka y, we will leave Clause 57(3) then and go on to Clause 57(4). When this amendment comes. we will deal with it. Clause 57(4), Municipal board to set appeal hearing with notice-p ass; Clause 57(5), Notice of appeal hearing. Shall the clause pass-Mr . Minister Mr.

Penner: I have an amendment here, Mr. Chairman, that I would propose. 363 Mr. Chairman: Oka y, we will deal with the Minister then. Mr. Minis ter , you can go ahead with your amendment. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I would move THAT subsection 57(5) be amended by striking out clause (

b) and substituting the following: (

b) the roll number and legal description of the assessable property to which the appeal relates; (French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 57(5) soit amende par remplacement de l'alinea

b) par ce qui suit:

b) le numero du role et la description cadastrale des biens imposables vises par l'appel; Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Penner that Su bsection 57(5) be amended by striking out clause

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 (

b) and substituting the following: (

b) the roll number and legal description of the assessable property to which the appeal relates, with respect to both English and French texts, shall the amendment pass- pass. Shall Clause 57(5) as amended pass-pass. Mr. Roch: Mr. Chairman, I now have the copies for the comm ittee Mem bers for the proposed amendment that I wish to make and the Minister's amendment. Mr. Chairman: Oka y, we will back up to Clause 57(3). Are they distributed? Mr. Roch: They are being distributed, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move THAT

section 57 be amended by adding the following subsection: Appeal fee refund 57(3.1) Where an appellant is successful on an appeal, the filing fee paid under subsection (3) shall be refunded to the appellant. (French version) 11 est propose que I'

article 57 soit amende par adjonction du paragraphe suivant: Remboursement du droit de dep6t 57(3.1) Le droit de depot prevu au paragraphe (3) est rembourse a l'appelant qui obtient gain de cause en appel. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Roch that

Section 57 be amended by adding the following subsection: Appeal fee refund, Clause 57(3. 1) -Mr . Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Yes, I was just away from the table a moment. Did the amendment to 57(3) proposed by the Minister already pass? Mr. Chairman: No, it has not. Mr. Piohman: Then this is not in order because this is a subsequent amendment because it deals with a different number. Therefore, the other one should be voted on first and this one presupposes that one would be passed. Mr. Chairman: No, 57(3.1) is a new amendment to the amendment. 57(3) is the amendment. Mr. Plohman: Ther e are two motions her e, Mr.

Chairman. I think we should deal with the first motion, 57(3), and then deal with the second motion which is the one that Mr. Roch has just put forward. * (17 20) Mr. Chairman: You are right, Mr. Plohman. Sorry. We will go back to Mr. Penner's motion first which l have already read. Shall the amendment pass- pass. Now we will go on to the amendment by Mr. Roch with respect to both English and French texts. Shall 364 the amendment pass? We hear a nay. All those in favour, please signify. You are voting on Mr. Roch's amendment to allow the appeal fee refund. All those in favour. Mr.

Plohman: lt really is not in order. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Plohman, you had a question first? -(interjection)- Oka y. All those against? I guess the yeas have it. Mr. Minister, do you want a recorded vote count? Mr. Penner: No, I think we have voted on it. I think there was clear indication by the commit tee what the will was. What I would like to indicate to commit tee that what- Mr. Chairman: Before we go to that I want to finish this subsection. Clause 57(3) Security for costs on appeal, as amended- pass. Ok ay, sorry Mr. Minister, go ahead. Mr. Penner: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

All I would like to do is put on the record that it is my view that we have set somewhat of a precedent here in indicating clearly that the board mus t refund to successful appellants, whether they choose to or not, and that is a precedent that has not been established before. I just want that clearly on the record that precedent has now been established by this committee. Mr.

Taylor: I think when Parties are putting their position in the record after a vote, I think I would like to say on behalf of our caucus and the people that have worked on this whole issue of municipal assessment and the reform thereof, that we are very pleased to be a party to the setting of that precedent because I think to do otherwise adds insult to injury.

When people have to go forward in this way to get justice and equity in their assessment situation, whether in their business, or their home, or whatever it might be, then I think it is only fair that the fees should be returned or waived in this fashion and I am very pleased that the vote has gone this way. Mr. Chairman: Ok ay, we will continue wit h-Mr . Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, the Minister made a comment after and I feel that I should have an opportunity to make a comment as well with regard to his statement about a precedent.

I would say that precedents are not always negative and in this particular case it ensures that the out-of-pocket costs initially, at least for filing of an appeal, for a successful appellant will be returned, and that is fair and just I think. lt should not be left to the discretion of the board, how eminently fair they may be. Under those circumstances, if the board wants to award other costs they can certainly do that, but that fee-and it is small at this point but the principle is there-should be refunded and that is why I support this. I think it is a just and fair amendment. Mr.

Penner: I do not want to take issue with the fairness or not, I just want to indicate clearly that the amendment

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 established that the fees will be paid to both parties, to the appellant, whether it be Government or a private individual the fees will be returned. Mr. Chairman: Oka y, we will continue with clause Mr. Roch. Mr. Roch: I would just like to point out that the Minister says it could be the appellant or the assessor.

But in the case of the assessor, the Government being itself, so it would be the Government refunding itself. lt is from the left pocket to the right pocket. lt is interesting to note that all the five Conservatives Mem bers on this comm ittee voted against the people on this one. Mr.

Chairman: We will continue with Clause 57(6) Posting of notice of appeal hearing- pass; Clause 58 Assessors to attend appeal hearings- pass; Clause 59(1) Adjournment of appeal hearings-pa ss; Clause 59(2) Municipal Board Act powers apply- pass; Clause 59(3) Appeal hearing in absence of party-pa ss; Clause 59(4) Dismissal if appellant fails to appear- pass; Clause 59(5) Burden of proof on appeals-pass. Clause 59(6) Burden of proof for non-cooperation Mr. Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, just to clarify, I raised the issue about the burden of proof for non-cooperation in a previous

section dealing with Boards of Revisions, I think. I should have raised it here and I just wanted to put that proper because that is the

section that was identified by the solicitor for the Manitoba Home Builders Association where he felt it was carrying it too far in terms of burden of proof. I think the explanations will probably be the same that Mr. Brown gave them previously but, in fact, 59(6) was the

section that I think he was pri marily concerned about durin g the presentation. This carries that burden of proof right through the Municipal Board and perhaps might be viewed as somewhat unfair by some, but I accept the explanations that were given. Mr. Chairman: Thank you. Clause 59(6), Burden of proof for non-cooperation- pass. Clause 60(1), Order by Municipal Board-Mr . Roch. Mr. Roch: Due to the amendme nt that was passed by the comm ittee a while ago amending

Section 57, consequential to that, I would like to move THAT clause 60(1 )(

c) be amended by striking out "subject to subsection (3)." Mr. Chairman: Mr. Roch, can you pass the amendments out, please? Mr. Roch: I assume they are being distributed by staff. Mr. Chairman: Just wait, we do not have them yet. Mr. Roch: I am reading it out. You wait. Mr. Chairman: Ok ay, Mr. Roch. 365 Mr. Roch: Mr. Chairman, may I ask why every time an amendment is being moved by a private Member we have to wait until it gets distributed,

whereas the Minister can start reading right away? Mr. Chairman: That is not right. We have been- Mr. Roch: You have not been consistent. Mr. Chairman: Yes, we have. We did not have them up here, so we could not read them. Mr. Roch, carry on. Mr. Roch: Oka y, Mr. Chairman. I move THAT clause 60(1 )(

c) be amended by striking out "subject to subsection (3)." (French version) ll est propose que l'alinea 60(1) (

c) soit amende par suppression du passage "sous reserve du paragraphe (3)." And the Chairman shall read it in both languages too. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Roch THAT clause 60(1 )(

c) be amended by striking out "subject to subsection (3)", with respect to both the English and French texts-pass. Shall Cl ause 61, Order by Muni cipa l Board as amended pass-Mr . Plohman. Mr. Plohman: Does that mean that (

c) would read "award costs against a party"? Mr. Chairman: Yes. Mr. Plohman: Thank you. Some Honourable Members: Pass. Mr. Chairman: 60(2) No change by Board if fair and just relation- pass. Clause 60(3) Payment of security for costs to be considered -Mr . Plohman. Mr. Plohman: lt would seem that this should then be deleted. There is no other need, I would just like to get legal opinion as to whether that is the case. If it is, then Mr. Roch will move an amendment to delete it. Mr. Penner: We agree this can be deleted. I would move that we delete this section. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr.

Penner, that subsection 60(3)-Mr . Roch. Mr. Roch: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Mr. Penner made the motion and it was not being distributed, so you are not being consistent. I waited for mine to be distributed before I made the motion.

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 Mr. Chairman: Does everyone have a copy of the amendment? Mr. Roch: No, it is mine. I was waiting for it to be distributed as per your instructions before I made the motion, but if Mr. Penner wishes to move it, he is very welcome. Mr. Penner: Go ahead and move it. I do not wish to move it. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Taylor, did you have a question on it? Mr. Taylor: If this amendment passes and we elimi nate 60(3), should there not be a part added onto it that affects the number changes subsequently? Is that automatic? Mr. Chairman: That is automatic I believe, Mr. Taylor. Thank you. Mr. Roch.

Mr. Roch: I move that subsection 60(3) be struck out. (French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 60(3) soit supprime. * (1 730) Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Roch that subsection 60(3) be struck out with respect to both the English and French texts, shall the amendment pass- pass. Now that 60(3) has been deleted, it has been passed. We will go on to Cla use 60(4) Board may dir ect assessments redone- pass; Clause 60(5) Directions on assessments to be redone-pass. Clause 60(6) Reassessment as of before delivery of ro!!s- Mr. Plohman. Mr.

Plohman: Is the Minister planning to elimi nate Clause 60(7) then, or 60(6), or neither? Or will he explain why they are both necessary then, because they seem to try to say the same thing in two different ways? I have an amendme nt that would remove 60(7) as being redundant. However, I would like to hear an explanation as to why they are both necessary, or if they are not both necessary, whether the 60(7) could be removed ? Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I think in order to explain it properly, I am going to ask counsel to give us an explanation of those two sections. Mr.

Plohman: Could I just for clarification say that it is 60(6) that I would be removing? Mr. Chairman: Mr. Walsh, do you want to give us an explanation of this? Mr. Walsh: In the heat of the moment, as it were, looking at these two provisions, I recall asking myself the same question. I also recall getting a convincing answer as to why they are both there but, as I sit here 366 now looking at them, I cannot recall what that was.

I would venture that 60(6) is addressed to the question of delivery, and that the assessment had to be made clear, that an assessment being redone was nonetheless taking place as if it took place prior to the delivery of the assessment rolls. The delivery of assessment rolls by an earlier provision being the point at which these assessment rolls become final and binding.

I think that was the issue being addressed there, but again my recollection is not strong. 60(7), of course, is similar to an earlier provision in this Bill, in another context, where you do an amendment to an assessment by reason of a change of whatever-you apply the same conditions back to the same reference year. Mr. Plohman: However big your recollection is, do you recall then from that explanation, because I could not determine that they are both necessary? Would one of them do it? Mr. Walsh: My recollection is that both were necessary.

That is not to say, however, on reflection and further study we might find ther e is to some extent a redundancy. At this point I would be reluctant to acknowledge or concede the point. Mr. Plohman: Since I do not believe they-ma ybe they will do some harm if there is a contradiction in them by some lawyer. At this particular point I will not move the amendment. Just leave it. Mr. Chairman: Okay. We will continue. Thank you.

Clause 60(6), Reassessment as of before delivery of rolls- pass; Clause 60(7) Same conditions and requirements apply-pass; Clause 60(8) Reassessments apply in subsequent years-p ass; Clause 60(9) P.M.A. and City Assessor to be heard-p ass; Clause 61(1) Mailing of order of Board- pass. Clause 61(2) Revision by municipal administrator we have an amendment? Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I would move that- Mr. Chairman: Just wait till we get it distributed. Okay, Mr. Minister, the Bill has been distributed. You may proceed. Mr. Penner: I have permission now- Mr. Chairman: Go ahead. You may proceed. Mr.

Penner: With the permission of the committee then, I move THAT subsection 61(2) be amended by striking out "mu nicipal administrator, after receiving a copy of the order, shall" and substituting "m unicipal administrator of the subject municipality or, in the case of the City of Winnipeg, the City Assessor, shall, upon receiving a copy of the order,". {French version) 11 est propose que le paragraphe 61(2) soit amende par remplacement des termes "L 'administrateur municipal

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 qui recoit une copie" par "L 'administrateur municipal ou, dans le cas de la Ville de Winnipeg, l'evaluateur de la Vi lie, sur reception d'une copie". Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Penner THAT subsection 61 (2) be amended by striking out "municipal administrator, after receiving a copy of the order, shall" and substituting "munic ipal administrator of the subject municipality or, in the case of the City of Winnipeg, the City Assessor, shall, upon receiving a copy of the order," with respect to both the English and French texts pass.

Clause 61( 2) Revision by municipal administrator, as amended- pass; 62(1) Appeal to Court of Queen's Ben ch-pa ss; Clause 62(2) Content of appeal docume nts, parties- pass; Cl ause 62(3) 28 -da y limitations-pass; Clause 63(1) Appeal to Court of Appeal-pass; Clause 63(2) Leave to appeal- pass; 63(3) Apply for leave within 30 days- pass; Notice, 63(4)-pa ss; 63(5) Court of Appeal decision final- pass. We go on to

Part 9, Miscellaneous and Transitional, Clause 64 Offence and penalty-Mr . Roch. * (1 740) Mr. Roch: Yes, I would like to move an amendment to this section. Mr. Chairman: Okay, Mr. Roch, you may proceed. Mr. Roch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to move THAT

section 64 be struck out and the following substituted: Offences 64(1) Any person who (

a) refuses or fails to supply information or documentation as required of the person under this Act; or (

b) hinders, obstructs, molests or interferes with or attempts to hinder, obstruct, molest or interfere with an assessor or a person authorized by the assessor in the exercise of a duty or power under this Act, is guilty of an offence and is liable to a fine not exceeding $25. for each day that the offence continues. Exception 64(2) No person is guilt y of an offence under subsection (1) if that person refuses entry to an assessor who requests entry at an unreasonable time or without giving reasonable notice to the occupant of the property.

With respect to both the English and French texts. (French version) 11 est propose que le projet de loi soit amende par substitution, a !'article 64, de ce qui suit: 367 Infractions 64(1) Commet une infraction et est passible d'une amende maximale de 25 pour chacun des jours au cours desquels se continue !'infraction quiconque: (

a) est tenu de produire des renseignements ou des documents en application de la presente loi et qui refuse ou omet de le faire; (

b) gene, emp eche, moleste ou tente de gener, d'emp echer ou de molester un evaluateur ou une personne autorisee par ce dernier dans l'exercice de ses fonctions en application de la presente loi. Exception 64(2) Ne constitue pas une infraction en application du paragraphe (1) le fait de refuser !'entree a l'evaluateur qui demande d'entrer a une heure indue ou sans avoir donne un preavis suffisant a !'occupant. Mr. Pankratz: Well, in a case of this nature, what we need now to address what is "reasonable time" and also "reasonable notice." Mr. Roch: Yes, Mr. Pankratz. Mr. Chairman, through you to Mr. Pankratz.

I think that it has been the standard practice as it was said a few days ago by Mr. Brown, therefore, this just enshrines into the Act that an assessor can just show up on your doorstep and demand that he can go in there and assess your property at this point in time. However, once reasonable notice has been given there is a penalty for refusing such. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, just by way of refusing to do this, this section, as it is written, says he is guilt y. There is no trial or no judgment made. Simply if he refuses he is guilt y. Now the amendment requires

interpretation and, I guess, I would wonder how it would in fact apply. If the individual said that this was unreasonable, is he then not guilty immedia tely? -(interjection)- Well, I think it might be confusing in terms there might be a better way to do this at some other point, because I just do not know who the onus of proof would be on and who would have to pay the costs for dete rmining whether this person is guilty at that point. Mr. Roch: Mr. Chairman, 64(1) that I propose is the existing No. 64 and 64(2). Is that the one you are questioning as to what is reasonable? An Honourable Member: Yes. Mr.

Roch: Reasonable would be what the judge, hearing the matter, finds is reasonable. I mean, if it was deemed that there was something unreasonable, charges would have to be laid. If the assessor has called or sent out a card, left one or two or three cards as procedure explained by Mr. Brown the other day, I would suspect that would be considered reasonable notice. If however, as in the examples I said the other day, as well, which a case that did in fact happen, someone shows up in the middle of the harvest and says I am here to assess

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 your property, and the farmer, or the individual, whatever the case may be, is expected to drop everything and go. An Honourable Member: Oh, I understand that. Mr. Roch: Oka y. Do you understand? Mr. Plohman: What I am asking about is that the individual then would have to appeal the fine that he has been hit with for every day that he was guilty of this offence. He would have to appeal it and undertake court action before he could get redress from this.

So the onus would be on the individual then to prove that the assessor was not being reasonable. lt is quite an onerous process at that point. (interjection)-That is what he would have to do because in fact there is no trial. He is just guilty of the offence, and I would ask the Minister how the fine would be assessed initially? -(interjection)- Well, it says: is gui lty and is liable to a fine. How does that apply? How would that be undertaken, Mr. Chairman? -(interjection)- I am asking now about 64(1) as opposed to 64(2).

I want to know how this fine applies, and I think the appropriate person to answer this is the Minister or his staff. Mr. Penner: If it is the will of the committee, I would ask legal counsel to reply to the question. Mr. Walsh: Mr. Chairman, if I understand Mr. Plohman's question, 64(1) in the proposed motion is an offence provision and, as such in a provincial statute, is governed by The Summa ry Convictions Act in this province. That statute sets up the procedure.

The procedure is one in the nature of a criminal proceed ing, although it is not a criminal offence as such, sometimes called qu asi crimi nal, but in the nature of penal provision, the usual protections and rules would apply. There would be a trial of course and the presumption of innocence, et cetera. Mr. Plohman: I just said he is guilty, so. Mr. Walsh: Provincial offences are customarily often just simply stated in those terms, and The Summa ry Convictions Act kicks in. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, did you want to add some comments? Mr. Penner: Mr.

Chairman, I am simply not clear on the last part of the amendment, what Mr. Roch would deem to be reasonable notice. Mr. Roch: I said it before and I will say it again. The purpose here is if a person is going to fined, is going to be punished for refusing, therefore there is a certain sort of onus on the taxpayer, on the property owner, on the ind ividual citizen, to co-operate with the Assessment Branch. I believe the reverse should be true as well. What do you deem to be reasonable? I think the practices that Mr. Brown outlined the other day are reasonable.

But it does not mean that each and every individual hired by the assessment branch will be reasonable. 368 I think if an assessor shows up at your doorstep and demands to assess your property then and there, there is nothing in the Act to prevent that. The assessor may think that he is being reasonable because he shows up at seven in the evening and someone is home. Then he goes and lays charges. I would say that possibly Legislative Counsel should describe or gi ve an opinion as to what reasonable is. I found the procedures outlined by Mr. Brown the other day to be quite reasonable.

Does it mean they are followed all the time though? I think there should be some prior protection in the Bill for individuals. I mean, whose side are we on here? Mr. Patterson: I think it is neither necessary nor desirable to have terms such as this specifically defined in the legislation because they are open to some

interpretation. As I point out, the analogy-same thing a few days ago-would in this case be up to the judge to decide after listening to the case from each party, just in the same way as with unjust dismi ssal, or just cause for dismissal which has been left up to, in some cases, the courts or the administrative tribunal of the arbitration board. * (1 750) Mr. Penner: I am still a bit miffed by the amendment.

I read 64 as proposed under the new Act, and it says this: where a person. refuses or fails to supply information, information or documentation as required of the person under this Act, or regulation, the person commits an offence. The new proposed amendment to the amendment indicates that we should strike out that

section and say: refuses or fai ls to supply information or documentation as required of the person under this Act, hinders, obstructs and (

b) hinders, obstructs, molests, interferes or attempts to hinder, obstruct, molest or interfere with an assessor or a person authorized by the assessor in the exercise of a duty or power under this Act, is guilty of an offence. lt then goes on under 64(2): and then withou t gi ving reasonable notice. I am not quite sure whether we are confusing what 64 was intended to do. I think 64 simply asks for documentation and information; it does not ask for entry or inspection of premises or properties.

Therefore, I guess, I have looked long and hard at this, and I have been trying to determine what we are attempting to do here. lt appears to me that we have two issues confused. One is entry an inspection of property, and the other one is, as 64 states, the request of information that would be requested by the assessor. Simply the request of information and documentation. I am not quite sure whether this in fact does not confuse or change the intent of 64 substantially. Mr. Roch: The purpose of this amendment is because, I believe it was

Section 53(f),

Section 53(

f) allows the provincial municipal assessor-i t says: the provincial municipal assessor may enter and inspect real property or improvements for purposes of an assessment. Here

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 in this

section it just, you are correct, says, as proposed in the Bill 79: documentation only. With this amendment it provides protection to the taxpayer from an unreasonable assessor under

Section 53(f), but if on the other hand the property owner does not co-operate in a reasonable fashion, it provides the same penalties as for refusing documentation. lt is pretty straight forward. If you cannot understand that, you have a problem. Mr. Chairman: On the proposed motion of Mr. Roch, that Sec tion 64 be struck out and the following substituted: Offences, 64(1)-Mr . Plohman. Mr. Plohman: lt has been read, so I would just ask the Minister and his staff why they would not-what I see now, in looking at this more closely, of course, is that it is comple tely different.

The typed copy, I thought was lifted from the Bill but obviously it is quite different. 1t deals with a fine for something comple tely dif ferent in addition to what was ther e before, information or documentation. Now, it is not necessarily bad to have a fine for this other issue either, which is hindering or obstructing or molesting, or whatever. Is there any provision for a fine for anyone who does hinder, obstruct, molest or interfere with an assessor? Is there no desire to have that kind of protection by assessors, or do they get protection from other laws that deal with assault and so on? Mr.

Penner: I find this interesting because I am probably as you are- the longer I study this and read this, I find this is in exact opposite to what the Honourable Member of the Liberal Party was arguing before. He was arguing for the protection of the individual and here we establish a fine in protection of the assessor. I am rather confused by this amendment. Mr. Plohman: What I asked then is, and I got from the shaking of heads, that the assessors do not believe they need this kind of protection, that there should be a fine for that kind of conduct.

Now if that is the case then I do not see any reason why we would want to put that in. I think it was put in there to provide some balance to this amendment in order to put the other

part in which is the exception. I think it is very clumsy and difficult to handle. Probably the exception here is in the wrong place. Wording which would make sure that assessors are reasonable in the way they conduct their business should have been introduced in a different

section comp letely. I would be open to at least looking at reopening another

section if that is what the Liberal Opposition wanted to do, but I do not think they have it in the right place now because they are actually adding another penalty here that seems unnecessary. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Taylor. An Honourable Member: Mr. Roch. Mr. Chairman: Well, Mr. Taylor was first. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairperson, two points. First of all, there was indication at times in the hearing process 369 that there were problems with the carrying out of assessment, and that was part of the motivation to ensure there was protection there. If we hear through Mr.

Brown that this is something that they do not require, that they feel they have everything adequate, while we would be surprised, we would be prepared to withdraw. On the other hand though, there is another point that I wish to bring out, is that some time back-and this is to the Chairperson-Mr . Roch brought up the point that he would like Legislative Counsel to the Table to gi ve an explanation to all Mem bers of what "reasonableness" meant from a legal viewpoint and how it was an operative term.

I think the Chairperson missed the fact that he had made that request, because I know I can still hear a couple Members saying they are not sure what that means. I think it would appropriate on the first point if we could hear from Mr. Brown, and on the second point if we could have Mr. Carnegie to the Table to explain the concept of reasonableness. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Carnegie, did you have have some comments? Mr. Plohman. Mr.

Plohman: Yes, as much as I would like to hear the concept of "reasonableness" I really do not think that is the issue here as far as I am concerned, any longer. lt is not the problem that I have with this amendment. Mr. Chairman: Ready for the question then? Mr. Roch: If Mr. Plohman is suggesting that he would be willing to support it if it were in a different section, we would be prepared to do that. Mr. Plohman: What I said is that I think I made my statements and our Party's statement clear on this the other day when we discussed this issue earlier in the Bill, where the explanation that was given by Mr.

Brown satisfied me that there was a reasonable approach. So I felt this did not have to be dealt with any further. What I said a few moments ago though is that if the opposition Liberal Party wanted to introduce it in another section, I would be amenable to them at least having that opportunity to make the case. I am not saying that we would support it at this particular time. I do not think we would because I do not think it is necessary. Mr. Chairman: Question? Mr. Taylor. Mr.

Taylor: With all the noise going around the table, I did not hear-or maybe he did not speak good, but I did not hear a comment from the provincial assessor on my question. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Brown, would you like to answer the question? Mr. Brown: Of what? The explanation? Mr. Taylor: The question, Mr. Chairperson, to repeat, is: does the provincial assessor see a benefit to what is being suggested in

Section 64(1) (

a) and (b)?

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 •

(1800) Mr. Brown: Mr. Taylor, we have never found it necessary in the past, and I guess I would be a bit leery to have this in the Act for fear that with its availability we might find ourselves where , if I might, either an assessor had a bad day or a ratepayer had a bad day, or worse, they had one jointly, at the same time and place. If they knew of this part of the Act existing , we might find ourselves with an assessor coming and saying, I want someone prosecuted for this. I would rather rely on the present practice of letting them get along on their own. Mrs.

Gwen Charles (Selkirk): I just would like to give an example , and perhaps Mr. Brown would be able to comment whether it is covered anywhere else in the Act. I recall , from past experience, of one example where the assessor presumed by some evidence , certainly not by definitive evidence , that a household had at least one apartment in the basement and could not gain access to that house to give that information. There was quite a long debate over whether that was or was not a fact. It caused a lot of problems on our town council.

I just wanted to ask whether anywhere else in this Act there is a requirement for a householder, given reasonable time , to force under reasonable time constraints an assessor to come into a house to be able to assess the house? Mr. Penner: I believe that there is adequate protection given unde r the Act , and we have read it. I will ask staff to respond to you directly and give you their view of the Act. Mr. Brown: There is a provision in

Section 53(1) where the assessor may enter and inspect real property or improv ements for purposes of assessment. So the legal authority to do so exists. The policy of the assessment branch, and now there would be regulation power available to me as well, is that the assessor never forces that issue. He has the legal authority , but if access is denied then there is late r recourse where a burden of proof can shift to the appellant if the information was not made available for the assessor to help him do his job. He would still have to make an estimat e on your example of the value of a basement .

I think the avenues are availab le. Mr. Chairman: Ready for the question? Mr. Roch . Mr. Roch: Given the comments made by Mr. Plohman and Government Members , it appears that they are not favourable to thi s amendment. Given the comments by Mr. Brown, if the (

b) part under

Section 64(1) were removed , it would be more acceptable to committee Members. An Honourable Member: Let us vote on it. Mr. Chairman: I have read it already. On the proposed motion of Mr. Roch - Mr. Plohman . Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman,

Section 64(2) would just be totally out of order if (

b) is remo ved because it 370 makes reference to that. So you cannot fiddle with that in that way; it has to be approved or not approved, I think, at this point. Mr. Chairman:

Section 64 with respect to both the English and French texts, because I did have it read before. Shall the amendment pass? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Chairman: All those in favour, please signify . All those against? In my opinion the Nays have it. The hour being shortly after six, what is the will of the committee at this time? Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, in terms of proceeding, we do not have a lot of amendments, we have one area yet and I do not know what the Liberals have insofar as the amendments, or the Minister, but we could move forward with the rest of the Bill quite quickly.

It is a matter of where we are with the other issues on the exemption sections-21, 22 and so on-where we wanted legal opinions . If we cannot get that today on all of those issues, then we should try and finish this and adjourn and reconvene tomorrow when we could deal with that last section, or those last sections that are a subject of legal counsel's opinion as to whether they are in order or not. Mr. Penner: Mr. Chairman, I am given to understand that by eight o'clock we could have those opinions .

If it is the wish of the committee we could either adjourn now until eight o'clock and then reconvene or, if it is the wish of the committee to sit through until eight o'clock and deal with the other sections of the Bill, I would be willing to ask staff to bring in supper so we could eat here as we go along . Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairperson, I think the Minister has brought out the main point , that the full expectation is that the legal opinion will be ready by eight o'clock. We will be able to deal with those matters that were giving us a problem last night.

My hope is that we are going to see this piece of legislation completely dealt with at the committee level by late tonight . Mr. Chairman: Yes. Mr. Taylor: I am open to suggestion as to how we might achieve that. I thought maybe we might break for the balance of the time until eight and go on from there . If the wish of the committee is instead that food and drink are brought in, we eat here at the table as we go, well maybe that is not such a bad suggestion . Mr.

Plohman: I think if we are going to come back and these opinions are not going to be ready until eight, then we might as well break now and come back at eight and go as long as it takes to finish . I just want assurances that all of the issues that were referenced to legal counsel will be dealt with, that we will not end up with just partial information because, if that is the case , I would like to work through, finish everything we have on our Table, and then deal with

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 that when it is available, whenever that may be. Are we going to have an opinion on all of the amendments for exemptions, not just some of them? Mr. Chairman: Yes, we will have an opinion by eight o'clock on all of the outstanding issues I believe. Mr. Plohman: I would suggest that we adjourn, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman: Thank you Mr. Plohman. Mr. Cummings. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I would concur with Mr. Plohman's suggestion and the earlier suggestion of Mr. Taylor that we adjourn until eight, but come back with the understanding that we will attempt to finish.

However, I say that knowing that I have a comm ittee change that I would like to propose before commit tee rises, if that can be accomplished. Mr. Chairman: Ok ay, Mr. Patterso n, you had a question? Mr. Cummings, did you want to-i s it for yourself, the comm ittee change? Mr. Cummings: I am asking leave of the committee to be replaced by someone else for the evening sitting. Mr. Chairman: That is fine. You will have to resign and then appoint someone else to take your place. Mr. Cummings: Can I send that to the committee at eight then? Mr. Chairman: Yes, you can do it now or do it at eight o'clock, whichever.

Mr. Plohman: Mr. Chairman, I would assume from this that normally when the House is sitting we make the changes in the House; so if we make an exception at this time, what we are saying is that, any time during the committee sitting tonight, depending on how long it goes, we would allow flexibility in terms of changing Members, and if we have that agreement, then I would agree to this. Because it may be that there may need to be some changes tonight as well. Mr. Cummings: I am not going to set additional precedents so that we can have revolving chairs around the committee Table. I will be here. Mr.

Chairman: Oka y, committee rise. *

(2000) RECESS Mr. Chairman: Okay, we will bring the committee to order. Ord er, please. Since we have the ruling from Legislative Counsel, is it the will of the comm ittee we de al with this first, or shall we finish the book first? An Honourable Member: Well, it might have a lot to do with how co-operative we are. No, I am just kidding. 371 Mr. Chairman: We know you are, John. Mr. Plohman: Maybe we should get the ruling and deal with that first. CHAIRMAN'S RULING Mr. Chairman: Oka y, I will give you the ruling and they are going to pass out a letter for information. This is the Chairperson's ruling.

I am advised by the Law Officer of the House, who has reviewed the effect of the amendments provided to her in this committee on January 9, 1990, that the proposed amendments do not contravene the provision of the constitution that requ ires a Royal Recommendation on Bills for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue but, with the exception of Mr. Roc h's proposed amendments to narrow tax exemptions by rounding down references to hectares in Cl auses 22 (1) (

d) and (g), all of the prop osed amendments contravene Rule 53(1) of the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceed ing of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba which requires that Royal Recommendation on any Bill or amendment that has the effect of imposing any new or additional charge upon the public revenue. Because the amendments have the effect of reducing the amounts payable to municipalities under the scheme contemplated by Bill 79, they also have the effect of increasing the amount of a charge on the Consolidated Fund under The Social Allowance Act and require a Royal Recommendation.

Accordingly, I do not withdraw my ruling with respect to Mr. Plohman's amendment to Clause 21, and I would rule accordingly with respect to other amendments of this nature that may come forward. Mr. Plohman: Are you circulating your statement, or is that based on the opinion by Ms. Strutt? Mr. Chairman: This is based on the opinion of Ms. Strutt, yes. Mr. Plohman: Before we move on, Mr. Chairman, we may want some time to consider this letter since we just got it, this opinion. I just wanted to ask through you, Mr.

Chairman, to Legislat ive Counsel whether this opinion includ ed precedents for amend me nts by Opposition to exemptions in previous years. * (20 10 ) Mr. Chairman: Ms. Strutt, do you want to take mike 6 maybe. Mr. Plohman, we will get Ms. Strutt to answer that question. Ms. Strutt: Mr. Chairperson, in response to that question, I consulted fairly liberally with the Clerk of the House, the procedural expert (Mr. Remnant). here in the preparation of this opinion and read as much as was possible in the time that was available, which I know all Mem bers recognize was not a great deal of time.

There was not time to review a large number of precedents from the Manitoba Legislature. Therefore,

Wednesday, January 10, 1990 I relied on the observations of Mr. Remnant in that respect. Mr. Plohman: Did you, Ms. Strutt, consider the Private Memb ers' Bill dealing with the certain bible college that was passed in the Legislature introduced by the Member for Emerson (Mr. Albert Driedger) a couple of years ago and passed, insofar as its precedent-setting status. Miss Strutt: No, I did not. The Act to which the Member refers was

an Act to permit an exemption in, I guess, The Municipal Assessment Act. Actually, I think I am going to withdraw because, now that I am thinking it through, I realize the point you are making. I am sorry, I was misunderstanding you. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairperson, first of all, the document you read is that a precis letter of what we have before us or what is that? Mr. Chairman: No, it is my ruling on the proposed amendments, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairperson, is that ruling one that came after the reading and digesting of the four-page letter from Ms. Strutt. Mr. Chairman: The ruling was written by Ms.

Strutt after her studying the Bills, as she explained, and studying the different examples that she has looked at. Am I right, Ms. Strutt? Ms. Strutt: I believe you have adopted it

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-ma12
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf ma12.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	1a845f5e5cc344056064df51ffafa43a7b1bf135

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).