1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4669 ]

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister Of Mines And Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to introduce to the House today a couple of gentlemen from a very great

riding, the Kootenay riding: Mr. Bruce Pepper and Mr. Denmark from Fernie.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): Mr.

Speaker, if some of them are not already in the gallery, we

will be joined later this afternoon by students from Mount

Douglas Senior Secondary School. I'd like the House to welcome them.

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): Mr. Speaker, at 3

o'clock this afternoon there will be a group of students here

from George P. Vanier School at Courtenay, accompanied by their

teacher, Mr. Doug McCrae, and I would like the House to welcome

them now, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): On a point of order.

Yesterday, in opposing my suggestion of an urgent debate, the

Minister of Transportation and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) told the House: "A substantial number of agents of

this province have this morning indicated that they are

continuing to sell ICBC insurance."

You in your turn based a ruling in part upon your

interpretation of the Minister's words when you went on to

state that "the Minister further advised the House that a

substantial number of agents are not ceasing their activities

under ICBC; thus the Chair has no clear-cut case" — et cetera,

et cetera.

I just thought you should know, Mr. Speaker, that aside from

the B.C. Automobile Association, which handles 10 per cent of

the business now, but which will not be participating in

Autoplan after January 1, and the Motor Vehicle Branches, which

have been doing 11 per cent of the business, agents who are

responsible for 75 per cent of Autoplan business in

the province are now on strike.

Since the agents the Minister spoke of are responsible for

only 4 per cent of ICBC's Autoplan policies, perhaps you'd like

to revise your decision of yesterday. Certainly I think the

Minister should be asked to substantiate his assertion with

hard facts and, in addition, enlighten the House as to the

nature of the threats and blackmail being used by ICBC to try

and force agents to accept the corporation's terms.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member

must appreciate that his statement of the matter was that there

was chaos. There's no evidence either in his own statement that

he made yesterday or in the evidence submitted by the Minister

of any state of chaos. There may have been a withdrawal of

services by the agents, but there are statutory means

available, as outlined in my reasons yesterday. I can see

nothing that has happened in regard to that aspect of it that

has changed, if the Hon. Member was basing his case upon

chaos.

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister Of Transport And

Communications): To satisfy the Member, as of yesterday

afternoon there were 176 agents who had indicated that they

would continue to sell automobile insurance. There were 269 who

said they wouldn't and 183 who said that they were

undecided.

Introduction of bills.

WATER FACILITIES ASSISTANCE ACT

On a motion by Mr. D'Arcy, Bill 176, Water

Facilities Assistance Act, introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

THREATS AGAINST AUTOPLAN AGENTS

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader Of The Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Because there have been alleged threats in the media by the

insurance agents, could the Minister advise this House whether

he has any knowledge of anybody from ICBC threatening agents

either by telephone or telegram, insisting on capitulation to

ICBC terms by noon Friday or face cut-off from participation in

Autoplan, general insurance, and even possible cancellation of

their licences?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to remind

the Member of his question. He said: do I have any knowledge of

"alleged threats in the media by the insurance agents?"

Mr. Bennett: No, I didn't say that.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Yes, I wrote it down — "alleged

threats in the media by the insurance agents." Yes, I'm aware

that the insurance agents have been making threats.

Mr. Bennett: Well, supplemental, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 4670 ]

Is the Minister aware of telegrams or telephone calls from

ICBC to the agents threatening them with cut-off from Autoplan,

and did the Minister authorize such phone calls or

telegrams?

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Get your Dad to write out

the questions for you.

Some Hon. Members: Go to China.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: There were no threats. There was

communication with every agency in the province, because….

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Now if you don't want the answer

it's all right.

It's important that the insurance corporation know which

agents are going to live up to their contract and which are

going to break their contract. I'm still answering your

question, my friend.

We have no contract with the agents' association. We have a

contract with each individual agent, which has no termination

date — none at all. We're meeting that agreement; we're going

beyond that agreement. They're independent business with the

right to abandon their businesses any time they please. I want

to know how many of them, and ICBC must know how many of them,

are going to abandon their business and leave the public

without service. So we contacted them, and I'll tell you

exactly the question that was asked.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: We have a contract with each

individual agency. It's up to them if they want to throw the

contract out the window and say: "We don't want to work for

ICBC." We just want to know. The question that was asked of them

was: are they going to continue to sell ICBC Autoplan? If the

answer was no, they were then told: "We regret your decision" —

and we do regret their decision — "but we must advise you that

if we have not heard otherwise by telegram by Friday, November

15, the corporation will have to take action to suspend your

appointment…"

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Strachan: …or to recommend its cancellation

by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council, and this will be

confirmed in a telegram."

They have a contract; we must know whether or not they're

going to live with that contract or whether they're going to

serve the people as they said they would do.

Mr. Bennett: A supplementary: is the manager of ICBC

authorized to speak and anticipate the actions of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council? Was he given this statement

from the government to make on behalf of ICBC? Is the

government, in fact, interfering with ICBC?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I wish the Member would listen to

what I said. He not only doesn't know the questions he asks, he

doesn't know the answers he gets.

I said….

An Hon. Member: He doesn't listen.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Maybe you don't understand

business, my friend (laughter) — especially the insurance

business, and especially ICBC. Let me tell you, because I've

already informed you. I realize that perhaps your reputation

was built on your dad's, in the matter of business, but that's

all right.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon. Minister

carry on with the answer?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: There are two things: one, there

is a contract between ICBC and the agent, a one-to-one contract

which ICBC has the right to cancel of its own volition any time

in the opinion of ICBC that the agent doesn't meet that

contract. Fair enough, fair enough.

There is also a procedure where ICBC can recommend to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-council — and that's what they said —

they would have to do one thing, or, to recommend its

cancellation to Lieutenant-Governor-in-council. Then it's up to

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-council whether or not they took

that procedure. But there are two procedures open.

Mr. Bennett: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. That copy

of the telegram I have didn't give them that choice. It said,

"arbitrarily;" it didn't say, "and/or". It said: "We shall be

forced to recommend" — It didn't give them another choice.

I would like to further ask the Minister, in response to the

meeting that the insurance agents and salesmen…in response

to their offer to withdraw their pickets, if the Minister will

meet with them to meet a commitment he made earlier to reopen

negotiations in the contract. Will the Minister meet

[ Page 4671 ]

with them so that they may withdraw their pickets and

restore their service to British Columbia or will you continue

with your heavy hand forcing them to become second-class

citizens?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Speaker, now after all, I have

had no communication from the agents saying that they will pull

their picket lines — if they'll do this. You say I made a

promise that there would be negotiations. I made that promise.

There were negotiations; we enriched the contract to offer them

more money than they were getting last year. They have rejected

that. I want to know: are they in or out? That's all.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): A supplementary

question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. I

would like to ask the Minister if he did, in fact, write a

letter to any individual agents or to the agent's association

promising that he would renegotiate their present contract with

them in June of 1974, and whether subsequently he either

refused or neglected to maintain that commitment, and whether

he told the British Columbia Automobile Association recently

that there would be no compromise in the present contract. Just

yes or no, that's all I ask.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: You may have a copy of the letter

I wrote saying it would be in June. I have already told you on

behalf of the directors that a committee composed of some of

the directors met and fulfilled any obligation of any kind to

negotiate. We did negotiate; we did increase the offer. So

there it is!

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): A further

supplementary to the Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister

aware that the agents in the north area of the Okanagan, from

Revelstoke to Vernon, through their president have been

endeavouring to reach the field representative from ICBC for

the last few days? They have left their names, phone numbers, a

request to have him return the call. This agent has completely

ignored these overtures on the part of these agents.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Do these agents go to the

seminars?

Mrs. Jordan: What's a seminar got to do with the

crisis situation? — that they want to meet with your designated

representative, and your designated representative refuses to

meet with them at a time of extreme crisis. Are you aware of

it? Answer yes or no.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Did they go to the seminar? If they went to the seminar

they could meet him. He was at the seminar.

Mrs. Jordan: Are you paying him $30,000 a year to

attend a seminar or to be a representative that they can meet

with? That's tomfoolery and a waste of money!

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

a supplementary. The Minister has said he has individual

contracts between the ICBC and each individual insurance agent.

Would the Minister be prepared to recognize the Association of

Insurance Agents of British Columbia as a collective bargaining

agent for a master contract with ICBC?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order! You're only wasting the time of

the question period with these interjections.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: We recognize insurance association

as an unofficial agency representing all the agents. We made an

agreement with them. Within weeks they came and wanted an

increase in that agreement. We gave them that increase during a

busy period. This was last year.

Even though we had a signed agreement with each agent, which

the association had negotiated, they came back later and said:

"Will you meet with us in June?" I said: "Yes, we'll meet with

you in June." We met with them, we negotiated with them. We

offered them some more and then that association advised the

individual agent to forget their contract. On that basis, with

our experience with that association, I don't think they can be

certified as a fit bargaining agent for the agents of this

province.

FILING OF THE ADAMS

CONTRACT DOCUMENTS

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): A

supplementary on contracts. The Hon. Minister promised this

House in the spring of this year that he would file in this

House the Adams contract documents for the Insurance

Corporation of British Columbia, and he has still not filed

them. Does he intend to file them, or is he going to go back on

his word?

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Just a minute, Mr. Speaker, I beg

leave to answer this question.

This is the sort of nonsense, the contemptuous, incompetent

procedure I've been faced with for the last 12 months. I

challenge that Member. Has he been in this House? This is how

little he knows about what goes on in this House.

[ Page 4672 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: Is the Minister going to fulfill his

promise and file the documents, or is he not?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. the Hon. Member got tip on

the statement that he was asking a supplementary. I asked him

if he was asking a supplementary. He said he was dealing with a

contract, and I presumed it was a contract that had to do with

the main question the House has been addressing itself to.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: I would then call upon the Member for

Shuswap who apparently had a question.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Mr. Speaker, I haven't finished

answering the question.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: I invite the Member to check the

Journals of this House for June 20, and then apologize to

me. These documents are on file in the Clerk's office because I

tabled them in June.

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): I would like to address my

question to the Minister of Transport and Communication, as

well, Mr. Speaker.

On Monday, November 18, the Canadian Railroad and Transport

Committee is holding hearings in the Salmon Arm area related to

the CPR diverting their railroad track through nine miles of

farmland, affecting 27 pieces of farm property. I was wondering

if the Minister could tell me what his department and what

other departments of the government are doing in regard to

this.

Hon. Mr. Strachan: There are various departments of

government involved in this very serious problem. The

Attorney-General's department, the Environment Land Use

Committee, the Agricultural department, the Department of

Highways and, of course, the Department of Transport.

This is first-class agricultural land, and a submission is

being prepared on behalf of the government, a submission in

order to try to…. It's a multi-faceted preparation. It

will examine the alternatives and demand alternatives, and a

socio-cost-benefit ratio and all the rest of it. I can assure

the Member and the people of the Salmon Arm area who are very

concerned that we're examining the whole picture, and there

will be a presentation on behalf of the government.

Orders of the day.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry, yes.

Mr. Wallace: I paid particular attention, and the

question period today began at 2:11 p.m. Twenty minutes have

not passed, and we've wasted a great deal of the question

period.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry, the Hon. Member must be

mistaken. I think it's 15 minutes that the committee adopted

and that the House adopted — 15 minutes.

An Hon. Member: How long have you been around?

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister Of Education): I move that

we proceed to public bills and orders, Mr. Speaker.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Second reading of Bill 174.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

Hon. J.G. Lorimer (Minister Of Municipal Affairs):

This is a simple little bill that is made necessary due to the

changes in the legislation last spring, in which there were

changes made in the voting procedures in the municipalities and

the regional districts.

This bill allows those in rural areas to sign their names

and declare themselves to be residents and qualified voters as

of August 31, 1974, and be eligible to cast their ballots.

The reason this is being dealt with differently than the

municipalities is because the municipalities carried out an

enumeration throughout their municipalities, and they have

built up their voters lists.

In the rural areas some of the regional districts in some

parts did carry out enumeration — door-to-door enumeration —

but by and large the rural sections of the province were not

covered. This will now allow those people to declare that they

are residents on voting day and be given a ballot.

I now move second reading.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): We will

support this bill, because to do otherwise would run the risk

of disenfranchising a number of people…

[ Page 4673 ]

An Hon. Member: Who's we?

Mr. Curtis: …in the municipal regional district,

and related elections which take place on Saturday.

Nonetheless, I think that the House should recognize, and I

hope the people of British Columbia recognize, that the bill

before us was not introduced until November 7, according to the

Progress of Bills Reports in Votes and Proceedings . It

should have been introduced during our first abbreviated

sitting on November 1 at the very latest, when we could have, I

think, with unanimous consent of the House moved it through

various stages.

Surely the Minister of Municipal Affairs recognizes the fact

that, as a result of the late dealing with this piece of

legislation and another one which has to be processed as

quickly as possible, we have the very strange situation where

individuals may well be voting in advanced polls today,

tomorrow and Friday throughout the province.

The returning officers in regional districts and

municipalities are faced with an impossible dilemma as a result

of the delay in getting this bill through the House, because a

returning officer would have to anticipate the fact that the

bill would carry through the several stages of reading and

receive royal assent before Saturday. The Minister must

recognize this fact. If the returning officer is anticipating

passage of the legislation, then he or she is in fact breaking

the law, because this is not yet law in British Columbia.

On the other hand, if an individual who is going to be out

of the area in which he or she votes on Saturday, and therefore

legitimately goes to the advance poll this morning, this

afternoon, tomorrow or Friday, and is prohibited from voting

under the little clause that is referred to in this piece of

legislation, he or she is losing that vote unfairly.

I think that the Minister must be taken to task for an

apparent laziness in not getting this to us much more quickly,

several days in advance of the day that it actually appeared,

and then urging that it be pushed through the House, in order

to avoid this very real conflict with the advance polls which

are now underway.

As I said earlier, the Social Credit Party will support the

bill. To do otherwise would deprive legitimate voters of the

right to exercise their vote on Saturday; but there is no

excuse for the sloppiness which is evidenced in the handling of

this bill.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): I'd just like to add a few

comments and support the Member for Saanich and the Islands

(Mr. Curtis).

There's certainly nothing wrong with this bill except that it's too late. As

a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, we've already had elections in the province that

have resulted in a close vote. Now I understand that they're going to use this

bill as a loophole to challenge the election results. That's most unfortunate,

and it causes a lot of confusion.

If this bill had been discussed last week, we wouldn't have

had any of this. It is retroactive to November 1, but the facts

are that it isn't the law of the provinces today. I repeat that

we've already had elections and we have elections in the form

of an advance poll going on today, tomorrow, and Friday. In my

opinion, that will be also illegal and open to challenge by all

the losers of the polls this following Saturday.

Quite frankly, it should have been all wrapped up — it

wasn't that controversial last week — and cleared the decks so

there couldn't be these challenges. It's just another example

of the bungling bureaucracy that's taking place by this

government. This certainly confuses our citizens and voters,

and I'm afraid they'll have to face the polls again because of

it.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): We too

will support this legislation, but in doing so I think it is

appropriate to record that this is another example of

government half-measures.

I appreciate the explanation which the Minister has given

for not extending this right to people who live within

municipalities. Of course there was an enumeration carried on.

There was also an enumeration carried on at about the same time

for the federal election this year, and there are ever so many

cases of people who were confused as to whether they had been

enumerated for the federal election or for the municipal

election. As a consequence, in many of the municipal areas in

the province, the voters lists showed that there are

significantly fewer voters on the lists this year than has been

the case in previous years.

Since we have moved in this province to allowing residence

to be the sole determining factor as to whether or not you are

entitled to cast your ballot for a person seeking municipal

office, I see no reason to distinguish between electoral areas

outside of municipalities and municipalities themselves. If you

are prepared to accept the declaration of an individual that as

of a certain date he was qualified as a voter and was a

resident in the area, then why isn't that available to every

citizen of the province who, for any number of reasons, may not

have been enumerated?

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): We support the bill also

with the same reservations that have been expressed. It's

regrettable that, for whatever reasons, the enumeration has led

us to this situation today, but it would be irresponsible not

to support this bill under the circumstances.

[ Page 4674 ]

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Well, first of all, I'd like to

thank the opposition for their support for the legislation even

with their qualifications.

I would like to agree with the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) that it was

unfortunate that enumeration at the same time was taking place

for the federal election. However, I do have the figures of the

voters and there's only one municipality in which there are

less voters listed this year than there were last year, as far

as my information is concerned. There's a large increase in

most of the municipalities.

Now some municipalities did a very good job on enumeration

and others didn't. I've had calls from municipalities — well,

personally anyway, about five or six — that do have a lot of

people not on the voters list — or a substantial number. But

I've also had calls from others that seem to be very satisfied

that they have a very good list and that they have got most of

their people on the list.

I want to assure the Members across the way that there will

not be any hardship with people being refused the right to

vote, whether they voted yesterday, today or tomorrow. If in

fact anyone has been refused the right to vote because of delay

in this particular bill, I hope that they will bring that to my

attention.

But I can assure the people in the House that I am quite

convinced that there will be no such case in the Province of

British Columbia.

I now move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer

Bill 174 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 174, Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2), read a

second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

forthwith.

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

The House in committee on Bill 174; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

section 1.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, we are proceeding very swiftly

with this bill. I would like to suggest that some of the difficulties that were

expressed during second reading debate might be satisfied if we added in after

the words "regional district" the words "or municipality" so that the same provisions

would extend to everybody regardless of whether they lived in a municipality

or in a regional district outside municipal boundaries.

The principle would be identical, of course, in both cases;

it would not necessarily lead to any major procedural

difficulties that I can see. I wonder, while I am writing out

that amendment, if the Minister would like to comment as to

whether it is acceptable.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: In opposing the amendment I do so

on the ground that the municipalities have enumerated and have

a voters list. They are part of a regional district as well.

What I am suggesting is that where there has been door-to-door

enumeration in a municipality, they have their legitimate

voters list and should carry on with that voters list.

The area that this amendment deals with is in the rural

areas where there have not been enumerations.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On the same point, the principle

is identical in both cases. I can understand the distinction

but I can't see the distinction in terms of practicality. I see

that there is, of course, a permanent list in municipalities

but there are, however, people who are left off due to a number

of circumstances. It would seem to me only fair that we extend

the same privilege to those who live within municipalities as

to those who live without.

I think a principle that is most important in things of this

nature is to extend the franchise as far as possible and not

restrict it, as we are doing in this case. There are people who

have got in contact with me within the last few days who

suddenly realized that they are off the list and they would

like to get on. They've heard of this piece of legislation;

Bill 174 has been reported in the press. They think this bill

is going to put them back on the voters list for the municipal

elections, which, as was indicated earlier, are currently

taking place — at least as far as the advance poll is

concerned.

Now, I really don't think that the Minister's argument

against this amendment is all that valid. I think we should be

extending the franchise; we should be taking care of the

difficulties which we all know have occurred. The amendment is

a modest one and is very much in order. I would like to move

the amendment.

Mr. Chairman: In considering this amendment there is

the question of whether or not it involves the expenditure of

public funds. I wonder if the Minister could indicate…?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Oh, of course it doesn't.

[ Page 4675 ]

Mr. Chairman: If that's the case, then….

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Well, I certainly don't want to

defeat it or argue about it on technical grounds. The issue is

there and, as I understand it, the question that he is posing

is that someone in the municipality who may not be listed as

registered in that municipality would then be allowed to vote

for the regional district representative but not vote for the

municipal candidates.

In the municipalities there are a lot of people whom other

people cannot identify and so on. I suggest to you that if we

are going to have a voters list at all, it has to be a valid

voters list where people can look at it and check out whether

the people are, in fact, correctly registered. There is no

difference in this than there is in any provincial or federal

election. There are certain people left off the list,

unfortunately.

But this amendment deals with the areas that were not

enumerated and those who didn't have a chance to get on. I

suggest to you that everybody in the urban areas of this

province had the opportunity to have his name on the list. I

suggest to you that everyone received a card, and a person came

to their door asking them to be enumerated. So I don't propose

to extend this to the urban areas. This is only for the areas

that didn't have that opportunity.

The urban areas now have their voters list. If people are

not registered, it is unfortunate and they should now register

so that they can be on the voters list for next year. But for

this year I don't see any solution. The municipalities and the

province have spent a lot of money on these enumerations. To

say that we are going to throw it out of the window — you know,

I don't accept that.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We're not throwing it out the

window.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Well, it seems to me that we are if

we're going to open it wide for anyone who wants to come in,

sign their name and say they were a resident.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It's more than signing your

name.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: It isn't; it's only a declaration.

It's not a sworn declaration; it's merely a signature that you

are a resident and qualified to vote as of August 31. The whole

purpose of the bill is to alleviate the problems which exist

for those people who didn't have as good an opportunity to on

the voters list as those in the urban areas.

Mr. Chairman: The amendment as proposed by the Second

Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) is in

section 1, line 7: after "regional district"

add the words "or municipality."

Shall the amendment pass?

Amendment negatived.

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee

rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 174, Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2), reported

complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Second reading of Bill 175, Mr.

Speaker.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974 (No. 2)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, I think the purpose of

this amendment to the Public Schools Act is quite obvious. It

simply follows along with the same points made by the Minister

of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). Anyone who was left

off the voters list will have the same rights under the Public

Schools Act as they have under the Municipal Act, as explained

by the Minister. I move second reading.

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): As with the previous

bill there is no question in the opposition's mind but that

this bill should and could have been introduced earlier in this

session. Although we must commend the Minister on her attempt

to pre-empt other business on the order paper today so that

these bills could receive earlier consideration, nonetheless,

it was in our opinion a very weak and futile attempt.

These bills, both of them — and I will address myself to

Bill 175 particularly — come at a time when some elections are

already complete. There are some elections in the interior of

British Columbia where the results of completed elections are

close, so close that recounts have already been asked for. If

this bill, particularly in view of the fact that it has a

retroactive clause, is effected now and made retroactive to

November 1, it will essentially undo what has been done between

November 1 and today, or whenever the bill is proclaimed.

One of the things that has happened in between

[ Page 4676 ]

these two dates is the election of certain officials. These

officials, then, will be illegally elected because the voters

list or the electoral lists which existed on the day of voting,

either on advance polls or regular polls, will have to be

declared incomplete. We will have to go the process of calling

for a new election because the election which took place has

been challenged and can be proven to be illegal.

The advance polls are a fact. The government knows that

advance polls are taking place all over today. To assume that

everyone who has the right to vote will have the chance to vote

is a futile assumption. If even one is denied the right to

vote, then the entire election can be challenged, As a result, it cannot be said emphatically enough that this

bill should have been introduced and dealt with early. I am

sure that the opposition Members are responsible enough that

cooperation would have been granted to be sure that this bill

saw early approval, and that these elections would have been

real elections instead of sham elections as they have been now

under this provision.

It's another indication to us in the opposition that the

government really doesn't have a legislative programme; it

doesn't have a list of priorities; it seems to act on impulse

legislation.

I can cite a few examples without doing injury to the rules

of the House. The assessment Act, the 10.6 rent stabilization

Act, the arbitration Act — which we have yet to consider — are

all examples of impulse legislation. It seems to me that at the

best the government can be accused of poor follow-up on

legislation passed in this House, and at the worst, it can be

charged that the legislation priorly passed in the House was

ill-conceived. Not only ill-conceived, but badly followed up,

and that's why we find ourselves in the state that we're in

today.

The municipal amendment Act — when it was passed in this

House in an earlier session, I believe the records will show

that the opposition clearly warned the government that when you

nullify any procedure in this province, you must replace it

with a clearly spelled-out, well followed-up procedure so we

don't have frustration in the province.

I can cite other examples where this has happened: the

removal of the straps from the schools. They removed one

procedure but did not clearly spell out what procedure was to

take its place, Mr. Speaker, and we have frustration in the

land.

I believe that we should warn the government of two things:

we don't like to see retroactivity in a bill; and we don't like

to see legislation brought to this House on impulse.

We will support the bill — we would like to see the election process in the

province streamlined and made so that it has widest possible range in voting.

However, when the government changed the voters list in that municipal amendment

act, and changed it from the existing rule in which land ownership was a criterion,

they did not clearly spell out the process by which a new list was to be created

and that's why we're in the mess we're in today.

We will support the bill with those two warnings for the

Minister.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Mr. Speaker, we too will support

this legislation, principally because it includes in the right

to vote for school trustees — the very thing that the Minister

of Municipal Affairs a few moments ago said was not acceptable

under the Municipal Act.

This legislation is not the same as the previous bill. The

previous bill gave the right to people to register if they'd

been left off the enumeration only in those rural areas.

However, this legislation extends the right to persons in a

municipality or a regional district.

These people in a municipality had exactly the same

opportunity to be enumerated, as the Minister mentioned a few

moments ago, yet the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly)

says that for elections for school trustees: "I wish to be

certain that everyone has the right to cast his or her

vote."

We certainly support that principle but this legislation

coming forward rapidly, as it does on the heels of the

Municipal Act, discloses that there is some difference of

opinion between cabinet Ministers as to how the franchise

should be handled in the Province of British Columbia, and,

indeed, knocks into a cocked hat the arguments which were

presented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs a few moments

ago.

If I might just say one thing to the Minister of Education

concerning this bill — I wonder if she could turn it over to

intelligently.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker,

this bill doesn't deserve a great deal of time of the House,

and I only rise to venture a general opinion with regard to

this bill because it's a classic example, as the bill before it

is a classic example, of the kind of thing that I've been

complaining about for the dozen years I've sat in this

House.

I think there's little excuse in the Legislative Assembly

for badly draughted bills or for rescue bills of other badly

draughted bills.

As the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) has pointed out, this particular bill fits both those

criteria. It's not only badly draughted in itself, as the

language of

section 1 demonstrates, but it's rescuing another

piece of incomplete legislation.

I don't know how many hours of our House are taken up by

this kind of thing, but I would judge that approximately

two-thirds of the bills which appear in this House stem from

previous mistakes in

[ Page

4677 ]

draughtsmanship and previous, obvious errors in thinking out

the intent of legislation that's being presented.

There are two necessary cures for this disturbing malaise of

the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. One is to engage

and train an adequate staff to draught the bills. These

gentlemen who we have today are extremely capable. I don't want

in any way to have my remarks interpreted as a reflection upon

them — they're intended as a reflection upon this government

and the government that held office before this government.

The Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) may decry

retroactive legislation, but I must say that the present

government has resorted to that devious tactic far fewer times

than the government of the party he represents.

An Hon. Member: Oh yes, two years to 20!

Mr. McGeer: Whether you do it on an absolute or a rate basis, it still comes out the same.

An Hon. Member: Bah!

Mr. McGeer: You were champions of retroactive

legislation, and everyone of you who sat in the former

parliament voted for retroactive legislation.

An Hon. Member: Rubbish.

Mr. McGeer: Rubbish? I'll produce the votes. It's not

hard to do — you don't have to look very far to find them.

Mr. Speaker, the other point is that the same skeleton staff

is engaged in writing the legislation now as before. The same

procedures for handling legislation are in effect now as

before. But mature and responsible Houses of Parliament do not

go about their business in this fashion.

First of all, they make sure that there is an adequate or

more than adequate staff of legislative draughtsmen available.

When one considers the enormous expense of assembling this

House, providing people to draught the bills that come before

this House is surely not that much of an added expense.

We're not legislators here — we don't draught the

legislation; we only offer opinions on the bills that are

draughted by this skeleton staff. It's always been that way in

the past.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, bills that are introduced should be

referred to committee so that people who have a keen interest

in the content of the legislation can not only offer their

opinion, but can help in pointing out the errors of the

legislation.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will support this bill as we have supported many other

bills, reluctantly, in the past — not because it is a good bill, but because

it would be worse not to have this bill on the books.

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Speaker, we also will support the

bill because it is the responsible thing to do.

An Hon. Member: Who are "we"? (Laughter.)

Mr. Wallace: We, the Conservative Party — the royal

the schools in this province but needed right here in the

Legislature.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear! Right on.

Mr. Wallace: The legislation is late in the day and I

think it is a great pity that with advance polls today we've

had this serious problem pointed out to us in the fact that

some elections may well have been declared to have been held

illegally. I agree with the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey,

who talked about poor draughting. I can recall the tremendous

confusion over Bill 31, regardless of the fact that it was

also a bad bill to start with. The draughting compounded the

problem in that it couldn't be understood by the people in the

mining industry. This was the point that was raised in debate

many times. So there is no question that a great deal of

improvement could be made in the draughting of bills. I think

it's also the firm opinion of educated legal minds that

retroactive legislation in principle is a bad principle. I

think that….

An Hon. Member: Bill 31 was draughted in the

warehouse.

Interjections.

Mr. Wallace: Well, that's a matter of opinion. It

didn't seem to be a good bill in the way it was written. Nobody

could understand it. It should be the first ingredient of a

bill that it is understandable. This bill that we have today is

not well written, but at least it is understandable.

I'm at a loss to understand why the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) should be so opposed to affording

the same advantage to municipal electors to vote for their

aldermen, and yet we find that a much more enlightened and

reasonable approach is taken by the Minister of Education (Hon.

Mrs. Dailly) who in this bill is allowing electors in a

municipality as well as the regional district to have the

advantage of being on the list even though their names were

missed out, or they were not enumerated. This again seems to

me, Mr. Speaker, to point out some of the amazing

contradictions of this government.

We've had the same kind of example with the

[ Page 4678 ]

Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) taking a very

courageous and laudable stand on the egg marketing situation,

and the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) offering

some other kind of sop, which showed that there was a very deep

division in cabinet as to how a very serious public problem

should be approached.

Now we have an equally serious problem in Municipal Affairs,

particularly in light of the fact that nothing can be more

important than the right of an individual to cast his vote. If

he or she cannot cast a vote because of shortcomings or faults

of some other administrator, then I think that is indeed a

very serious problem. I applaud the Minister of Education for

making this legislation available to the electors in municipalities, but I think it's a very sad reflection both on

the….

An Hon. Member: It's the first thing she's done right

all year.

Mr. Wallace: It's a sad reflection on the Minister of

Municipal Affairs, and it would seem to me that the very least

they might do is to have consistency in their approach to what

is basically the same problem in two different departments.

There are many reasons why we are unhappy with this bill,

but the fact is that at least it will enable certain

individuals to cast their vote who otherwise, through no reason

of their own, would be disenfranchised. So we certainly support

the bill.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, I'll

certainly support this bill, but I would like to make a few

observations here to the Minister. We're talking about the

legalities here. I might say that if the Minister doesn't know

it, there have already been elections in British Columbia,

not advance polls, but there's been an election in School

District 28 on November 9. Two fine ladies aspired for the one

position, and one has won by seven votes. I would think now

that this election is probably illegal.

There's another observation that hasn't been made here. I

understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Education

instructed School District 28 to proceed as if this bill was

law last Saturday. I don't know how they could do that when

in fact it was not law.

Another complication has come in. In my riding I have three school districts.

In School District 27, Cariboo-Chilcotin, again here if this had not been so

late…. It's hard enough to get trustees to serve. In the case of School District

27, a citizen tendered his name at nomination time and was refused the seat

— which would have been by acclamation of the people that agreed on it, the

voters — because his name was not on the voters list. Now they have a vacancy

in School District 27 for that part of the school district. So because of the

lateness of this legislation, it has really complicated things.

Another observation I have on legalities or otherwise —

maybe we should have said this under the municipal Minister's

vote, but I would like to say it here — is that what about the

amalgamation votes in Nanaimo and Prince George on November 2?

They're probably illegal too.

I think we've got a real can of worms here, and I'm anxious

to hear from the Minister how she's going to particularly

validate the elections in School District 28 and what is going

to happen about this citizen that, because his name was not on

the voters list, can't serve as a trustee, and now the vacancy

is there. What provision is going to be made because of the

lateness of this legislation, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in

speaking to the principle of this bill, I'm rather puzzled.

We've had legislation brought in within the past few days which

you might call "patch-up" legislation. The Assessment Act,

Landlord and Tenants — that's patch-up legislation of previous

mistakes. We now get into the back-up legislation, such as the

previous bill and this one and, of course, the bill which has

not yet been discussed with respect to teachers, which has a

date of today as the date that it comes into force. This one's

retroactive to November 1, the previous one retroactive to

November 1.

We're in a back-up period. Not only are we trying to patch

up, but we're trying to back-up and correct retroactively. As

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

and the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) pointed out, we're

trying to back up into an area where elections have already

been held and people elected, where there is serious doubt in

the minds of myself and the two Members I've mentioned as to

whether some of these votes that took place earlier this year

are actually valid or not. Probably they are not.

Mr. Speaker, I looked at

section 66 of the Public Schools

Act, which this particular bill is meant to amend. It doesn't

seem to amend it, because

section 66 talks about rural areas;

this one talks about rural and municipalities. I think that

it's just stuck in there. It doesn't really follow 66 very

closely at all.

I'd like the Minister to speak on the principle which we

discussed in the previous bill. I've heard of government

flip-flops before; we've seen them in this House before. But

when you have two bills brought in consecutively and you have

government Members voting unanimously for one type of approach,

namely to restrict this only to the rural areas, or the

regional district areas, and then in this one you go and bring

in the municipalities as well, after voting out an amendment

which would have put the municipalities into the previous bill,

I think you've got a most amazing flip-flop in principle. It

appears that bills 174

[ Page 4679 ]

and 175, which are both of them entitled Bill No. 2 — one is

the Municipal Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) and one is Public

Schools Amendment Act, 1974 (No. 2) — appear to have been not

well thought out either, because they are contradictory in

their provisions and the logic put forward by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. At least, I should say the arguments; his

logic was somewhat thin in his discussion.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Would you move

adjournment?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, that would be very kind of

the Premier and the Minister of Education. Would you like me to

adjourn at this stage?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Well then, I would suggest that the Hon.

Member continue with his speech in second reading if the debate

is going to be adjourned and he sits down. I don't want the

Hon. Member by any misunderstanding to lose his place in the

debate.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, if the point is that the

government and the Minister of Education have been kind enough

to see the logic of some of the comments of my friends over on

this side, I would be delighted to have this bill withdrawn. I

would move adjournment. However, if the bill is to be amended,

I think that we should have another look at what it might turn

out to be.

Mr. D.A. Anderson moves adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Adjourned debate on Bill 170.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

( continued )

Mr. Speaker: The Hon. Member for South Peace River

adjourned the debate last night. He started at 10:29; I'll have

to find out when he concluded.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Last night

during debate on this bill I talked somewhat about the history

of taxation in the province and how this government has bungled

and messed up the situation where everybody today in the

province is confused. The assessors are confused, civic

governments are confused, the tax committee was confused…

An Hon. Member: You're confused.

Mr. Phillips: …and the taxpayer is probably more

confused than all of these other groups put together.

But the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, for this confusion must

rest squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Barrett). This Minister's concern and preoccupation with

seeing the world has added to his incapacity to run the affairs

of this House, and just a few moments ago we witnessed another

bungle on the part of the government — another bungle on the

part of the government. Now they'll put another little Band-Aid

on Bill 175 and, you know, Mr. Speaker, it gets so you're

almost afraid to speak on legislation on this House.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay, sit down.

Mr. Phillips: Well, the Premier would sure like me to

sit down, but I'll tell you, if he keeps on bungling the

affairs of this province the way he's been bungling it in the

last two years — and the bungling seems to get worse every day.

It started out sort of gradually, but now that they've passed

some legislation and it's not working, well, the bungling seems

to be getting more prevalent with every piece of legislation.

They don't seem to want to give any direct guidance to this

Legislature.

MR. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Barrett in

blunderland.

Mr. Phillips: Well, Mr. Speaker, I also spoke last

night about the inability of the great economic think-tank out

at Uvic under the direction of Dr. Gaffney to give any

direction, but I'd like to give a few words of recommendation

to the government at this time.

Real property taxation in this province, and in many other

provinces in Canada, can no longer provide the finances to

local governments to supply the multiplicity of services now

required by the people who live in those communities. Many of

these services are required by law — laws that have been passed

in the Legislature. Many of the costs of running governments

are the costs of operating buildings that this government has

participated in with capital grants, and I refer specifically

to recreational facilities. It's all very well and good to

assist the communities to build these recreational facilities,

but the cost of running them, the burden, goes back on the

taxpayer.

The per capita grant as a method of funding municipalities

and sharing the wealth, as it were, is outdated and obsolete as

a form of revenue sharing. This might have been all right back

in the days before inflation, but now this method is completely

out of

[ Page 4680 ]

date. Municipal governments are slowly but steadily sinking

into bankruptcy while both levels of senior government, both

the federal and the provincial government, have broadened their

tax base and their revenues are growing every year. How much

longer can municipal governments try and cope with the

situation that exists today? Had Dr. Gaffney done his job in

appearing before the tax committee, he would have done some

research into the Dominion Bureau of Statistics to find out in

just what, and how bad, the finances of municipalities are in

today.

I have before me tables from the Dominion Bureau of

Statistics, and I'd like to quote from them for just a moment.

It shows that in the year 1971 the federal government,

excluding interprovincial transfers, had a surplus of collected

taxes of $4,172 million; provincial governments, $1,442

million; while municipal governments had a deficit of $4,218

million, Mr. Speaker. This is just a prime example, and that

has increased since the year 1961. I'd like to quote from the

report, which is very explicit on this matter, and it says:

"It can be seen over the period under review that the

deterioration of the financial position of Canada's

municipalities has continued, both exclusive and inclusive of

senior government transfers, and the deficit position has

constantly been worse than those of senior governments.

"The importance of these details clearly show that in 1971

local governments experienced a deficit of $729 million, even

after receiving transfer payments from the senior governments.

At the same time, local governments in 1971 were responsible

for slightly more than 25 per cent of the total of government

expenditures but had access to only 13.5 per cent of total

government revenues, not counting transfers from federal and

provincial sources."

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

We have to have a new look into real estate taxation in this province. I recommend,

Mr. Speaker, that the provincial government get together with local governments

and they have a conference on revenue-sharing and new areas of cooperation.

This is how the federal government shares its revenues now with the provincial

governments. They no longer hand out grants; they have a formula. What I'm suggesting

is that the provincial government come up with a new formula of revenue-sharing

with the provinces. They must also take a new look at the cost factors in relation

to inflation and the cost of building services in the municipalities, which

have been harder hit by inflation than have either the services provided by

the federal government or the provincial government.

There must be a new day — new cooperation. The old plans

are outdated and outmoded. Municipal governments are no longer

able to budget for the services that they must provide. This

type of patch-up legislation which is before this Legislature

today, Mr. Speaker, is just not good enough. It will not solve

the financial problems of municipal governments. The pittance

increase that we had passed in this Legislature on the per

capita grant to municipalities would not even cover the cost of

inflation this year.

Another thing, Mr. Speaker, with regard to taxation: I want to tell the government

that their tax deferral for elderly people — their method of tax deferral on

taxes — just is not working. People out there who have owned their property

and not incurred any debts on that property all their lives, when they become

65 or older, do not want to go in debt on that property.

We suggested in this House that if you're going to help

those people you should give them an outright grant, but not

ask them at their late age in life to go into debt. The people

aren't accepting it. Most of those people have worked hard to

build up their own property all their life and maybe they want

to leave it to somebody else when they die, maybe they want to

leave it to their family, and they don't want that property

indebted to the provincial government so that some day the

provincial government can take it over in lieu of taxes. This

legislation that this government has proposed here in Bill 71

seems to me to be that the Premier and Minister of Finance is

looking some kind of a safe harbour that he can shelter himself

in in hopes that the storms of the chaos that he has created in

assessment and taxation in this province will blow over.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to warn today the Minister of

Finance that the problems and that storm that he has created

among the taxpayers — the chaos that he has created in the

assessment department; the problems that he has created for

municipal government — are not going to blow over. He can't

continue to put patches on the problems that he has created in

this very specific area of taxation and assessment. This

Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker, has got to stand up and bear

the full responsibility for the problems that he has created,

and he's got to be man enough, Mr. Speaker, and leader enough,

to give direction.

He said — during the passing of assessment bills which set

up an independent assessment authority — the Minister of Finance

said, "This authority will be completely independent from the

government or from municipal governments." Then he turns right

around, the next day — and again in this legislation — and gives

that independent authority direction. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask

you how the assessment authority can be independent of

government when the

[ Page 4681 ]

government is first of all telling it to go forward, then

it's telling it by this legislation to turn around and back up,

and then asking it to do a sideways shuffle.

Mr. Speaker, the situations, the insecurity of landowners in

British Columbia today, is the full responsibility of the

Minister of Finance. Legislation was not co-ordinated with the

staff in the various departments. It was ill-conceived, more

patch-up legislation. Mr. Speaker, we're going to need more

than foisting the responsibility onto any committee; we're

going to need more direction than the Minister of Finance

trying to solve the problem by appointing a royal commission

which could tour the province for three or four years before

any decisions are made, while the same people who have

insecurity today still don't know where they are going.

The bill says that the assessor can hear a special problem.

This will put political influence back to the assessors'

department and we will have exactly the same chaos and mess

that existed before the assessment commission was set up.

The problem is: how many people are going to go and appear

before the assessor? There is nothing in this bill that gives

the assessor any terms of reference as to whether he can lower

assessment on a piece of property or not. There are no terms of

reference as to whether the assessment on excessively highly

assessed property is going to be lowered according to the

ability to pay. Is it going to be lowered on specific pieces of

property? Is it going to be lowered on small businesses? Is it

going to be lowered on people who own small tracts of land for

recreational purposes? Is it going to be lowered on pieces of

land which people have bought and are saving for their

retirement home and now are in danger of losing?

There are no terms of reference to the assessment

commissioner in this bill. And the Minister of Finance makes

light of this problem. I wish that that same Minister of

Finance had travelled with that municipal matters committee and

seen the tears in the eyes of people who appeared before that

committee because they were going to lose their business,

because people were going to lose land which had maybe been in

the family for 50 or 60 years…had seen the look on the

faces of people who had bought a piece of property, developed

it by the sweat of their brow and long hours of work, and now

are threatened by this great, socialist government to lose it

by taxation.

I wish that the Minister of Finance was as concerned about

these people as he is about taking his trip to China. It almost

boggles the imagination, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: I would point out to the Hon. Member

that he has approximately two minutes left.

Mr. Phillips: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to say one other thing in closing — I do hope

that the Minister of Finance will give some serious

consideration to the recommendations that I have made here

today.

There has to be a new deal of revenue sharing between the

province and the municipalities, or we are going to find

bankrupt municipalities in this province. Maybe that's what the

Premier wants and then he can move in, the same as he is going

to do on bankrupt landowners, and take over running the affairs

of the municipalities.

This legislation is another patch up job. The Minister of

Finance is not standing up to his responsibilities. Once again,

Mr. Speaker, it makes me doubt his ability to act in the

capacity of Minister of Finance and Premier of this

province.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Speaker, again I'm not going to take

up a great deal of time going over the merits of this

particular legislation, because I don't think it has a great

deal of merit to it. I'm afraid I can't associate myself

completely with the remarks of the previous speaker when he

said the Premier wasn't man enough and leader enough to take

charge of this situation, because the Premier he served, when

he sat as a backbencher, was the man who took us down the road

that is causing us so much trouble today.

I was here when that infamous Act was passed. It was

outrageous meddling on the part of Premier Bennett and Minister

of Finance Bennett with regard to assessment in the Province of

British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: You always lie in opposition.

Mr. McGeer: We opposed that Act. We predicted what

would happen if it became the law. What we predicted has

happened. There are thousands and thousands of British

Columbians who are overpaying on their land taxes as a result

of that Act because it removed non-partisanship from the matter

of assessment in British Columbia.

That Act that Premier Bennett brought in for political

purposes, and not for fairness and justice, limited the amount

of assessment increases to 5 per cent, meaning that those who

had land that increased in value more than 5 per cent would be

paying less than their fair share of the taxes at the expense

of everyone else in the community.

It was done to preserve popularity by pulling the wool over

the eyes of all of those who suffered unjustly by this Act. It

has continued for some eight years now, and in that period of

time the inevitable has happened: the inequities have continued

to grow; logic and reason in the assessors' office has been

impossible to establish. This has been the

[ Page 4682 ]

consequence of political meddling on the part of government

in the matter of fair assessment in the Province of British

Columbia.

It is going to take something to straighten it out, because

when justice is finally done in this matter there will be

painful readjustments. It will take a government with more

backbone than this government has yet been prepared to

demonstrate to straighten that out.

But the man who wasn't a man and wasn't a leader was the

former Premier of British Columbia (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) who

introduced the unfairness for political reasons. It's his mess

that has to be cleaned up.

It will be an unpopular move by government, no question of

that, because the adjustments, when they come, will be painful

for some. But there will be, Mr. Speaker, when those

adjustments do come, nothing retroactive to compensate the

people who have been overpaying in their taxes for these many

years. They are just out-of-pocket at the expense of the

others. There is going to be no way to compensate them. All

that we can say is that the longer the matter is delayed, the

greater the cumulative injustice will be.

The Premier, when he introduced the original legislation

this spring, was obviously unenthusiastic about it. It is one

of the few occasions I can ever recall when the Premier has

passed by the opportunity to make a speech. Yes, he did, Mr. Speaker, he passed by the opportunity to make a speech. I

don't even think he read the full statement; he just introduced

the bill, hoping that it wouldn't create the waves that it

did.

There aren't many votes in it. All there is in it is

justice. It is pretty obvious that when justice competes for

votes, justice loses out. We started that in 1966 under then

Premier Bennett. We made a half-hearted gesture this spring to

correct that, but when the prospect of losing votes began to

loom its head, and you had to enter the scale of votes against

justice, votes once again seemed to have triumphed.

It's hard, Mr. Speaker, to admire a government with such

values. I can understand, and perhaps even excuse, because it

wasn't this government that created the problem; but one can't

forgive, nor can one forget the values the government is

prepared to accept when votes are at stake.

This bill is not one of the finest hours of this government.

I continue to hope that in politics in British Columbia, sooner

or later we can enter some values that really count.

Unfortunately, we're not finding them with this bill.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): The Conservative member on the municipal

affairs committee has already spoken in this debate, but I want it understood

by the House that he's not the designated speaker any longer. In fairness let

me say that the former Conservative member of the municipal affairs committee

did leave me detailed notes on the hearings from the municipal affairs committee,

and I want to recognize the assistance he gave me in that regard.

In this bill we are debating the lesser of two evils. I

think every speaker acknowledges that the assessment situation

in British Columbia is far from satisfactory. Whatever the

history, as outlined by the Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer),

or whatever efforts this House has made in the last year or so

to improve it, what I think we must all acknowledge is that the

assessment situation is a real mess in British Columbia.

We are now in the process of trying to mitigate within

certain very rigid limitations the degree of that mess. Really,

what it boils down to is one of two choices. Do we move ahead

with 100 per cent assessment, imperfect as it now is in

relation to the work which has been done in preparing the rolls

by assessors, and which would impose some real hardship, or do

we revert, albeit for one year, to former assessment rolls,

acknowledging that they also would have imperfections and that

the system as a whole will have to be finalized by the

commission suggested by the Premier?

When you look at the two alternatives, Mr. Speaker, neither

of them is very attractive because, as I well know from when I

served as an alderman on Oak Bay Council, if there is one

subject above all others that causes distress and

misunderstanding and arguments and confusion, it is the whole

matter of assessments.

I don't want to go over points raised by the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey, but it should be mentioned that the real

root of the trouble began when an artificial ceiling was placed

on top of assessments in an attempt to relieve property

taxation. Assessment and taxation, while related, are certainly

two different quantities.

The mistake was made at that time by confusing the formula

which is used to calculate the property taxation with the

actual taxation to be paid. It's just that simple in

explaining why we have got into this mess we're in. The actual

formula of assessment with an applied mill rate leading to a

tax to be paid is one thing, but to interfere with a specific

entity — namely assessment, which is related in some way to

market value — to confuse that with the tax to be paid was a

great disaster. Although the UBCM has made it plain that

property tax reform must be accompanied by assessment changes,

the efforts by placing a 10 per cent ceiling certainly was a

misguided attempt to ease the property taxation on certain

property owners, particularly residential homeowners. So that,

I think, is at the root of many of our problems.

I think it can never be repeated too often that if this

government, or any other government, believes

[ Page

4683 ]

that the property taxation falling on certain individuals or

groups in society is unfair, then it would make a great deal of

sense to alleviate the tax to be paid rather than to fiddle

around with assessment in the unrealistic way in which the

original 10 per cent ceiling did, because this only distorts

the property taxation picture — as I say, artificially

manipulating assessments.

An assessment, if we look at the word in its true meaning,

means an evaluation in relation to a certain standard. Whether

it's 50 per cent or 75 per cent or 100 per cent of market

value, it is a valuation placed upon a piece of property in

regard to a certain standard, namely the market value. It seems

ridiculous to confuse that and introduce distorting factors in

assessment when your real aim is to alleviate the amount of tax

that certain people are going to pay on their property.

One of the main points raised in debate last night was the

tremendous hardship which the removal of the 10 per cent

ceiling has brought to various people, particularly small

businesses, and particularly owners of undeveloped land who

have every intention some time in the future of building a

retirement home. I think that in passing one should make it

clear that the bill we brought in to enable such homeowners or

landowners to defer taxes in the course of time has produced

some fairly strenuous criticism, and as the years go by this

will produce another nightmare in trying to administer

accurately the provisions of that tax deferral piece of

legislation.

Mr. Speaker, although it has been said many times, I think

it should be repeated that with the other factors of inflation

and rising costs, the small businessman is certainly…. I'm

thinking particularly of the motel owner and the gas station

operator. I have a document, for example, dated September 20,

1974, announcing by Imperial Oil a service station equipment

sale. It's entitled: "Equipment from three closed service

stations will be offered for sale at Canada Way and Edmonds

Esso Station, 8:30 a.m., Thursday, September 26." There's this

kind of notice of the closure of gas stations.

I could quote from letters from the motel industry where

motel operators are in the same financial difficulties, that

the effect of removing the 10 per cent ceiling has certainly

precipitated the closure of small businesses, simply because

the sudden increase in property taxation has put them in a

deficit position.

The Minister of Finance, in introducing the bill, placed

great stress on the fact that the large corporations and large

businesses would, in fact, be paying a fairer share of the

total tax burden in relation to their income and in relation to

what they should be paying in their particular communities. If

that has happened, and I think to a degree it has, then this is

a worthy objective which has been realized.

But if, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we have achieved

that objective in relation to a small number of large

corporations, just think what we've done to a large number of

small businesses, and how….

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Name

names.

Mr. Wallace: Well, I've just named names. If you'd

wake up, Roy, I've just named three gas stations that have

closed and I've given you the location. Weren't you

listening?

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member

address the chair?

Mr. Wallace: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm glad to. If the

somnolent Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings)

would stay awake, I wouldn't have to be interrupted in this

fashion.

I would be glad to dig out many of the letters which I've

received, particularly from motel operators. But, Mr. Speaker,

you were rather critical of letters being read last night and I

would hate to run the risk of your wrath this afternoon.

The Minister (Hon. Mr. Barrett) made very plain that this

bill was introduced to bring about larger tax contributions by

a relatively small number of large corporations. And apparently

to achieve that end this government is prepared to be most

punitive and inconsiderate towards a large number of small

taxpayers and small businesses.

I quoted the two main areas that I've had correspondence

on: the gas station operator and the motel operator. The other

third segment is the person owning a few acres of undeveloped

land which is destined or intended to provide residential

accommodation at a later date. When we're debating the two

alternatives that I spelled out when I began my remarks, we

have to weigh the hardship of a large number of small business

operators with the possible temporary advantage to a small

number of large businesses.

Another factor in this debate which has not, in my view,

been mentioned enough is that we have so concentrated on

assessment that very little has been said about the effect of

mill rates when assessment does become 100 per cent. I am not

aware of any control or any intended control by this government

to ensure that municipalities will not be under some obligation

to respect the fact that they have complete and total freedom

to set the mill rate. If, of course, assessment does perhaps go

to 100 per cent next year, there could still be very

substantial tax increases if there were not corresponding

reductions in the mill rate.

Another point which the UBCM (Union of British Columbia

Municipalities) has made is to the effect

[ Page 4684 ]

that if there have to be different levels of taxation on

different types of property, the methods should be by mill-rate

adjustments and not by assessment changes or manipulations.

I think these comments show the complexity of the whole

problem. I notice the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) is nodding when one talks about the complexity of the

problem, and I don't think anyone can dispute that. Therefore,

whatever we're doing through the mechanism of this bill is not

going to solve the problem. But we have two alternatives,

neither of which is particularly attractive.

To sum it up, we have to look at the possibility of giving a

temporary tax break, which may not be merited, to the large

companies for a year in order to give some thoroughly justified

break to all the multitude of small business operators and

owners and the people who have written in the hundreds to each

MLA, and which is so important to them, while recognizing at

the same time that perhaps the large corporations for one more

year, one more year only, would be receiving a measure of

taxation relief which perhaps they do not merit.

In effect, I am saying that I think we should revert to the

1973 roll for one year. This would relieve the crushing and

punitive taxation on the small people whom I've talked about.

After all, this is the government that was elected to represent

the small people. "The little man" is another phrase that we

heard repeatedly from this government when it was the official

opposition. The Premier has certainly made statements

subsequently that he believes his government is sensitive to

the needs of the little man and will respond to these

needs.

There is a whole lot of little men and little women in this

province screaming for help in the face of the present

confusion in the field of assessment and real property. While

to revert to the 1973 roll as a basis would, I admit, bring

considerable taxation relief to a relatively small number of

large businesses, I think from a humanitarian point of view the

break which this would give to a very large number of small

people would be more than justified.

It is generally admitted that we should aim at having a 100

per cent assessment of all land and improvements. This is what

this committee agreed upon, and the commission that will find

the mechanics to bring this about requires a considerable

amount of time to get to the point of putting it down in black

and white in the form of regulations. I think that's a sensible

approach. What we're really debating in this bill is how much

relief we give to people in hardship until such time as the 100

per cent assessment and the various regulations and adjustments

can be written in the form of new legislation.

In passing, Mr. Speaker, another element in this argument is the feeling of

distrust which has been generated in the course of the whole public consideration

of assessment. I'm referring to the former use of

section 9(2) in the Assessment

Equalization Act when a residential property owner felt that he was covered

by the provisions of the 10 per cent ceiling. I've had numerous owners of residential

property write to me who have found that the 10 per cent ceiling protection

which they thought they had was somewhat of a mirage, simply because

section

9(2) allowed the assessor to take a specific look at any specific piece of property

and, regardless of the 10 per cent ceiling, reassess the property at any figure

he wished. I had numerous letters by residential property owners who were bitterly

disappointed when they found that the property assessment had increased by considerably

more than 10 per cent because of the provisions of that section.

I know we repealed that Act and passed the assessment Act in

the spring. But that kind of provision created distrust among

many people. I think we've duplicated the potential for that

same kind of distrust in the bill that's before us today. I'm

talking about subsection 7 where it appears to give false hope

to the property owner. The commissioner can intervene and give

some form of relief.

If that kind of false hope is similar to the

section I

quoted a moment ago in the Assessment Equalization Act, then I

think it can only add to the dissension and dissatisfaction in

the community at large over this whole assessment mess. It

contains a large measure of contradiction. There has been this

rather step-by-step change, attempting to correct errors that

have been made in the past without really solving anything in

the long run.

While I realize that we're all aiming towards 100 per cent

assessment for everyone with the appropriate changes to make it

work, what we're faced with here and now is the willingness to

look at the people who are in real hardship and to consider

whether or not it is just to perpetuate the hardship which was

created when we removed the 10 per cent ceiling.

Another

section of this bill,

section 1(c), perpetuates

another flaw. It really means that factoring will take place,

and that in turn really takes no cognizance of differences from

one area to another within a region.

I know also from practical experience in the municipal field

that the whole spotty nature by which assessments are often

made relate to a variety of factors such as lack of sales in

any one particular type of property or area, lack of staff, and

a variety of other factors. I think for these reasons that

we're dealing with situation which should not be compounded by

this kind of bill.

I feel that I've tried to consider all the disadvantages of

the various alternatives that are open to the Minister at this

time, and I just don't feel that

[ Page 4685 ]

it is right or just to perpetuate for one more year some of

the real hardship on the classes of people that I've talked

about. And while it would be very difficult for the Minister of

Finance, after his repeated swings at oil companies and large

corporations, to backtrack even for one year and give these

companies advantages tax-wise, I do feel that it should be a

basic concept in governments that the majority of people, or if

there is a majority of people suffering as a result of

legislation, that majority should be given primary

consideration. In my view, that majority, in this instance, is

the small property owner, the small businessman and the owner

of small lots destined for residential development.

Therefore, my suggestion would be that as an interim,

one-year measure, we take the 1973 rolls as the basis on which

assessment should be considered, and not perpetuate the errors

that result from the 1974 roll.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a

few words about this bill that we're debating at the present

time.

The municipal matters committee did have a heavy task this

summer in trying to bring in a solution for problems in

taxation and assessments which have been with us for a great

number of years. I don't intend to go over the history of the

problems — I think we're all familiar with the problems that

we've had in this province for a number of years — the lack of

quality in our assessments and the inequities which occur in

our total taxation picture.

I think the committee was a good committee. They were

certainly serious and they tried to do a job, it seemed to me.

It was a case of getting a complete education and trying to

come up with a decision from people who are not experts in any

matter dealing with this type of problem.

I was somewhat surprised at the Hon. Member for South Peace

River (Mr. Phillips) who objected to the abilities of Mason

Gaffney, whom I considered — and I believe the committee as a

whole considered — to have stimulated a very interesting

discussion on a variety of methods that could be used in the

taxation field. If you're listening to experts, I appreciate

the fact that the whole question is complicated and it's

difficult to understand, but I think the majority of the

committee understood the things that he was presenting and the

issues that he was raising.

There are a number of problems in this province in going to

the 100 per cent valuation. One of the first problems is that

the assessments throughout the province have not been

completed, and would not be completed in time for the roll. The

assessments were out-of-date, and even if you doubled an

out-of-date assessment, you've got a worse situation than

leaving it the way it was. So it's very difficult to go into a

new 100 per cent assessment in the Province of British Columbia.

Now, at the time when the 10 per cent limitation was placed

on assessments, there were some areas that were bouncing in

values but were held down; other values remained somewhat

quiescent and, as a result, there was not too much difficulty

in those areas. Bill 71, by and large, was a good bill. What,

in fact, it did was take the 10 per cent limitations away from

vacant land, industrial and commercial areas, and so benefit

the residential taxpayer. Now there are some problems with Bill

71 — there's no question about that — but those problems are

now known and action can be taken to resolve most of those

problems.

An Hon. Member: That's the understatement of the

year.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: The 100 per cent assessments…we

don't know what the problems are. We know there will be many.

We know one: we know that the burden of taxation on 100 per

cent will be shifted to the residential property owner; and we

also know that the lower values of residence, this shift will

become greater. And so, by bringing in 100 per cent valuation

and taxation based on that without other activities dealing

with taxation, we would then put the burden of taxation

squarely on the shoulders of the homeowners.

In Ontario, they had a study on the real property taxation.

This is the report of that study — three volumes.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): You should have

read it before you brought in Bill 71.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: We were faced with an impossible

task of bringing in a report in a period of a very short

time.

Now there was some criticism that the committee didn't meet

until July or August. I might advise the House that the reason

for not meeting until that time was that a number of the

members of the committee were not available to meet. I'm

suggesting that those who were unavailable to meet represented

people from all sides of the House and all parties. A number of

our meetings were not attended by some of the members, so I

refuse to accept this criticism as a criticism of my party in

this particular committee.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: I don't know what the Member for

North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is talking about and I'm sure it's

worthwhile listening to, but I haven't the time now. I want to

carry on with my notes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClelland: Two minutes.

[ Page 4686 ]

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: Two minutes.

But the Ontario study took — I don't know — two years, three

years to complete — three volumes of a report — and now we're

told by the opposition that we should go into 100 per cent

assessment. Well, I'll tell you what would happen. We don't

know exactly what would happen by that, and neither does the

opposition, but we do know that a number of problems will be

created. We don't know what they are — we know some of them; we

know where the burden of taxation will go — but there'll be a

number of other problems that we don't know about.

The suggestion is that we go into the 100 per cent this

year, we have a full-time committee looking into taxation,

bring in recommendations, and change the statutes again. So

what they're suggesting is that we cause a shockwave throughout

the province this year, and another one next year, and maybe

another one the year after.

Now, as has been mentioned by a number of people, the whole

field of taxation and assessment is very, very complicated and

needs full study by a full committee before we go into the 100

per cent assessments and the taxation. The whole question of

differential mill rates; the whole question of exemptions; the

whole question of differences between classes of properties;

the whole question of inequitable assessments throughout the

province — these are matters which must be looked into before we

go forward with our heads down bringing in new legislation that

we don't know what the results will be. This will require a

full-time committee, and it'll be a committee of experts as

well as lay people, I would suggest. It's a complicated field,

and not a field which our committee, in my opinion, was able to

handle satisfactorily. I think we all did what we could for it,

and I think we learned a lot, but I don't think any one of us

would class ourselves as experts in the taxation field.

So, unlike the opposition, we do not have the luxury of

playing Russian roulette with taxation in this province.

Mr. McClelland: Oh, what did you do with Bill 71?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: We have to act responsibly, and I'm

pleased to recommend for the House the bill presently under

debate.

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker….

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Right. You're first on the list — the

Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: Right.

I was quite interested in the remarks this afternoon from

the Members for Oak Bay and the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

But I would like, first of all, to draw attention to the

remarks made by the Minister of Finance yesterday when he

introduced this Bill 170.

To me it proved something: he really doesn't know the

difference between assessment and taxation or he wouldn't have

said what he said on introduction of this bill yesterday. He

really said yesterday, as I gather, that Bill 71 corrected

inequities in taxation or tax havens. This is not the case at

all. The Premier and Minister of Finance should know that that

was actually done by order-in-council in January, 1974. We

dealt with Bill 71 in the Legislature in 1973. There is a great

difference here and there was no connection with these two at

all.

I'd like to make this other observation regarding these tax

havens that the Minister of Finance keeps referring to. For a

lot of Members who weren't in this House at the time these

things happened, all these havens were given by the different

municipalities of the province. They were not given by the

prior government. They were given by the government, all right,

and validated in this Legislature at the request of the various

municipalities, but it was never legislation initiated by this

government — only at the request of the municipalities

involved. The City of Prince George is a good example where

they asked for this legislation.

I want to tell you something else on the validating

legislation. All the validating legislation that set these

deals up was passed unanimously by this House of which the

present Minister of Finance, the Premier, was a Member. Eleven

other Cabinet Ministers at that time were MLAs and at no time

did they ever oppose any of this validating legislation. So

let's set the record straight about who did what. I repeat that

this was done by validating legislation, voted unanimously in

all cases by every MLA in the Legislature, including the then

Leader of the Opposition and the other cabinet Ministers. Pardon

me, I've forgotten one — 10 cabinet Ministers and one real good

MLA front bencher, the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder).

But don't make any mistake or muddy the waters up, Mr.

Speaker, about where this came from. I know that you one-time

Members who are here now and won't be back will be interested

to know the background on that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell this House that I was a

member of the assessment committee. I was also a member of the

municipal committee on taxation. But before I get into that I

would like to dwell a bit on Bill 71. As I said earlier, as a

member of the committee on taxation, about half our submissions

of 300-odd were based on Bill 71 and the dire effect it has had

on the small business people in

[ Page 4687 ]

British Columbia and also the vacant land holders.

I was quite amazed today to hear the comments from the First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and the Member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), who talked about all the terrible

problems we had in assessments. Now they know that the problem

was Bill 71 and that it caused financial stress on the people.

I refer to hotels, resorts, service stations and so on.

But, Mr. Speaker, they didn't tell you that they voted for

Bill 71 when it passed this House in 1973.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, no, we didn't. We voted absolutely

against that bill in the official opposition in 1973, and we're

on the record. So don't try and give us a snow job now that

you're sympathetic about the people whom Bill 71 affects.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: We know what the record of the Journals

is. I suggest that you better look at it.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member

please address the Chair and the principle of the bill?

Mr. Fraser: I thought I was. We have Bill 71 with all

its problems, so then we move on to assessments and the

Assessment Act that was passed in the last spring session of

the Legislature.

As I said earlier, I was on the assessment committee and we

made the recommendation to this Legislature just last spring

that we go to actual-value assessment in the Province of

British Columbia. I want to say here today that I was one of 12

on that committee and that was a unanimous report to this

House. The other 43 MLAs accepted it and passed it unanimously

into law, and it became the law of the Province of British

Columbia.

I just want to say now that we're dealing with amendments to

this and going into reverse. I, as one member of that

committee, want to apologize to the other 43 MLAs here by

disillusioning them with the fact that we were actually going

to 100 per cent assessment. We went for exactly three months

and now we're backtracking again. I don't think that's the way

the business of British Columbia should be operated.

From that committee we'll move on to the next committee that I had the honour

to serve on: the municipal committee for taxation. A lot of things have been

said here today about the difficult job. Sure, all jobs are difficult, but these

things have to be resolved. We heard from a lot of people, the experts, Dr.

Gaffney. The Minister got up last night when the Member for South Peace River

(Mr. Phillips) discussed Dr. Gaffney. He must have hit a little nerve when the

Member for South Peace River referred to him.

I'll give you my impression, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had

some experience on assessments and taxation, but after I got

through with Dr. Gaffney I was certainly confused. Really, he

tried to sell the committee on one thing, and that was site

taxation. As one member of the committee, I don't see why the

Province of British Columbia had to even consider site taxation

when I believe there is only one place in the free world that

is operating on it now. Why does British Columbia have to be

second? For that reason I didn't pay any attention to Dr.

Gaffney at all.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, some place in New Zealand.

Mr. Wallace: Are you against New Zealand?

Mr. Fraser: No, I'm not against New Zealand.

Certainly I'm not against New Zealand, but I don't see why we

have to be guinea pigs in the free world just because they

decided to be. But anyway, it was a lost three days there at

the start of the committee as far as I was concerned.

I also resent the fact that it was Dr, Gaffney, a

non-citizen, telling us as British Columbians and Canadians how

we should tax our citizens. I don't think we need to take

advice from people who don't even pay taxes in the Province of

British Columbia. I certainly am not going to, that's for

sure.

Mr. Wallace: Anti-American.

Mr. Fraser: I didn't say that at all. I said that I

am certainly pro-Canadian.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: I didn't say that at all, but I want to

hear from Canadians. We have just as good experts in taxation

and assessments that are Canadians, and we don't have to import

them from other parts of the world to impart their knowledge to

us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Other people appeared before us were certainly of some

substance, Mr. Speaker. I believe his title is still assessment

commissioner or chairman of the assessment authority: Mr. Percy

Wright. It was very interesting to hear from him. I believe Mr.

Wright has been in this field for 20-odd years and is still

there.

[ Page 4688 ]

He has served this province well and faithfully.

Mr. Wright had a lot of observations to make to this

committee, but the one that came out very clear to me was the

fact that the 1974 assessment roll is the worst roll we've ever

had, in his opinion, in 20-odd years. That's why we have the

inequalities showing up in taxation that hit so many people

this year. We are now with this bill amending the Assessment

Act, Bill 151, to give our people the worst assessment to be

repeated in 1975. That is why I am definitely against it. This

will only repeat these errors in 1975.

I can't understand why the government wants to repeat and

inflict the errors that were in there, caused by Bill 71 and,

in the words of the assessment commissioner, "the worst

assessment roll we've ever had."

Now, on the subject of actual value assessments, Mr. Wright,

speaking for the assessors said that they would come up with a

roll of much more equality than they would in any other way.

It's been said here — I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs

said that this roll could not be ready.

Well, I maybe misunderstood, but I not only talked to Mr.

Wright, but also I made it my business while we were on

committee at Prince George, Cranbrook, Kelowna, New

Westminster, and so on, to inquire of assessors out in the

field, Mr. Speaker. These men are the professionals on the job

and they say that the best roll would be the actual-value roll,

and they would be ready to go on that. So, we have one opinion

here that certainly differs from opinions where they say that

the roll we have is really a better roll.

The other thing that's been mentioned is that in going to

actual value this roll would reverse the load on property

taxation from commercial/industrial to farm and residential.

For the House's information, the ratio now is about 40 per cent

residential, and farm at 60 per cent — I'm talking

province-wide. The revenue is derived from taxation, and

inference has been made that if the actual-value roll goes

ahead, this balance would change. That is quite correct, but

they didn't tell all the story.

We had another senior civil servant before the committee,

the surveyor of taxes. He devised the formula that could

actually, by legislation, build it in so that the ratio from

one segment of the taxpayers could be held. In other words, we

could have held that the 40 per cent for residential and farm

…. If that was the decision of the government, and I assume

that the committee had made that recommendation…. So what

I'm saying is that we have these experts telling us these

things and not all the speakers have pointed this out in this

debate on Bill 170, but the answer was there.

Sure it's difficult and there could have been problems, but

if we had gone ahead on what this House agreed to do in May or June of this year, that is go

to actual value, it certainly could have been carried on. It

was not an impossible task and that's why I think we are making

a mistake.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the UBCM and B.C. Federation of

Agriculture and a lot more responsible groups made pitches to

the tax committee, and it was correctly reported that they

stand still.

I really don't know whether in the case of municipalities

they intend to get their increased revenue for 1975, which

they'll need because of inflation, because, in effect, by using

the same roll as '74 for '75, we put a ceiling on the largest

base of their income. Surely, they'll be coming screaming,

hat-in-hand, to the government to make up for this

shortfall.

I noticed even the mayor of Vancouver finally woke up and

has already appealed to the Minister of Finance or the

government because of the zoning change on some property in

that city, which, by the way, was done too late for assessors

to get on the rolls. The City of Vancouver now finds out that

because we're standing still in this legislation just on one

parcel they're going to lose $500,000 bills there are lying

around the province. That's the first one that's revealed

itself, but this is exactly what I was afraid of happening. I

don't see anything in this legislation that will allow it to be

actually picked up. Furthermore, again, in my opinion and from

the administrative side of assessments, there is just no time

left. We're fresh out of time to start reassessing in view of

zoning changes which, in turn, we all know affects values. So,

what I'm really saying….

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If you promise to do that, I'll

support you. (Laughter.)

Mr. Fraser: The municipalities of the province have

put their own ceiling on their revenues and they're going to

stand still. The reason they gave, quite frankly, was the fact

that they know what they had in the old roll and they didn't

know what was going to be in the new roll of 100 per cent, so

they were more prepared — and they did state this — to go along

with the inequities and errors that were in the '74 rolls

rather than take a chance of going to something new.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to cause them

no end of grief in their financing for 1975.

I was under the understanding, and I don't think it's in

there, that there would be a special

section in here to deal

with hardship cases that were occasioned in the '74 roll and

which will be repeated in the '75 roll. I can't see where

anything is provided for here,

[ Page 4689 ]

and if it was, I question the fact that anything would ever

come of it.

The thing about hardship cases — the people who got socked

on the ear on Bills 71 and 74 — I would ask the Minister of

Finance if he is going to provide some place for these people

to appeal. Is he also going to refund on the '74 overtaxes that

they paid? — never mind the '75 taxes that they are again going

to pay.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer), when

he spoke, mentioned that they want a special commission set up.

Well, since 1972 we must have had 200 task forces and

commissions and committees and so on, looking into things. I

haven't very much faith in them. I know it was discussed in the

committee, and one thing the committee was against was royal

commissions; I agree with that. But I still can't see why the

elected people can't come up with an answer without sweeping

this under the rug.

I feel we're a long way away before there will be any

solutions to assessment and taxation in the Province of British

Columbia, because if a committee is set up by the government,

the committee will disappear for a year or so at great expense

to the government. And it's my experience with committees of

this government that when they do get a committee report they

don't accept it anyway. I refer to the report of the professor

who reported to the Attorney-General on the Landlord and Tenant

Act. They got a report from a person there who should have

known what he was reporting, and they paid no attention to the

report anyway.

In this report is mentioned a committee that entered

jurisdictional sharing of tax revenue, a classification of real

property and a definition, property tax exemptions.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, speaking on property tax

exemption, that there are millions of dollars worth of property

in this province that is tax-exempt. I refer to churches, B.C.

Hydro, British Columbia Railroads, and so on. Millions and

millions of dollars. I'm not necessarily saying they should be

taxed, but I think that this is something that should be looked

at because they are exempt in a lot of cases to the point that

they're not even on the assessment rolls. That is one thing

that the Minister of Finance should look into and at least get

them all on the assessment roll.

It's another jump whether they should be taxed or not. But

definitely, and I'm sure the committee all agreed on that

point, that everybody's real property, land and real

properties, should be on the assessment toll. It certainly is

not today — well, in the hundreds of millions of dollars not on

the rolls.

I was one member of the committee who would certainly have

liked to have heard more about the differential mill rates at

the present time.

Municipalities have a problem as far as that is concerned; they have only one

mill rate. In the case of municipalities I think this binds them down too tightly;

their options are just not there. In other words, if they want industry to pay

a greater load of the local taxation than it presently does, there is no way

they can have this happen because the mill rate is the same for them as it is

for residents, and so on.

But a differential type of mill rate, probably four or five

categories, would give them the leeway. Then the municipal

councils would have the political decision to make on what

class of property would pay what. I think differential mill

rates should certainly be looked at.

When we are dealing with this bill we are dealing with the

financial structure of all the municipalities in this province.

Believe me, while the Minister can say they are in good

financial condition, in fact they are all struggling. For each

year that goes by, particularly under inflation, the strings

get tighter for them. No doubt this legislation will pass by

the majority of the government.

I pointed out earlier how this restricts their financing.

Some other means or formulas have to come up to help

municipalities not only in B.C. but, I think, right across

Canada.

The benefactors of inflation have been the national

provinces, including the Province of British Columbia. The

escalation of their revenues is really almost unbelievable. I

refer you to the escalation of the different types of taxes

and, most specifically, income tax and the sales tax. With

inflation, they are the benefactors. Their revenues are soaring

and the municipalities still only have the real property base

for taxation. That is pretty well at a standstill in relation

to their costs. I don't think we can go on much longer under

this type of formula. Otherwise, we are going to have real

trouble.

I make one observation if I haven't already, Mr. Speaker.

Under Bill 71, as far as I know, there wasn't one municipality

in this province which reduced their mill rate to accommodate

the increased assessed values that they received from the effects

of Bill 71.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Well, I don't know. I said I don't know

any that reduced their rate. In other words, they had an

increased assessed base and they applied the mill rate they had

or increased it. Consequently, the people affected by Bill 71

had a doubling in their actual dollars in taxation.

The reason the municipalities did this, in my opinion is

that they had to have this revenue to keep up with the present

day costs caused by inflation and so on.

Interjections.

[ Page 4690 ]

Mr. Fraser: No, no, Mr. Speaker, keep this man on the

subject. He's away off into hiring research assistants now.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: I don't think I mentioned mill rates; I

mentioned taxes.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Why don't we have a little order?

Will the Hon. Member continue, please?

Mr. Fraser: In summing up, Mr. Speaker, I think we

should have moved ahead as this House recommended that we do in

May when we passed Bill 171 and gone to actual-value in

assessments. I'm sure these amendments are a backward step. In

a lot of ways they carry on the inequities that affected people

in 1974. It certainly puts a ceiling on the municipalities'

revenues.

As far as the individual property owners are concerned in

British Columbia, all I can recommend to them is that they

cannot get relief after they receive their tax bill. I don't

believe that most of our citizens understand this. They must

appeal their assessments. They will all get their assessment

notices, whether they are in a municipality or outside it, on

or before December 31 of each year.

I would say to all the property owners in this province,

because of the admitted mess in the assessment toll we are

going to use in 1975 — we did use it in 1974 — that all

property owners had better examine their assessed values on

December 31 this year that will be used for taxation purposes

next year. If they find them mixed up — and I'm sure they will

because of these amendments — I recommend that they appeal

their assessment.

Ms. K. Sanford (Comox): As a member of the committee

which heard the various representations into this matter of

property taxation, I would like to speak for a few moments in

support of this bill which puts us back to the assessment rolls

used in 1974.

All of the members who were on that committee recognize the

complexities of this whole question. Yet, in spite of the fact

that there are many unknowns, the representatives on the

opposite side of the House are saying, "Let's go with 1975

rolls." I disagree.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Let's go to

Alaska!

Ms. Sanford: Alaska has higher taxes than we do.

The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) has just outlined his concern about the

fact that the 1975 rolls are not going to be used this coming year. He apologized

to Members of the House, saying that this was passed last year, that it was

endorsed by everybody, and now he's apologizing because the committee has decided

not to go that route.

Surely he doesn't want us to go into that unknown territory.

All the factoring of T and K and everything else that was

presented to us is not going to resolve the problem or make us

aware of what kind of effect a 1975 roll will have at this

time. We need that time; we need a commission to look into it.

The complexities are just too great.

There are several things that the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) mentioned. He mentioned, for

instance, some concerns he had under Bill 71, as did the Member

for Cariboo. And I support them. There are some inequities

under Bill 71 which I, too, would urge the Minister of Finance

to look at specifically in terms of hardships for this coming

year.

I'm speaking here particularly of some of the people who

came down from the Campbell River area where there are many

people who own resorts. Some of them are old resorts; some of

them occupy a lot of land. They are hard-hit by Bill 71. So I

would certainly ask you to do that, Mr. Minister.

But let's look at the reason for Bill 71. Why did we have to

introduce this Bill 71 last year? I tell you it was because of

the 10 per cent limitation that was put on by the previous

government. That's where the inequities started and that's what

we were trying to correct last year with Bill 71. It was their

changes, their fiddling around with that Assessment

Equalization Act that resulted in this.

Interjection.

Ms. Sanford: The Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) who

also mentioned that he was unhappy with the presentation made

by Dr. Gaffney in terms of consideration of site-value

taxation. He mentioned that he did not like to have

non-Canadians present ideas to him.

I would like to remind that member of the committee that we

had many people present to us the concept of site-value

taxation, including Dr. Knetsch from Simon Fraser University

and Mr. Jeffrey, who was a real estate man from the lower

mainland. He himself spent 200 hours in preparation trying to

convince the members of that committee that we should go to

site-value taxation, as did Dr. Hamilton of UBC, an

economist.

On the other hand it was Jonathan Rowe, one of the

Americans, who spoke very strongly against site-value taxation.

So I don't buy his argument.

Besides which, I do feel that when a committee has been

struck to look into the question of taxation,

[ Page 4691 ]

all possibilities should be considered. I feel that we

should have everything presented to us. Like the Member for

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) I did not buy the idea of site-value

taxation, but I am pleased that there are people who feel

strongly enough that they would come before the committee and

present their viewpoint on it.

Last evening, during the speech given by the Member for

Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis), he made reference to the

fact that the chairman of the committee and myself, as

secretary of the committee, met with the assessment authority

when the assessment authority was expecting all of the

committee to meet with them. I would just like to set that

record straight.

The assessment authority requested the meeting with the full

committee on Friday evening following the hearings we had held

in Parksville. The committee had commitments for the weekend in

various parts of the province and agreed that they were unable

to do so at that time. We contacted the assessment authority

and said that some of the committee members would meet with

them at the earliest opportunity, which was the following

week.

At that time, the chairman of the committee and myself met

with that assessment authority and spoke with them for about an

hour. Following that meeting, once we got back and met with the

full committee again, we said we were quite prepared to contact

the assessment authority at this time and have them appear

before the committee so that they could present to us whatever

their concerns were.

The assessment authority replied by saying: "No, thank you,

we have no more questions; they were all answered by the

chairman and the secretary of the committee when we met last

week." So we'll put that on the record.

Mr. Curtis: What did you tell them?

Ms. Sanford: The assessment authority at that time

wanted to know the reason for the motion which was made by the

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) concerning the

possibility of going to 1974 rolls. We indicated to the

assessment authority at that time that the committee wanted to

leave all options open because they were not at this time

decided as to what route they would take. They recognized that

there would be a danger of losing the possibility of going to

full-value assessment,100 per cent assessment, unless we

proceeded with some caution. They, like the committee, want to

have 100 per cent assessment in this province eventually, and

were not about to throw it down the drain based on any hasty

action.

Mr. McClelland: Did you try to contact any opposition

member to go to that meeting?

Ms. Sanford: I couldn't speak for the chairman on

that; you would have to ask him. It was indicated at that time

on Friday in Parksville that we were planning to meet — at

least some of the members were planning to meet — with the

assessment authority the following week. We all had an

opportunity to meet with him on Friday, but none of the

committee members were prepared to do that.

Finally, I would just like to say again that this in my view

is the only route we can take at this time. There are too many

unknowns until we are able to look at that 1975 roll. I wish

the committee that's going to look into the problem of taxation

in this province success, because it's a very, very complex

issue. Thank you.

Mr. McClelland: I'm rapidly coming to the

conclusion that many of the committees set up by this

government are turning into complete farces. Certainly this

past committee is no exception. The statements by the Member

for Comox only reinforce that opinion. When two government

Members of a committee can take it upon themselves to meet with

an authority as important as the newly set up assessment

authority without even attempting to get in touch with any

opposition members to….

Ms. Sanford: I never said that.

Mr. McClelland: Well, I'm telling you what you did,

because it's common knowledge. Not one attempt was made to get

in touch with even the member who lived close by on the island

and could have come at a moment's notice. Not one attempt was

made to include the opposition in that meeting with the newly

set up authority. The chairman and the secretary should be

ashamed of themselves. It's a shocking procedure and it renders

the use of all parliamentary committees absolutely ineffective

and useless.

I'm glad that the Member for Comox and the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) recognize that there were

some inequities in the application of Bill 71. I just happen to

have a few letters here, Mr. Speaker. I brought about half the

letters that we received in our office regarding Bill 71. Since

I am not the designated speaker, I won't attempt to read them

all. In fact, I won't bore you with any of them. But I just

want to point out that there were a lot more than a few

inequities with regard to Bill 71.

Was the figure 20,000 to 30,000 complaints regarding Bill

71? Courts of revision were sitting full-time and overtime. The

B.C. assessment appeal boards were sitting full-time — split

into two boards — all because of the reaction to a stupid piece

of legislation known as Bill 71.

I'm happy too that the Member for Cariboo (Mr.

[ Page 4692 ]

Fraser) referred to the Premier's performance in

introduction of this bill last night to which we're referring

at the moment. The Minister of Finance has once again

demonstrated his ignorance with regard to the whole area of

assessment and taxation. While his cheap theatrics last evening

were very impressive and good show business, they certainly

didn't have anything to do with the facts with regard to

assessment, either as it relates to Bill 71 or any other bill

before this Legislature.

It's a fact that Bill 71 had absolutely nothing whatsoever

to do with the change in taxation procedure to which the

Minister referred last night. It once again shows that he

really isn't sure of what's happening in this whole area of

assessment and should relinquish his post as Minister of

Finance for that reason.

Probably the reason that we're here at all talking about

this bill has to do with Bill 71 and these letters which we

have, and all of the other complaints which were made before

the committee. I think that because of all those complaints,

the NDP members on that committee finally got the message about

the chaos that resulted throughout this province for property

owners because of Bill 71.

They didn't believe any of these letters that we read in the

House during debate of Bill 71. They didn't believe the people

who were coming to Victoria, the apartment owners, the small

motel owners, the resort owners, people with grocery stores on

the corner, people with vacant pieces of land who hoped to

retire on that property some time in the future, all of those

people who were hit with assessment increases of 100 or 200 and

300 and 400 and 500 per cent increases. They didn't believe

them — all those service industries who operate on a margin

anyway and were knocked out of business in many instances

because of those increases in assessment caused by Bill 71.

The Members on the opposite side of the House didn't believe

it when we brought them all of these letters, when we brought

them all of these examples. Finally, when they were confronted

with them themselves, while they were sitting on this

committee, they finally got the message that Bill 71 caused a

chaotic situation all over British Columbia. They either didn't

believe or they chose to ignore the fact, because of their

blind political allegiance, of the massive display of protest

by people all over this province.

That's really where it all began and why we're in a mess

right now. That's because of Bill 71, which should never have

been implemented without recognizing that every move you make

in this complex and complicated area of taxation and assessment

will trigger a reaction somewhere along the line. Every action

brings reaction and there's no way to get around that.

What should have happened before Bill 71 was the kind of

complete study into the need for restructuring of the whole

system and not the knee-jerk reaction that we saw once again

from this government. We should have seen the kind of approach

way back in 1973 that would have showed concern for the shock

waves. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer)

talks about shock waves. My God, you never saw anything like

the shock waves that emanated around this province because of

the introduction of Bill 71, with no concern on the part of

this government for the consequences caused. The government

stormed ahead, and the taxpayer was the loser