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)

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page

4641 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Second

reading.

Mr. Curtis — 4641

Mr. Liden — 4657

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4659

Mr. Dent — 4662

Mr. Phillips — 4664

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): I move the

House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

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

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Are you leading off as the designated

speaker'!

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I was going to inform you that I am the designated

speaker on this debate at this point.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Would you like a copy of

your old speech? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

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

defer a minute?

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and

Communications): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Have you a point of order'?

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Point of order, yes. I wonder if

the Member…. He says he's the designated speaker; I wonder

if he'd care to say for which party.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: Oh, order, please! That's merely

facetious. Would the Hon. Member proceed? I apologize.

Mr. Curtis: Thank you. I was going to reply to the

Premier, Mr. Speaker, through you, briefly.

Yes, I've read my old speeches, and the one thing, Mr.

Premier, is that I'm really not prepared to live in the past,

because the situation…. As I said the other day to the

Premier, he can have his fun and it's really not going to have

that much effect.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think that it's important that we engage in some

rational debate on this bill, the Assessment Amendment Act, 1974, Bill 170,

which was introduced a few days ago and which was the subject of spirited introduction

by the Premier and Minister of Finance just before the dinner adjournment.

I have some comments with respect to those terrible

corporations who are suffering, or will be made to suffer as a

result of the NDP government. I got quite a few letters — not

from corporations, but from individuals who have experienced

grave difficulty as a result of the assessment mishmash which

started quite some time ago. I admit that, and I emphasize that

point: we have a problem which has been underway for a good

number of years in British Columbia. It is continued tinkering

Interjection.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): We're not the

Minister of mismanagement like you are.

Interjection.

An Hon. Member: Bumbling Minister. The bumbling

Minister of….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The Hon. Member is

entitled to be heard.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! You're consuming your

Hon. Member's time.

Mr. Curtis: I am the designated speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. (Laughter.) Well,

you're consuming my time.

Mr. Curtis: And the time of the House. Okay, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I'm glad somebody's

supporting me.

Mr. Curtis: A little bit of background may be helpful

before we turn to the main points at issue tonight. I notice

from Votes and Proceedings, No. 71, of this assembly of

Friday, April 5 of this year, the special committee to review

assessment procedures in British Columbia filed its report.

Page 3 of Votes and Proceedings for that date spoke

strongly about the need to return to equalized assessment for

the assessment roll of 1975 or, at the very latest, the

assessment roll for 1976.

On page 4 the committee said:

"The committee therefore strongly recommends that careful

study be undertaken into the changes in taxing procedures

necessary

[ Page 4642 ]

to ensure the equitable distribution of the real property tax

contemporaneously with the legislation which will return equalized assessment

to British Columbia. The committee realizes that such a study will be a major

undertaking and urges that it commence at the earliest moment in order that

changes with respect to assessment will not be delayed beyond the time recommended

earlier in this report,

section C(3)."

Repeating one portion of that paragraph:

"The committee realizes that such a study will be a major

undertaking, and urges that it commence at the earliest

moment……

That was April 5, Mr. Speaker, and the committee appointed

later in the spring session, for one reason or another, was not

in a position to commence its study until September 17, when it

met in Vernon with representatives of the Union of B.C.

Municipalities and, the following day, with representatives of

the B.C. School Trustees Association.

Now we could spend a great deal of time, and perhaps other

Members in this debate will ask the question: why did it take

from very early April — receiving a report and recognizing that

a problem of considerable magnitude faced this House, all

parties of this House — why did it take until the middle of

September before the committee could get down to work?

I suppose it was realized by some committee members very

early in the fall that it was not going to be possible to

complete the task assigned to it unless there was some

tremendous breakthrough, which could not be foreseen. But I

emphasize the point — identifying this as a very major problem

facing the people of British Columbia and facing this

Legislature as representatives of the people of British

Columbia — that we sat around from April 5 until September 17.

We should not lose sight of that fact: the committee did not

start soon enough.

The real tragedy of this entire property tax exercise, in my

view, is that the government did suddenly discover the

magnitude of the task, the complexities of the whole real

property assessment and taxation process, but somehow and

somewhere lost its resolve, lost its determination to carry the

job through to a logical and a fair conclusion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it's important to realize

that that wasn't the early opinion or attitude of several

government Members — indeed all members of the committee

perhaps. Just a few weeks ago when we heard expressions such as

"We have to bite the bullet"…. .

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Who said that?

Who said that?

Mr. Curtis: …and only a few days later….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Curtis: This was the attitude of government

Members in committee discussion: "We have to bite the bullet."

Yet a few days later there were words to the effect that "no

matter which way we go, we are in the glue."

There's a headline in the Vancouver Province for

October 8, page 25, Mr. Speaker, which is thus: "Barrett

Putting Brake on Tax Reform" — October 8, 1974.

" Everybody is telling the committee to slow down. Timing is

the question. The safest thing I can say is that there will not

be major shifts in taxes within the year, because that's the

obvious demand of the community through the taxation

committee."

End of quote from the Vancouver Province for that

date.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, while the municipal affairs and

housing committee was still travelling the province, still

conducting hearings, hearing representations from a variety of

organizations and individuals, the Premier and Minister of

Finance was already directing the committee.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

An Hon. Member: Interference.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Same old slippery Hugh.

Mr. Curtis: The Premier was directing the committee

through the press, giving us the message that he, as the First

Minister of the Crown in British Columbia, would not tolerate a

certain type of recommendation from the committee. Now that was

a very clearly delivered message as the committee was

struggling with a major problem.

There's another interesting couple of headlines.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister Of Health): Did you quit

then? Did you stick with it?

Mr. Curtis: No, I did not. I stayed with it all the

way through, Mr. Minister of defence — stayed with it all the

way through.

Mr. Phillips: We're not quitters like you are.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!

Mr. Curtis: Then there are just two more newspaper

stories which I would like to refer to in

[ Page 4643 ]

the opening part of these remarks.

This is the Colonist for Saturday, September 28: "Property

Tax Overhaul Heads for Chaos." This was after Mr. Wright, the

assessment commissioner, appeared before the committee on the

day previous. The subhead is: "Wright Drops Shocker, Urges

Remedy Policy This Fall or Delay in 1975 Full Value Yardstick."

That was the Colonist.

However, on the evening of September 28, the Times in

Victoria carried a headline: "Eased Home Tax Predicted by

1975." It goes through a number of points, but later in the

story it refers to the MLA for Delta (Mr. Liden), the chairman

of the committee, and it said:

"Mr. Liden today expressed surprise that Wright" — that is

Mr. Wright of the assessment authority — "had narrowed the

viable option down to one: the setting of a lower mill rate for

residential property.

"The committee respects Mr. Wright's judgment, and will give

it every consideration, but it is premature to state what the

committee's decision might be. However, we cannot go into 1975

with the status quo."

He said: "The committee will be recommending tax changes to

the Premier in November, and he was confident the government

would take speedy action."

The final quote:

"It might be an interim report, but it will recommend

changes to ease the burden on the homeowner."

An Hon. Member: Where are they'!

Interjections.

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fun back and

forth, assessment and property taxation matters are admittedly

most complicated. It was necessary, in our view, for the

government to "bite the bullet." In all probability, as I said

earlier, some Members of this House would have supported the

government in a move towards completion of the job in biting

the bullet and pushing ahead with the kinds of decisions which

were clearly necessary to overcome the inequities and the

unhappiness which became clearly evident to all committee

members during the course of our hearings from September until

very late in October.

Now, Mr. Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as you get

ready to leave for China, I hope you recognize the reality of

the situation.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you tell me that you will be

in the same party when I get back?

Mr. Curtis: I'll be here.

I hope you realize the reality of the situation. Mr.

Speaker, a return to the 1974 assessment levels is not a safe

harbour, the safe haven for the government that it may think it

is. It is not what is required urgently by the people who

experienced very drastic and dramatic property tax increases in

1974 over 1973. This is no shelter for the government.

Briefs presented to the committee this fall, as background I

would outline for you, Mr. Speaker, fell mainly into three

categories: representation from various organizations,

including the UBCM, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, B.C.

School Trustees Association, principal cities, district

municipalities, a few regional districts, chambers of commerce,

boards of trade and citizens groups. In the second category

were presentations which I think we could call academic. They

were dealing with the fundamental philosophy of property

taxation: the need for tax reform; how property tax could be

improved in British Columbia; what is wrong with the present

system as employed not only in B.C. but in other jurisdictions

as well.

But thirdly, we heard from a variety of individuals who

brought to the committee in hearings specific complaints based

on their 1974 assessments and resultant property tax bills —

the assessments which led to higher taxes in their cases.

Each member of the committee has copies of that material,

distributed through the office of the chairman, the Hon. Member

for Delta (Mr. Liden), and I believe that this House in

debating this bill should be aware of the type of complaint

which we heard; not from category 1 or category 2 but rather

from the individuals — the men and women who appeared before

the committee to cite their specific examples. The House should

hear these in order to fully appreciate the fact that passage

of this assessment amendment bill will extend those inequities

into 1975 at least.

In fact, the statement by the Finance Minister, which was

released to the press on November 4, makes it very clear that

it's quite possible these same inequities will be extended

beyond 1975, into 1976 and beyond.

The statement, I believe, was that clear, full-value

assessment will be "delayed indefinitely." So as a result, Mr.

Speaker, these difficulties will remain with us until bold

remedial action is finally taken.

So here are some of the injustices which will continue next

year due to the government's change of attitude.

An Hon. Member: When will you call an election?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Any time you're ready.

Mr. Curtis: Any time.

[ Page 4644 ]

Again, Mr. Speaker, these are selected from copies that have

been available to each member of the committee. This one is

from the Lasqueti Community Association, Lasqueti Island, dated

August 16:

"Lasqueti Island has been fighting vigorously to keep its

rural atmosphere and to stop too much development. The Islands

Trust appears to agree with the uniqueness of Lasqueti and the

aims of the islanders.

"However, the present provincial tax policy seems to be in

direct opposition to such goals. Wild or undeveloped land is

now taxed at a higher rate than residential or improved land.

Tax increases due to increased valuation have been

phenomenal.

"As a direct result of such policies, many landowners who

would prefer to keep their land undeveloped are beginning to

fear that they can no longer afford to do this. Therefore, they

must develop or sell in order to pay taxes.

"On the one hand, the government is opposed to developing

Lasqueti in the same manner as other Gulf Islands. On the other

hand, the present tax policy is forcing such development. This

is particularly true of landowners whose property consists of

separate parcels. They are taxed as improved land only on the

piece on which their house is built, but other contiguous

property is taxed at the higher wildland rate.

"We realize that such policies were intended to discourage

holding land for speculation or investment but it also forces

more and more land to be developed."

The Lasqueti Island Community Association.

Now here is one of the big corporations — the massive

international conglomerates to which the Premier alluded in his

few minutes just before the supper hour adjournment. This is a

major firm, Mr. Speaker, probably one of the largest in British

Columbia. How many, many millions of dollars would they turn

over in a year? — it's Wing's Market of 3912 Cedar Drive, Port

Coquitlam.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

An Hon. Member: A real multinational.

Mr. Curtis: And it is signed by Chung F. Wing:

"Dear Sir,

"I started a retail grocery business in 1972 at the above

address. It is one store plus living quarters. In 1973 my

property tax was $1,273.80, provincial homeowner grant

reduction was $200; net taxes came to $1,073.80.

"This year my taxes come to $2,361.14. The provincial homeowner

grant deduction is $240; net taxes $2121.14, plus water, sewer and licence.

The total comes to $2,400 for this year.

"I would like to pay my share of taxes, but I cannot afford

to pay over 100 per cent increase within a year.

"Retail grocery stores are open 12 to 14 hours every day and

make little profit. I have monthly payments to make, high

overhead, plus four children to support. If taxes don't

decrease I don't think I will be able to operate my business

for any long period."

A major corporation.

Interjections.

Mr. Curtis: Yes, it is.

An Hon. Member: Right in the Premier's own

constituency.

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, there are other categories;

we will come back to some other small businessmen a little

later. This is the Richmond Pacific 5 Branch of the Royal

Canadian Legion — again addressed to the chairman, the Member

for Delta, of the select standing committee:

"I am writing to you on behalf of 2,000 members of this

Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 5, with respect to our

assessment, the assessment of our club located at the above

address, in hopes you may be able to help us in this

matter.

"Our taxes in 1972 were $9,699. In 1973 they were $14,104

and in 1974 — $20,243.82." The letter goes on:

"There is no way we can pay these kind of taxes and carry on

with the benevolent work we do. I would say we have helped some

5,000 children in Richmond this past year by sports, Scouts,

Girl Guides, scholarships, bursaries, youth training plans,

UBC, track, and field, vocational schools, crippled children;

donations to the Richmond hamper, Salvation Army. Shaughnessy

and George Darby Hospitals. Over and above all this, we send

our senior citizens to summer camps each year.

"Our main project at the present time is our senior citizen

housing, with over 100 units in Richmond with help from both

the federal and provincial governments.

" I could go on, but what I have mentioned will give you

some idea of the work and help, plus the finances that we do. I

can assure you that there will be no way we can carry on with

the above."

[ Page 4645 ]

"We have managed to pay the taxes for 1974; however, there

is no way we can meet them next year unless we forgo our

benevolent work donations. I know there will be many

disappointed children and organizations that have been

depending on us for the past few years for our help. These

children will be running the streets as there will be no one to

sponsor them. This means more police work, and many other

problems.

"We realize there have to be taxes, but why on non-profit

organizations such as ours? At least the mill rate could be

reduced in all service clubs. Yours truly, the Royal Canadian

Legion, Richmond Branch."

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Callous

government.

Mr. Curtis: There's another one from the Royal

Canadian Legion, Branch 113 in Ashcroft, Mr. Speaker. This is

also addressed to the chairman of the committee, August 3:

"The executive committee of the Legion, Ashcroft Branch,

instructed me to request an opportunity for the principal

officers to appear before your committee to express the concern

of the branch regarding the very large increase in the 1974

property and school taxes. For last year, the municipal and

school taxes amounted to $882.70, and for 1974, we are

requested to pay $1,507.51 — an increase of $624.81. This is a

severe financial blow to this branch. We are a non-profit

organization and have had to struggle to keep our heads above

water. In spite of the assessed value increases this year, it

is noted that the municipality increased the mill rate by

approximately 2 mills while the school mill rate was lowered by

only 1 mill. The Legion building is located on lot 12, and

their adjoining lot 11 provides off-street parking, et

cetera."

Taxes in Ashcroft then for a non-profit building: $ 882 in

1973, and $1,507.00 in 1974. This is another major corporation.

These are the kind of individuals who appeared before the

committee and made it very clear that they don't consider 1974

assessment base, as set out in the assessment amendment Act, to

be of any great assistance.

Here's one from South Pender Island, from A.C. Brooks:

"In presenting you with the following comments on the above

subject, let me emphasize that I am aware of present-day trends governing B.C.

land values and cost of public services, particularly as they apply to the Gulf

Islands. I have no complaint concerning the 1974 increases in assessed values

of lands and property. I am aware of the recent tremendous increase in the cost

of public services. I consider, until 1973, the property taxes we have paid

in recent years, even if we are to ignore homeowner grants — which, incidentally,

I think to be nonsensical except for those property owners who are on welfare

or old-age pensioners — are extremely low.

"I own two parcels of land on South Pender Island. One of

these — three unimproved waterfront lots, 10 acres in all on

Gowland Point — has been in my possession since 1950. The other

154 acres in the centre of the Island was purchased by my

mother in 1949. On the corner of the latter, I built my home in

1964. For 1973, the taxes on the Gowland Point property were

just over $200. For 1974, they rocketed to $606. This I

consider to be an exorbitant and unjustified rise, and I'm left

with no other option than to sell out in the next year or two.

I should like to sell it to a private buyer at the current

inflated real estate prices. This would in turn possibly mean

not only would the taxes increase for the new owners, but so

would those on neighbouring lots which are currently owned

mostly by people with only modest means.

"Let me point out I have kept this Gowland Point property

literally as a private park. It is unposted; both strangers and

neighbours use it for recreation, and one neighbour pastures

ponies on it. This past summer, I estimate between 300 and 400

people have used the land for recreational purposes —

waterfront with hinterland open to the public. Let me mention

it is at a premium on these islands.

"At least once or twice a week my family and I visit this

land to stroll and observe marine life. The 1974 taxes for my

154 acres in the centre of the island were $941. This is more

than double what they were for the previous year. My home cost

me about $16,000 to build, ignoring the many hours of work I've

spent improving this land. I spent approximately $1,500

improving the environs about the house. The remaining 150 acres

I've left wild and unfenced.

"Twenty-five years ago this land was logged over

drastically. The scars of the logging have healed, and while

there is a fair amount of marketable timber still standing, I

am adverse — unless I could have strict selective logging which

I believe is uneconomic and unprocurable in this day and age —

to harvest this timber, as it represents a relic of the mature

woodland that once covered these islands. As a conservationist,

I wish to preserve this land as it is."

Another example, Mr. Speaker, of the many

[ Page 4646 ]

presentations made to the committee earlier this fall, where

the owners say quite simply: "We happen to own several acres, a

large number of acres of wild land, and we cannot hold on to

the land. We shall have to sell it to speculators or to those

who can afford to wait." Here is another one from Galiano

Island. This is a Mr. Stephen Enke:

"The following statement indicates perhaps that private

ownership of undeveloped wild land may be socially desirable

and therefore should not be diminished by punitive taxation

based on the belief that such owners are hoarders and

speculators. In my case, I own 80 acres on the north side of

Active Pass and five acres on the north side of Sturdies, Bay,

both on Galiano Island. The reason I have not developed the 80

acres on Active Pass is that I wish to conserve the virgin

timber and natural state of this property. The adjoining

bluffs, immediately to the west, were given by my parents to

the Galiano Association — a property that is now called Bluffs

Park — and located there is a small memorial to my parents.

Like them, I wish to prevent the north shore of Active Pass

from being spoiled through logging or clearings for numerous

homes. Accordingly, I have held this property as undeveloped

land and paid taxes on it for many years.

"My taxes this year tripled. My ownership means paying taxes

to educate children I have never seen, and to preserve

beautiful scenery for people going through Active Pass on the

ferries. I would be more than happy for the province to

purchase this property at a fair price, combine it with Bluffs

Park, and thereby form an adequately-protected provincial park.

The point is that I am not holding this land to make a

financial killing — quite the opposite. I have no way of

realizing money from this property, except through a sale or

development that would impair the beauty of a shoreline that

several thousand people see daily.

"The five acres on Sturdies Bay are not now developed,

although I did drill a well there last year, because it makes

no sense for me to build a retirement home there until I retire

in two years' time. The point is visited by many people staying

at Galiano Lodge, or waiting for the ferry. Given the sort of

people who come over from Vancouver to Galiano and camp around

and about, an empty home with furniture would invite vandalism.

There is no one on Galiano with police authority, even as a

deputy, to make trespassers move on. Our taxes really buy us no

police or fire protection.

"These two properties have been in my family for over 60

years, and I acquired them at a fair price from my father shortly after World

War II. When I die or sell these properties, there will be a capital gains tax.

Meanwhile, these parcels of undeveloped land occasion no expensive government

services which, last, should surely be financed from taxes on structures and

improvements rather than on wilderness land."

So the man has attempted to hold his property on Galiano

Island as an attractive part of British Columbia, and his taxes

this year tripled.

We're back to Port Coquitlam. I don't recall, in going

through all the correspondence, singling out that particular

part of British Columbia. This is from 1221 Pitt River Road,

addressed to the chairman — amendments to the Tax Equalization

Act, unoccupied land:

"The Premier has stated that 13 per cent of the people

affected by this Act are actually innocent victims of the Act

and therefore are unjustly taxed. If this is so, and if such

land was purchased, and is presently held for the sole use of

the owner and not for the purpose of selling or subdividing,

then a way must be found to correct this injustice of

skyrocketing taxes.

"I would like to deal specifically with one parcel of land

located in Surrey — eight acres purchased in 1945. Improvements

at that time included a small house and barn; the taxes were

$14. A few years ago, one acre was subdivided from the original

eight, and was registered in the owner's wife's name. This

action was taken strictly as a family security measure in the

event that something may or could happen to the husband. There

was never any intention of selling this, or any other part of

the property.

"Here are the figures showing tax payments since 1970: 1970,

eight acres, $86.98; 1972, the one acre, $107.55, the seven

acres, $449.97; and in 1974, the one acre parcel had risen from

$119.27 in 1972 to $353.30, while the seven acres had gone up

to $474.67.

"As shown, the taxes of the seven-acre parcel are somewhat

stabilized and, though high, may be acceptable. There is,

however, no justification whatsoever for the unreasonable

increase on the one acre of unoccupied land. The total taxes

this year, $827.67, have become such a burden to the owners

that they will have no choice but to sell part or all of this

land. If this happens, the land will become just another chess

piece in the hands of speculators for the sole purpose of

profiteering." The letter continues:

"I ask you, is this justice? Is this part of the platform

on which this government was elected? Having some knowledge of the socialist

principles regarding land ownership, I

[ Page

4647 ]

nevertheless maintain that this land was legally purchased and

that taxes have been paid yearly, according to demand. Therefore the owners

of such land are fully entitled to own land and use what is rightfully theirs

without being forced to sell because of unreasonable taxes. If this government

wants this land, or if it for any reason wants the present owners removed from

or deprived of the use of this land, then they, the government, should say so

and should not by any devious means of taxation force the owners to part with

what is legally theirs.

"If there is a way to enact laws such as this, and obviously

there is, then there must also be a way of correcting

injustices created by such laws. I hope you will find a way to

resolve this problem."

The thread running through so many of these letters, Mr.

Speaker, as you will have gathered thus far, is: "We will have

no choice but to sell; we cannot hold on to the land." And who

will buy? Well, probably, perhaps, the government may buy and,

in some instances, the government would be well advised to

purchase this land — not through punitive taxation but through

direct negotiation, negotiation with the owners. That's the way

to add to the parkland and greenbelt which this province

requires. This one is from North Vancouver:

"Dear Sir, Recently we heard Premier Barrett on the radio. He mentioned

your name and also that you are on the committee to do with

retirement homes, small homes that people have worked for all

their lives. If this is so, I hope you can help us with some

information — as we hear rumours that no one seems to know too

much about — how the government can aid us at this time.

"I retire as a bus driver from Hydro in the next year; I am

59 years old. We have a 75-ft. lot on Quadra Island where we

have built ourselves a small cabin, and when I say we built it,

I mean just that. My wife and I have hauled beams off the

beach, cut our own cedar shakes, mixed our cement by hand, and

the two of us have accomplished a great deal with sweat and a

few tears, but mostly joy.

"We have been told that our taxes will be so high that we

will be tossed off our property, and this concerns us. We are

starting to build on to the cabin or start a little larger

place to retire to next year. We do want to know what is the

best thing for us to do.

"We own two lots, waterfront lots 21 and 22, together 150

feet, and 140 feet deep. A road cuts across the back of our property. Would

it be any advantage to us to join the two lots and have it turned into just

one tax instead of two separate lots?

"Are there any grants for people like us who are trying to

build ourselves a nice, comfortable home to enjoy for our later

years? Does the home acquisition grant apply to us? Would it

pay us to defer taxes? Please let us know if there is any way

in which there is some help. We don't want to lose the property

because of higher taxes.

"We plan on having our own vegetable garden, cut our wood

from the beach and try to be as self-sufficient as possible. We

hope you can give us some information on our problem. We see a

retirement home going out to sea or down the drain."

Down the drain. This as a result of what happened in

assessments and what is intended now to happen again in

This one is from White Rock:

"Enclosed are photocopies of items I've received concerning

lease property that I have at Young Lake, which is 34 miles

east of 70 Mile House in the Cariboo. This property can only be

reached by driving 24 miles on dirt road. We're at an elevation

of 3,050 feet, have no electricity, water or other services.

Due to climatic conditions, distance from White Rock and the

fact that no working man gets more than one to two months a

year holiday, the maximum use we can get at the lake is about

two months per year.

"I feel that the raise of over 400 per cent in our lease

rental is exorbitant, when one hears that other rental

increases…."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Is that leased property?

Mr. Curtis: This is leased property. Well, I haven't

finished the letter.

An Hon. Member: Where's your 10.6 per cent increase

on leased property, eh?

Mr. Curtis: Okay, I've got many more. If it disturbs

you….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Curtis: The Minister of Finance may have a

point.

Mr. Speaker: I really think that we should deal with

matters of assessed value in relation to fee simple

property.

Mr. Curtis: The point is well taken. Thank you,

[ Page 4648 ]

Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sure the Hon. Member recognizes

that.

Interjections.

Mr. Curtis: This one is from…. Well, someone from

the left here, Mr. Speaker, said: "It's better than reading

letters." We received hundreds of letters, Mr. Member, as the

committee well knows, hundreds of letters from individuals who

are extremely unhappy with the situation in which they find

themselves. I have tried to select just a few which are

representative of those which came before the committee, or

which were made available to the committee. This one is

addressed to the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown)

as a member of the committee, I assume:

"I'm writing this to protest and also to ask your help in

correcting this unjust and iniquitous property tax which I am

compelled to pay on my recreational lot on Gabriola Island.

Since purchasing this property, I have paid more taxes than

others with similar property on the island, but I have never

complained until now.

"On receipt of my assessment notice, I lodged an appeal, but

because the appeal hearing was to be held in Nanaimo on a

weekday, it placed too great a financial burden on me, and

therefore I could not appear.

"When we elected the NDP to office, I felt that at last we

had a people-oriented government, one that would protect the

interest of the little man. On the introduction of the land

Act, I was sure that my tax assessment would be more realistic.

Instead, my taxes have been doubled, while again similar

properties are paying less than 1. My neighbour has been

charged $28 less on an empty lot like mine and $36 less on

another lot next to mine on which there is also a cabin. How

can this be so?"

Then it goes on to deal with the land Act, and once again

there is the thread through here;

"With this lot in question I was hoping to put up a cabin so

that when I retire I will have a place to enjoy some peace and

tranquility, but with taxes such as this, I shall have no

alternative but to sell."

And the Xerox copies of the tax notices were enclosed.

The Terrace Ratepayers' Association:

" In July of 1974 the taxpayers of Terrace formed a ratepayers'

association. Many people were upset with the method of assessment and the high

increase of taxes. A committee was formed to submit a brief to the Select Standing

Committee on Municipal Matters in your review of real property taxation. The

following are some of our views on how this area could be improved:

1. Equalization of assessment rates. Bill 71 is not fair to

the public. We feel that all assessments should be made at the

same rate regardless of zoning. With business and industry

being assessed at a higher rate than residential we see two

things happening: either the extra tax load will be passed on

to the consumer, or the businesses will be forced to close

their doors. We feel that neither of the above was intended by

the Legislature.

2. The vacant land Act should be amended or rescinded. This

act penalizes many people who own two adjacent lots using the

same for one purpose, i.e. (1) home and garden, (2) business

and parking lot. We feel that land in this category should be

assessed as one parcel of land, not as an occupied lot and a

vacant lot." We'll have other examples of this, Mr. Speaker,

I'm sure.

" In the case of other vacant land extra taxes will once

again be passed on to the purchaser, leaving the burden of

taxes on the consumer once again.

3. Assessment on rezoned property. This association feels

that rezoned land should not be reassessed until such time as

the rezoned property is used for the rezoned purpose.

4. Unorganized and organized areas. The people in Terrace

pay very high taxes providing such services as schools,

hospitals and recreation centres. The people in Thornhill

unorganized residential area have a much lower tax base and yet

are using the services of Terrace. We would like to see this

tax base equalized.

5. Municipal powers: this association feels that the

assessment method should be the same for the whole province.

The provincial government should have some control over

municipal zoning and subdividing or, at least, the taxpayer

should have a chance to appeal to the provincial

government.

"We feel the present method of taxation penalizes taxpayers

who make improvements on their property. We hope the government

will look into this problem to find a solution that will reward

rather than penalize these taxpayers."

This one was written for Miguel Aguirre of Graham Avenue in

Terrace:

"In response to the above notice," - that is the

notice of public hearing by the committee

[ Page 4649 ]

- "We should like to advise that on our 50 acres of agricultural

land, used for potato crops, our taxes went up by $2,451 since 1973.

"This property has always been used for the growing of

potatoes, and still is. We find it hard to understand why our

taxes should have gone up so drastically. We realize that all

costs have gone up over the past year, but certainly not by a

margin of 319 per cent.

"We should appreciate any help you can give us in order to

bring these taxes down to a more realistic level, also, if

possible, to have any such reduction, if obtained, made

retroactive for 1974 taxes."

Well, here's the B.C. Federation of Labour, Mr. Speaker,

again for the chairman and the committee:

"The B.C. Federation of Labour is pleased the government of

British Columbia is reviewing real property taxation, and is

pleased to take this opportunity to state briefly our views on

the subject.

"There can be little doubt that the present municipal tax

structures place an unfair burden of taxation on those

taxpayers in the middle and lower income scales. This results

from the fact that the present tax structure ignores entirely

the principle of ability to pay.

"We hope the government shares our view that this kind of

regressive tax structure is undesirable and should be reformed.

Any measures taken by this government to alleviate this

situation would naturally, therefore, enjoy the support of our

federation.

"Specifically, we propose that the government transfer the

primary burden of taxation from owner-occupied residential

property and farm property to income-generating properties. We

propose that corporate-held property be taxed at generally

higher rates than at present, and that land held for

speculative purposes be subject to a new, anti-inflationary

excessive profits tax.

"The government has, in reviewing real property taxation in

B.C., an opportunity to help dampen the fires of inflation by

acting to make land speculation one of the chief factors in

rising housing costs less profitable, and therefore less

widespread. We hope the government will move decisively in this

area."

Mr. Speaker, I think members of the committee will

recall this case. This was a lady who appeared before the

committee in Victoria, although she owns property in the

Cowichan Lake district, and the letter was written from

Vancouver. The lady broke down in tears during her appearance,

and the letter concerns lots 11 and 12, block 78-1790 Cowichan

Lake.

"Attached herewith are our tax receipts for the above-mentioned

lots reflecting the unreasonable escalation in the past two years. I bought

this piece of property because we are hoping to retire there and have a small

shack there. My husband and I are ready to settle there but now find that it

will cost us approximately $85 a month for this privilege.

"Considering that there are no services, lighting or water,

and no fire protection, in that the road is non-existent, I

herewith wish to apply for a reassessment.

"If the purpose of this assessment is to get us to sell to

some promoter, then you are going about it the right way.

'Yours very truly,' — signed — Mrs. John MacKay."

"If the purpose of this assessment is to get us to sell to some promoter, then

you are going about it the right way," and this is the 1974 assessment formula

which is to be extended into 1975. This is another letter from Vancouver regarding

property in Langley:

"I own 3.54 acres there. When these two lots, 1 and 2,

belonged to my dad for the past 60 years, the taxes on these

two lots, which were taxed as one, were approximately $175 to $190 a year.

"After my dad's and mother's death it was left to my brother

and myself, then we had it transferred — lot 2 into his name

and lot 1 into my name. By doing this the taxes in 1971 were

$143 which made an increase in taxes more than 25 or 30 per

cent.

"With your land equalization Act, the assessment was

increased 2.5 times, which increased my taxes to $475.22.

"Your land equalization Act is a good thing in many ways,

but it certainly is not fair or equal under this Act. For one

thing, I cannot class it as a farm because it is under five

acres. I cannot subdivide because Langley will not let anyone

subdivide under five acres. No relief from taxation because I

can't put four cattle over one year old on it, plus one acre

with residence for farm classification. Also it is under the

greenbelt area. It is too small to farm to make a living on it;

I cannot subdivide or put it to commercial use. The only thing

I can do with it is build a house on it for myself. You tell me

what I can do with it under those conditions and these higher

taxes."

And the end of the letter:

"If you don't do something about Bill 71 in the near future

you sure will lose a large volume of votes in the next

election. With a new government in, it will probably change

this for the smaller landowner, so you people might as well do

something about it very soon."

Earlier we talked about the Royal Canadian

[ Page 4650 ]

Legion, and this is another non-profit organization

represented before the committee by Mrs. F.J. Willavoys, who

lives at 1060 San Marino Crescent, in the greater Victoria

area:

"On behalf of the Victoria United

Chapter Society I

respectfully request that a grant be made in lieu of taxes on

lot 1,

section 8 1, Victoria district plan 20961.

"Our society consists of the members of four chapters of the

Order of the Eastern Star. For many years our meetings were

held in the Knights of Pythias hall, Cormorant Street,

Victoria. Upon demolition of this hall, we were forced to seek

other facilities. Having foreseen the possibility of this

happening we banded together in 1959 to make every effort to

obtain our own building.

"On November 27, 1961, we were duly incorporated under the

title of the Victoria

Chapter Society. Through the means of

teas, bazaars, luncheons, dinners, fashion shows, rummage sales

and personal donations, we were, in May, 1973, able to acquire

a building known as 3281 Harriet Road, Saanich, which was owned

by the Parkdale Free Evangelical Church. The taxes at that time

were $71.20." And the letter goes on to outline the programmes

which are undertaken by this organization of ladies — scholastic

contributions, cancer research, cancer dressing stations, the

Irma Boyce Library, Save the Children Fund, and so on. Good

works within the province and outside.

"The building is used four times a month by the

International Order of Job's Daughters, girls aged from 14 to

20 years. We keep the rental charge at $7.50."

As stated above, Mr. Speaker, the taxes on the building at

the time of purchase, that was in 1973, were $71.21. This year

they were $1,016.12. That is $71 to $1,016. The letter

concludes:

"We do not feel that our membership can cope with heavy

taxation without curtailing our contributions to the named

projects and to the detriment of those members 65 years of age

and over, to our young people, and still play a part within our

community."

Mr. Speaker, in case it is thought that I am misleading the

House, I am reading from a copy of a letter which was actually

addressed to the greater Victoria municipality with respect to

a grant, as the letter stated at the outset. A similar letter

was presented before the committee, and when the

representative, Mrs. Willavoys, appeared, she made it clear

that the tax increase was as has been stated. But I would not

want to leave the impression that I was actually reading from

the letter which went to the committee.

1061 East 57th Ave., Vancouver — this is to the Surveyor of Taxes, Parliament

Buildings, Victoria, with reference to the assessment district Vernon, lots

29, 30 and 31; district lot 3945, plan 7720:

"We are but working people, raising five children and trying

to look ahead to retirement. This piece of property" — that is,

in the Vernon area — "was purchased recently so that in 1972

taxes were $174.23. The 1973 taxes were $182.40, and now for

1974, taxes are $414.01.

"Seeing as I am a housewife, how is one to be able to pay

taxes of this sort out of one's income? This is a formal

application for a reduction. "

A direct result of assessment increases on vacant land —

from $174 in 1972 to $414 in 1974.

I won't read the rest of the letter because it deals,

really, with the fact that this lady encountered the assessor,

had some comments to make and received some in return.

Let me use as a microcosm my immediate neighbourhood. This

letter is from 46 West King Edward Avenue, addressed again to

the chairman of the committee, from Mrs. W. Milbourne:

"My neighbourhood is made up of people who have lived here

for 15, 24 and 34 years — working class or small business people

- who bought their homes at a cost of $3,000 to $15,000, with

lot costs being $400.

"We are not moving types, being neither speculators nor

opportunists wanting to cash in on high market prices. We have

seen two money-grabbing types sell for cash at prices of

$68,000 to $80,000.

"Why should we, who are mostly all at retirement age on

fixed incomes, have to pay taxes on this inflated market value?

This injustice is also reflected in the rise of natural gas,

electricity, salaries and services. When will it all stop?

Will we be taxed out of existence, or will someone finally

realize the stupidity of basing taxation on inflated, usurious

times?"

The Malaspina Ratepayers Association in Powell River — their

submission undated, but received fairly recently:

"The Malaspina Ratepayers Association hereby responds to

your request for a submission on real property taxation.

"These opinions as gathered from the directors of the

ratepayers are diverse, but representative of the general

feeling.

"A landowner holding his land for future generations, and

not for development, should have some form of tax concession.

The conservation plan for leaving the land to the benefit of

wilderness would be sworn to by affidavit. If at some later

time subdivision was done, the landowner would be retroactively

penalized for the full amount.

[ Page 4651 ]

"If assessments are raised to market value, the mill rate

should be reduced on a formula basis. School taxes should be

raised through means other than against real property.

"Existing taxation levied against industry, tree farms and

forest reserves should be thoroughly reviewed.

"An owner making home improvements should not be penalized

by increased taxes. However, if the improved property is sold,

the new owner would pay on the basis of the assessed value.

"As we and the Powell River regional district believe in a

slow-growth policy, owners of unused land must not be

penalized."

This one was addressed to me, Mr. Speaker, but it went to

the committee, I believe. 1650 Allison Road, Vancouver:

"This is with reference to the assessment increase on my

Saturna Island property. I wish to thank you for the

information about the general mill rate; also the copy of the

legislative committee report on assessment procedures.

"Unlike most municipalities which set the mill rate after

determining budget requirements, the provincial government has

declined to reduce the general mill rate on Saturna Island" —

and incidentally, throughout the province in unorganized areas

- "and has increased the public schools mill rate.

Consequently, my tax bill on this unimproved lot has increased

from $40.99 in 1973 to $137.84 in 1974, a jump of 236 per cent.

Copies of my tax notice are attached.

"If the government intends to assess unoccupied residential

property on a different basis than occupied property, it does

result in an unequal tax burden which should be investigated by

the standing committee. In cases such as mine, the government

could specify a period of time in which to improve the

property, and later grant a rebate of the higher tax paid due

to the unimproved status of the land to that date.

"However, this problem could be avoided if all residential

lots were assessed on the same basis, regardless of

occupancy."

That was from Mr. E.R. Boyce.

This letter was from 3013 Heather Street, Vancouver:

"We are writing to you with regard to the recent increase in

the assessment of a piece of property which we own on the

Saanich peninsula as a result of legislation enacted by the NDP

government. We feel this increase is unjustified and

unwarranted, and that some attempt should be made to rectify

the situation.

"We purchased the property in June, 1973, after a lengthy

search, with the intention of building a permanent home on it.

It is 3.7 acres in size and lies at the north junction of West

Saanich Road and Old West Road. It is very rocky, and thus

unsuitable for cultivation. At present there are no

improvements on it. It is good for nothing more than

single-family dwelling residential use because of the

topography and the five-acre minimum subdivision."

And this is moving down in the letter, after indicating that

there was 150 per cent increase in the assessment and,

presumably, also their taxes:

"Further, because of the tax increases, we are tempted to

sell our property and make as high a profit as possible in

doing so. Surely this was not the intent of the legislation.

Again, perhaps we should sell the property."

Now, Mr. Speaker, may we move on to some small business

firms — I had a couple at the start. Thank you for your

patience as I quote these examples.

This is from Olympic Motors Ltd., Campbell River, dated July

24 of this year, and signed by L.R. Guidi:

- In response to your advertisement in the press, we submit

the following views regarding the increase in the taxation

leveled on small business.

"As an example, our taxation for 1973 was $1,388 against

$4,616 for 1974, which represents an increase of 200 per cent

over the 1973 figures."

An Hon. Member: How much?

Mr. Curtis: It was $1,388.37 in 1973 and $4,616.02

this year. Then it sets out who owns the property and the

respective increases which were summarized there:

"In all, a total decrease in working capital as a result of

increased property taxation totaling $4,959.51. Surely this is

just a little hard to swallow, never mind for marginal business

like ourselves, but for anyone in right mind.

"Our position is simply, what with overhead and labour and

the cost of doing business as it applies in this day and age,

one cannot surely accept many increases such as this unfair tax

increase without firstly becoming very annoyed, and secondly,

selling his business and becoming a recluse.

"We believe that many marginal concerns would and have been

affected and swayed by this extremely high increase in taxation

as it relates to property used for business."

There's the answer from a small firm in Campbell River.

[ Page 4652 ]

This one is from Al Nichol of Allington Street in Duncan,

quoting in part….

Interjection.

Mr. Curtis: I'm sorry the letters tire you but

Interjection.

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, through you, a number of

people saw fit to send these letters to the committee….

Mr. Speaker: Well, may I point out to the Hon. Member

that the purpose of debate in second reading is to really

establish the basic principle or position that you wish to take

on the handling of a particular problem before the house

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please…and not really

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

There is no such message as the Hon. Member is inferring,

and no way would I accept messages of that sort from

anyone.

If anyone has any complaints about procedure, you make them

openly in this House, so far as I'm concerned. And then we'll

discuss it between us.

On this question, though, you are apparently relating all

the evidence that occurred before committee.

Mr. Curtis: Not all of it, by any means.

Mr. Speaker: Well, you're certainly relating a lot of

it.

The question really is how you relate what you are saying to

the general principles of a bill, and coming down to some

summation of position so we know exactly what the debate is

about.

As I see it now, we're hearing about the plights of

individuals, and that has been going on steadily for about

three-quarters of an hour.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It may well do. But the question one

must address himself to, as I see it, with respect, is what

position the Members take on the general principle of the bill,

either for or against, or in between or anywhere.

Mr. Curtis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the

observation, and I will cut short the reading of letters.

But you did make, I think, my point very well, that these

are letters from individuals who are very upset and unhappy

about assessment increases in 1974.

Mr. Speaker: I gathered that.

Mr. Curtis: With respect to the unidentified Member

who said "tedious" — yes, the business of serving people is

tedious, but we have many, many unhappy citizens in this

province, and if it's tedious to deal with them, then that is

unfortunately.

I will ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, because the next

letter — and I won't read all of it — I think, highlights the

kind of problem which is encountered in small business.

This one comes from Miracle Beach Resort, Black Creek,

Vancouver Island:

"On behalf of a number of upper Vancouver Island resort

owners" — and there are some 25 or 30 resorts listed.

"The effects of assessment equalization tax…since our

summer resorts have an average business season of 67 days at

100 per cent occupancy, we cannot possibly absorb the expected

tax increases represented by the intent of Bill 71. The vast

majority of resort owners, because of their short season, live

at a marginal level of profitability.

"We will be forced to increase our rates to tourists by

proportional amounts, or sell our properties to real estate

investors, which will result in much of our province's

recreational land becoming the private property of a few

individuals."

Is this — departing from the letter — what the government

sought, Mr. Speaker, with this change and change about in

assessment legislation? Then it goes on to point out that many

of the clients are British Columbians who, for one reason or

another, cannot or do not travel further afield for their

holidays and that this is a major industry.

I'm sure that members of the committee will recall, as I do,

the marginal profitability in the resource business which was

set out in four examples: No. 1, a net profit for the year of

$800; No. 2, a net loss for the year of $300; No. 3, a net loss

of $ 1,000, and resort No. 4 broke even — no profit or loss to

report. But the case was very well made by those upper

Vancouver Island resort owners that increased assessments,

which the Premier told us before dinner this evening were

certainly going to get the big fish, had caught many little

fish at the same time.

Anchor Bay Marina, Port Alberni, was another example, but I

will pass on to make a few more observations. Hopefully other

Members who participate will find it possible, Mr. Speaker, to

refer to the type of letter which I've documented over the past

few minutes.

[ Page 4653 ]

We even received one from the Lochiel NDP Club in Langley

which said in part:

"We assumed that the ugly legacies inherited from the simplicity of Bill 71 will be examined thoroughly

and that a number of humane amendments will be recommended in

your report to the provincial Legislature. Our club recommends

that provision be made for a tax credit, not rebate, to those

who have been overtaxed in 1974."

Well now, Mr. Speaker, in deference to your remarks earlier,

those are just a few of the difficulties which face this

government, face this Legislature and face also the assessment

authority, municipal and provincial tax collectors. I can see

nothing in the bill which indicates that the government is

geared to cope with correcting these injustices and hardships

to which the committee referred, and to which I've referred in

the past few minutes.

Again, the statement released by the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Barrett) — prepared by perhaps Mr. McNelly, I don't

know — read in opening second reading debate late this

afternoon, made no reference as to how the assessment

commissioner is to "reduce assessments on properties where it

can be shown that disparities exist." In the absence of

full-value assessment and a basic formula for taxing various

classes of property, that job, Mr. Speaker, will require a task

force all on its own.

I have to point out, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Finance, in case he isn't aware of it, that it's

vital to recognize that there are approximately 800,000

individual pieces of property in British Columbia — roughly

one-third in the provincially administered area, or unorganized

area, as they're called. Another third is in metropolitan

Vancouver, metropolitan Victoria, and the balance is in the

smaller cities, districts, municipalities and towns throughout

B.C.

Now, Mr. Speaker, assume for just a moment that only 5 per

cent of the total number of properties or folios were dealt

with inequitably in the 1974 assessment year. Assume it was

just 5 per cent. Well, that represents a staggering total of

40,000 separate cases to be reviewed during 1975.

Now I thought the Minister of Finance might say: "Oh, that's

an unreasonably high figure." Am I unfairly high in that 5 per

cent estimate? Okay, Mr. Speaker, then we cut it in half.

That's 2.5 per cent of the total properties in the province

coming under this inequity, injustice, hardship category.

That's still 20,000 individual cases to be reviewed in a single

taxation year, each one requiring reference to the assessment

commissioner for his office's review, and then, I would think,

in most cases a definite on-site reappraisal.

The assessor or the appraiser could not sit in his office

and say: "No, I stand by what I said earlier."

He would have to make the trip, whether it's a matter of a

few blocks or a few miles, to determine if the valuation should

stand or be revised.

These cannot be handled by classes of property. Bill 170

prohibits that particular approach. These will come from the

least expected and strangest angles and will bear little

similarity one to the other. As a result it will be necessary

to review them on a one-by-one-by-one basis — 20,000 individual

cases to review, if I'm low in my estimates — apart from all

the other day-to-day work of the assessment commissioner, the

authority and the appraisers in the field.

Mr. Speaker, you will realize that that amounts to 80

specific investigations required all over B.C. for every single

working day of the calendar year, and that says nothing about

the regular work that must go on — the reappraisal, the

checking of new construction, rezoning, whatever it may be.

That's 80 individual cases, if I am low in my estimate. It may

well be 160.

So that little paragraph in the press release issued by the

Minister of Finance really doesn't solve the problem, and I

hope that not too many property owners in British Columbia are

soothed by it.

It's also accurate at this point, Mr. Speaker, to say that

there is an overall shortage of appraisers in the province

today, at least among those who are engaged in the public

sector by the assessment authority. One figure that I've heard

indicates that the staff shortage could be as high as 50 per

cent of its total requirements. These are the individuals to

whom the assessment commissioner will have to turn when he is

reviewing the many "obvious inequities" to which the Minister

referred in his press release which accompanied Bill 170.

So not only are there going to be 80, 100, 120 individual

cases to be referred to the appraisers, but they are going to

be referred to an organization which is admittedly

short-staffed as it is.

Once again we have a simple phrase used by the government to

ease the fears of those who are unhappy about their present

property tax situation, but with no realistic understanding of

the size, the magnitude of the task involved.

Mr. Speaker, I fear that the assessment commissioner is

destined to meet the same kind of fate as the rentalsman, God

rest his soul. As a totally unrealistic reference to him to

investigate hardship cases, does the government fully

appreciate the chaos which could arise from this whole problem?

How many phone lines will he have jammed in his office — the

assessment commissioner — 20, 40, 80? What will be his terms of

reference? They haven't been spelled out. At what point will he

become involved in reviewing individual cases — early, before

they go to court of revision or the appeal board, or

afterwards? It simply isn't spelled out. I suppose it will be

the

[ Page 4654 ]

subject of some Band-aid legislation in the spring.

Will the assessment commissioner, Mr. Wright, be known as

the "assessments man" and are we headed for the same confusion

and trouble that has arisen in the landlord-tenant

relationship'?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to try to get the point across to the

Minister of Finance, if that is possible, with respect to the

1974 roll which you've now decided to extend into 1975. I

checked with the assessment department in Saanich on the

question of appeals to the court of revision during the past

three years. I don't know that Saanich would be any worse or

any better than a similar district municipality of 65,000 to

70,000.

Here is what happened in Saanich, Mr. Speaker, and you will

realize that there are two school districts involved in this

particular district municipality. In 1972 there were 133

appeals to the court of revision. Now many of those did not go

on to the assessment appeal board. Nonetheless, in 1972 there

were 133 individual appeals. In 1973 the figure dropped

drastically to 55, and in 1974, 429. This is the assessment

base which we're staying with for 1975. That's an increase of

eight times, roughly, in the number of appeals at court of

revision in the Municipality of Saanich for 1974, when compared

with 1973, because of a lousy roll.

It has been stated in the committee hearings that it is "a

lousy assessment roll," Mr. Speaker. No reference to the

dining-room here.

Interjections.

Mr. Curtis: Well, I guess you wondered. The Hon.

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

also served on this taxation committee — that is the municipal

affairs committee of the Legislature — presented some excellent

thoughts to the committee when it was deliberating its final

report.

I'm not going to intrude into the many points covered in his

summary, with one exception. Would you like me to read them

all? It was an excellent report. It's too bad that it wasn't

adopted. The quote is:

"It was obvious to the committee that the increases in the assessed values of properties taxed

pursuant to the Taxation Act in 1974 resulted in many large and

unwarranted increases in tax. Repetition of this cannot be

justified."

What the government proposes by way of Bill 170 is

to do just that — to permit many large and unwarranted

increases in property tax to continue next year. That fact is

to be regretted, in our view, as it most certainly will leave

many properties, Mr. Speaker, in the same difficult

circumstances which were experienced this year. The quotations

are there for everyone to read in the Hansard report of our

committee hearings.

In a clumsy effort to fully and effectively tax wealthy

landowners, corporations, speculators and holding companies,

this government has snared thousands of individual owners, the

kind of people I read about in the letters which taxed your

patience. The majority of these people cannot by any stretch of

the imagination be classified as speculators or foreign

absentee profiteers or holding company investors. In fact, the

1974 assessment mess — and it is that — resulting in

significantly higher taxes on vacant land, even adjoining lots,

is forcing these very British Columbians, Mr. Speaker, these

people who have held land for a long time in small parcels,

it's forcing them into the arms of the wealthy, the waiting

arms of the holding companies, the speculators, those who can

afford to ride out the storm.

It has happened with other legislation in the past two

years. Those whom you want to help, Mr. Premier and Minister of

Finance, are hurt as a result of your actions.

There is another aspect of the whole question which I find

puzzling, and it is an annoyance, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps when

they participate in this debate the chairman of the committee,

the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), and the secretary, the Hon.

Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), will explain to the House why

at some point apparently they were the only members of the

committee to meet with the members of the assessment authority.

This occurred about three to three-and-a-half weeks ago.

Now this is apparently the case, and I emphasize that point.

But the assessment authority thought that they were en route to

Victoria to meet with the full committee, or at least a broad

representation of the committee, but rather they ended up

meeting with the chairman and the secretary. At least two

members of the authority came to the meeting with the

expectation that they might be able to assist all members of

the committee in discussing this question.

This sudden about-face, I think it has to be realized, has

put the assessment authority in a very difficult position,

because they were very active following their appointments in

the spring, after the legislation was introduced. They were

putting things in motion for full-value assessment. They were

enthusiastic, and their enthusiasm was transmitted to

appraisers and assessors around the province.

The legislation, Bill 151,

section 24(

l) said: "Land and

improvements shall be assessed at their actual value." That was

the legislation until this session, and the assessors, Mr.

Speaker, responded to that new law. Many of them went around

B.C. In a special effort, including hours of overtime at public

expense through July, August, September and October, to

[ Page

4655 ]

achieve full valuation on their individual assessment rolls.

And now with about six working weeks — being generous about it,

six to seven working weeks left in the year — they are told

that the government has changed its mind. The government and

government members of the committee obviously did not see the

wisdom in proceeding with full valuation for 1975.

If there was to be a problem we could have had a factoring

downward of these rolls for taxation purposes. It could have

been very easily achieved. In other words, Mr. Speaker, print

up all the property at 100 per cent valuation, full valuation,

as has been the law and as the appraisers and assessors were

actively doing, and then apply 25 or 30 or 35 per cent of that

full, equalized assessment for 1975.

Mr. Speaker, this 1974 assessment roll has been identified

by more than one person as one of the worst in the history of

the province, and it is to be repeated in 1975. It need not

have been retained.

Mr. Speaker: May I just intervene to say that for

quite some time the Hon. Member has been reading from very

copious notes. I'm just wondering how near the bottom of the

pile he has reached.

An Hon. Member: What's going on here?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I'll tell you what's going on. It's

against the rules of this House to read speeches in the

House.

Mr. Phillips: He's not reading a speech. He's

referring to his notes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows

perfectly well that you are not entitled to read your speeches.

I've been very tolerant with the Hon. Member who is on his

feet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker rises.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order, please. Either you leave

this chamber or be silent when I'm on my feet.

The rule of the House is that you don't read speeches. I've

been very tolerant with the Hon. Member because I realize that

it is a complicated matter, but he has read evidence and

letters since 8 o'clock until 9:30. He's been reading his

speech, as is obvious to me. I've been observing, and I really

want to say that if he is going on much longer….

Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.

Mr. R. H. McClelland: (Langley): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder

whether the Speaker might chastise the Premier and Finance Minister (Hon. Mr.

Barrett) for reading to this House just before supper break verbatim a press

release dated November 4, 1974. The Premier read it word for word, Mr. Speaker,

and you never said a word to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order, please.

In this House, Ministers usually read a short statement.

This has been the practice for years. But if anyone objects to

it, and it's a long statement, naturally it should not be read.

What has happened here is that he has been reading for an hour

and a half, and I ask him to restrain his use of copious

notes.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order! That is not correct, and you know

it yourself. It's not really a question of reading speeches in

the House at all, but doing it almost interminably.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

Mr. Curtis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It perhaps is rather difficult but, as you observed, it is a

very complex subject, a very complicated one, and much of the

material I read was in the form of letters received from

individuals by members of the committee, which required

quoting. But I have a few more notes. I would like to continue

discussion of this particular bill.

I think it is unfortunate that the committee, in preparing

its report and again in this very compressed time, Mr. Speaker,

did not have an opportunity to touch on a number of points

which were of concern through our hearings and which I believe

are of concern to various administrative people that we have

serving not only in the assessment authority but in the

surveyor of taxes' office, in various municipalities and so on.

One is that the court of revision and the appeal process is

foreign territory to most citizens, to most property owners.

The term "court of revision" sounds pretty grand and, I think,

frightens a number of people. We need simpler language on the

assessment notice, on the taxation notice, and also in

explaining to the individual property owner how he or she can

appeal his or her particular assessment.

The other problem is that there is a feeling that courts of

revision…. Rightly or wrongly, the feeling exists that

they are stacked against the appellant — that is, the individual

who appeals. The assessor is

[ Page 4656 ]

there. He's very familiar with the terms; he knows his job;

he's a professional. And here is the individual trying to make

a case. The court of revision members may, in many instances,

appear to be rather gruff, and they are going through a lot of

cases in the course of a morning or afternoon sitting.

I think we need an assessment court of revision ombudsman.

We've had many suggestions made in the past with respect to a

general ombudsman in British Columbia, but we need someone not

to assist companies who would usually turn to a solicitor for

assistance, but someone who could be assigned to each and every

court of revision to assist the individual in stating the case

and making the appeal against the assessment.

There is this impression of the fact that the court is not

necessarily biased against the individual, but it is, as I said

earlier, foreign territory.

There should also, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister

of Finance, be a much longer period of appeal for assessment.

In the case of the provincial assessment notices which are

mailed out just at year end, it says very clearly, and I have

to quote, Mr. Speaker:

"Take notice that this statement sets out the assessed values upon which the property tax will be based.

If you deem the property to be improperly assessed, notify the

provincial assessor immediately. If you intend to appeal to the

court of revision, you must file your appeal with the

provincial assessor within 14 days from the mailing date."

That can be found on the tax notices which were received

this year. Fourteen days is not a sufficient time at any time

of year but certainly not at year-end with one or two holidays.

And it is 14 days from date of mailing which is stated here.

This could be cut down to 10 or 11 days by the time the

property owner has actually received the notice and realized

that time is running out on him.

I submit also, Mr. Speaker, that in an effort to assist

property owners in the unorganized or provincially administered

territory, during this year when this particular bill continues

or is carried on and, therefore, the assessments remain

unchanged over 1974, the province should give very serious

consideration to setting back its due date on taxes. The

property tax, in terms of revenue to British Columbia,

excluding municipalities, is approximately $20 million. With a

total budget of over $2 billion, this is a very insignificant

amount. But it is not insignificant to those individuals who

have to pay it, July 2 is the due date and I think the government might very

well consider setting that back to the beginning of August or,

indeed, to sometime after Labour Day as the final date for

payment of those taxes without penalty.

In spite of a surprisingly large number of comments during the hearings, the

government Members of the committee in their report to this House did not touch

upon the fact that the $29 tax rebate was extremely unpopular. We heard this

repeatedly as we moved around the province. Now, it can be argued that the school

tax removal and resources grant is a commendable grant, but I submit that it

should not move to a point where a property owner is paid a total of $29 to

live on his or her parcel, and that was the case. Cheques for $29 were coming

in by the hundreds, I believe, in the province this year as the result of the

introduction of that particular rebate. The question was put, not by members

of the committee but by those appearing before the committee: "Why should anyone

be paid to live in his or her home?"

There is, I think, some uncertainty as to whether $1 is

sufficient tax for anyone to pay. But to actually make money as

the result of living there was felt to be most unfair and

inequitable. In many cases it was received by those who

admitted that they did not need it.

The committee report was silent on the prospect of genuine

and open joint budgeting between the province and its

municipalities. Revenue sharing. I think this was a great

opportunity for the committee to comment on that and,

unfortunately, it chose to ignore the point.

But most disappointing of all, the government Members of the

committee — therefore the committee report which was filed with

this House — did not recognize that this should have been an

interim report endorsing the concept of purity of assessment

for 1975, or full-value assessment for 1975, with a request to

this House to immediately continue an intensive study of the

property-tax situation.

As the formula has been presented to us, the formula could

have been worked on through November, part of December,

starting again in January and, if necessary, into February and

presented to this House in the form of a committee

recommendation with ample time left for the necessary amending

legislation to have been introduced and approved by this House

before the tax notices went out in 1975.

The committee, instead of "biting the bullet," as one

of its members said, chose to swallow it.

It's to be regretted so much that after identifying this as

again a major problem for the year 1974, referring it to a

special committee in the spring session and getting it to the

House in April, having a motion passed by the House in early

June, the committee was not authorized to start and did not in

fact start until September 17.

The committee made good progress, and, as you so painfully

observed earlier, Mr. Speaker, heard from many individuals. But

I assure you that this is just

[ Page 4657 ]

scratching the surface; this is just part of the total

picture that was presented to the committee. I think it is most

unfortunate that we've turned our back on them at this

time.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Premier has already

spoken in the debate.

Interjection.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to

take my place in this debate in support of the bill. I'm a

little surprised at the presentation made by the earlier

speaker; it seems that the level of contribution deteriorates

quickly when you move into that group that lives in the Dark

Ages. He did better when he sat down here.

He knows and I know and we all know the problems that would

have been associated with the kind of recommendation that he's

been making.

We had to go back a piece, though, if we want to really look

at this thing. First of all, when you say that the committee

was set up in April and didn't begin its hearings until

September, that's total misrepresentation of what happened, and

you know it. That committee was in the House here with the rest

of the Members of this House until June 20. Then that committee

met in July, and on the 13th of July agreed to the

schedule of

hearings that were to take place in September, the date of

advertising and everything else. I think that's not really

making the case properly; it's not dealing with the dates

properly. You know very well that the House was in session

until June 20. To suggest that the committee could have started

work on April 5 is utterly fantastic.

Interjection.

Mr. Liden: I was at the meeting in the Queen

Charlottes on July 13. Everyone was there and everyone agreed

to the

schedule that we carried out, including the Member who

just spoke.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He was a Tory then.

An Hon. Member: He goes back and forth like that.

Mr. Liden: Well, that's what I referred to earlier.

When the Member made his move from this group to that group,

his level of contribution deteriorated badly. That is so

evident in the contribution he made here tonight.

Interjections.

Mr. Liden: If you remember the assessment committee that we had last

spring, you'll recall that the assessment commissioner (Mr. Wright) presented

a brief at that time in February in which he spoke about the perfect assessment

years, 1962 to 1966. He pointed out that the government provided assessment

shambles by statutes beginning in 1966. That's the kind of mess we inherited

and that's the sort of thing we had to deal with.

There were a number of other things that he said at that

time and there are a number of other things that we dealt with.

What we had to look at, really, is what might have happened to

the people of British Columbia if we had taken the kind of

course recommended by that group, although they were very, very

reluctant in making any sort of course at all.

The whole study we went into was like unwinding a cabbage:

you're looking for the core and you never get to it because

every time you look at something new you just get further into

the matter. You find that you have more things lying around and

a bigger mess to clean up. Any sort of immediate move as they

suggest would have created a real problem. They know it, and

that's why they were going along that line.

When you read letters and look at all of the things that

were said to the committee, we should also look at the fact

that some of the people who made presentations to that

committee shed some other kind of light on it as well.

For instance, there was the fellow who spoke of his 99 acres

of beachfront that he owns in the Queen Charlotte Islands and

the fact that he pays $12 an acre. The Member who just spoke

was very critical of that presentation on the basis that he

really wasn't paying enough.

There were many of those situations. There's a real classic

here about a fellow in Vancouver who owns two acres of land in

Princeton. His taxes went up some 2,200 per cent. You know how

much money he paid? He paid $4.38 in taxes. It went up to $98.

I think you've got a responsibility to look into what the taxes

really are and what the story really is.

There are some hardship cases. We're well aware of those and

we've made recommendations in the report, I hope, to deal with

some of those matters.

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to say

that I hope he does not also go into a long canvass of reading

of letters but try to address himself to the principle of the

bill.

Mr. Liden: I haven't read a letter yet, Mr. Speaker,

I haven't read a letter yet.

Interjections.

Mr. Liden: I just want to point out some of the

things that were missed by the letter reader (Mr.

[ Page 4658 ]

Curtis) who just sat down.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I can't possibly allow him the

same latitude because he has only 40 minutes.

Mr. Liden: I want to point out to the House here that

recommendations were made to the committee from the B.C.

Federation of Agriculture, recommending that they would rather

go with the 1974 roll in 1975 than to proceed into the 100 per

cent roll without time for adequate study, without time to

really make the changes that had to be made.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): What did they say

about the 1973 roll'?

Mr. Liden: They prefer to go the 1974 roll. To go the

1973 roll was dealt with earlier by the Minister of Finance, in

which you want to take the taxes off industry and put them back

onto the residential. That's precisely what you're

recommending.

What about the recommendation from the B.C. Federation of

Agriculture? You weren't interested in that, not one iota.

What about the representation from the Council of Forest

Industries? They said the same thing. They didn't want to go

ahead into the 100 per cent assessment in the current year

without proper study and proper handling of all the problems

that come out of that.

What about the Union of B.C. Municipalities, an organization

of which the former speaker is a former president — a past

president of the UBCM? You'd never guess with….

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He's a past member of all kinds of

organizations.

Mr. Liden: That's obvious. But, look, the Union of

B.C. Municipalities represents every municipality in the

province that has to deal with this very problem. What did they

say? They say: "A number of difficult problems have already

shown themselves, and we have no doubt that others will also

emerge."' They say: "We can see no solutions to these problems

until they are precisely defined by the examination of a

complete and full actual-values roll."

The committee now has the dilemma of devising legislation

within the matter of the next few weeks to correct problems

which we have not yet fully determined and which, indeed,

cannot be determined until all aspects of the assessment system

can be examined.

What about their recommendation? That wasn't dealt with at

all by the Member who just spoke.

There's no question, from the hearings in the spring or the hearings this summer

and fall, that the people of British Columbia want to establish a pure and positive

100 per cent assessment roll. But they want to do it with proper study and they

want to do it in a way that will solve the problems for the people and not create

more problems.

There's a great deal said in the UBCM report. There's a

great deal said in other representations as well. I'm not going

to go through the kind of thing that the earlier speaker did.

We should take note, though, when you're talking about the

assessors and the problem that's created by courts of revision

and whether or not the assessor is on the side of the court of

revision, and the kind of feeling that exists for the ordinary

taxpayer, the ordinary homeowner, property owner that's

appealing assessment — the former speaker mentioned this — that

there was great deal of representation made to the committee on

this whole matter. But the greatest representation was made by

the person from Saanich, when he referred to a report of

I don't know who was the mayor of Saanich at that time. I've

heard that it was the person who just spoke before me, at which

time there were all sorts of accusations made about the system

there. They called upon the mayor to make some corrections and

some adjustments, which were never carried out. Nevertheless, I

don't want to create the feeling that assessors are unfair and

that assessors are working with municipal councils or

authorities to create an unfair situation for the ordinary

homeowner. But I think that you've got to look at the thing

totally.

It was also pointed out to the committee — and everyone's

made well aware by professors and so on — that the study in

Ontario took three years and that they set aside moving quickly

into the whole question of the actual-value assessments. Mr.

Wright made that point in his brief of February 28 to the

assessment hearings, that the move into the 100 per cent

assessment in Ontario had been delayed. That's the sort of

thing we have to consider in looking at the whole thing.

You will recall the charts that were presented to the

committee when we asked for some details, in which it was shown

that in Saanich, for instance, there would be some people, even

in the residential class, that would see a reduction in their

taxes, and others that would see an increase. The difference

was from an increase of 9 per cent to a reduction of 16 per

cent. That's a fairly healthy shift. That was looking at

Saanich. When we asked for more of them, in Dawson Creek we saw

the difference between a 14 per cent increase to a 9 per cent

decrease. Those kinds of shifts occur without any proper

examination — just a sketchy look at some 21 assessments in

each place.

The City of Trail showed an increase of 11 per cent for one

homeowner and a decrease of 15 per cent for another. Is that

the kind of thing that you're recommending with your 100 per

cent? Is that the kind of thing that you think will satisfy the

people of

[ Page 4659 ]

British Columbia? I don't think so, and it's all the way

through. In Creston it was plus 20, minus 29 — that kind of a

shift within the residential class of property.

Campbell River is the worst; one property owner has a

decrease of 19 per cent and another one an increase of 85 per

cent. Now there are some bad assessments that we have to start

with, apparently, but there's just no way that your

recommendation of going to the 100 per cent can solve that

problem.

Certainly there are inequities in the present assessment

system, and there have been for some time. This government has

shown that we want to move to correct that. We want to move to

correct it in a way that will be beneficial to the people.

You know and we all know, particularly the people on the

committee, that if we'd gone to the 100 per cent assessment

this year without proper study, you would have had a shift in

taxation toward the residential properties, off industry

towards the residence. That's what you're recommending: higher

taxes for the residential people of this province. That's what

you're recommending, and there would be those serious shifts

even within the residential categories. You're well aware of

those.

There are so many things associated with this change. The

Union of B.C. Municipalities makes recommendation; I spoke to

some of their executive on the weekend. They endorsed the move

we've made. They appreciated the direction the government has

taken in presenting this bill and say that it's the only way

you can approach it. Yet at the same time we have mayors coming

before the committee with differing views on the problems as

they see them. Without proper study and without proper time

there is just no way that you would improve the situation by

going to 100 percent now.

I want to say too that it's hard to sort of analyse the

position taken by that group, because that group, while they're

recommending the 100 per cent, a few days after we left our

hearings in Prince George, had their organizers out on the

streets, knocking on doors and telling the people there that

the government was going to go to 100 per cent and that this

was going to make a terrible mess of their taxation — that it

was going to increase their taxes and so on, and that they were

taking the position to hold it down.

Now how do you instruct your organizers? I got it from more

than one family in Prince George that had them call at their

door. It's kind of a strange politics that you're playing over

there — a very strange game. But then I don't know how you can

analyse the politics that you people play when you look at the

There's something that I saw in the paper not very long ago about a seagull.

Hungry seagulls are eating kittens and birds and all that sort of thing. They've

become vultures. Then I see a blue paper that comes out that has a seagull on

every page, and I wonder at the similarity. I wonder just what they're up to.

You know, it seems to me that if you want to make some sense

out of what we're doing in this whole bill, you've got to

support the move that is being made in Bill 170. That's the

direction we've got to go. You cannot go the route that you

want to go of the 100 percent.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the government has made the

right kind of move. It has recognized the complications that

are associated with trying to clean up, but we're going to do

it properly. That's why I'm in support of Bill 170.

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

Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is

getting closer and closer to the door. I can only assume that

that's an indication of some wisdom on the part of Her

Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, if I'm correct, I assume that we're debating a

bill that deals with assessments.

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the Hon. Member for

that.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'm moving all these papers out of

the road, Mr. Speaker, so that you won't be confused by the

fact that I'll be reading my remarks.

We've had a lot of discussion this evening about real

property tax and the work of the committee on municipal

affairs, and I think that it should be recognized that that

committee recently was dealing with the problem of proposed

real property tax change in this province, which has something

to do with assessment, but not very much. I do not therefore

propose to read any letters, although I've got them all too;

any number of the committee got them, and the chairman was very

efficient in using the Xerox machine.

But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I saw enough letters to be

convinced that in his opening remarks the Premier has rather

missed the point of the whole exercise. It is not the large

corporation who is being most seriously affected by changes in

assessment legislation in this province or, indeed, with the

lack of change in real property tax legislation; it is the

individual land owner.

I'm not surprised either that the Premier in his opening

remarks read a press release of November 4, 1974, because

that's becoming typical of this government, and of this

legislation. We're just sort of recycling something that we've

had before. We must clearly understand that what we're doing

with this amendment is that we are recycling the mistakes of

the former government of this province. And let there be no

doubt. The Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis),

[ Page

4660 ]

from where he now sits, wasn't making the kind of speech

that I've heard him make when he sat elsewhere in this

House.

The problem we face in real property assessment in the

Province of British Columbia today is the direct legacy of the

programmes, and of the policies, and of the attitudes of Social

Credit over 20 years. It really disheartens me to find that, at

this particular juncture, the government of the day is going

back to what we had prior to the passage of the new assessment

legislation at the earlier session this year.

That legislation, I think, should be very carefully

considered, Mr. Speaker, because it was the result of, first of

all, some very careful and lengthy deliberations by a committee

of this House who made some very significant recommendations,

and then of debate joined in by all sides of this House, and

eventual passage. And why, Mr. Speaker, we now come to

amendments to that legislation which will reverse the positive

step forward that was made in the spring of this year, I will

never understand.

The Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), who just took his

place, made reference to information which was before the

committee studying real property tax as to the consequences of

the 100 per cent of actual value assessments in some of the

regions of this province. Yes, it is true that in some areas,

some people — if there were no change in municipal revenue

budgeting — some people would enjoy a 9 per cent decrease in

tax; some people would enjoy a 16 per cent increase; some

people would enjoy a 4 per cent decrease; some people would

enjoy a very much higher increase in tax.

Mr. Speaker, those statistics only go to prove the

inequities that exist in the real property tax rolls in this

province — inequities which will be continued by this

legislation, not corrected by it; inequities which can only be

removed when the assessment authority of this province is left

free to assess all properties in the province of British

Columbia at 100 per cent of actual value. All we are doing in

this legislation is delaying the day when we will have, as

between property taxpayers in a particular class, and as

between property taxpayers in differing classes — residential,

farm, industrial, commercial — some real equality. And when it

is recognized that assessment is only the measuring stick by

which a real property taxpayer is measured when it comes his

time to contribute to his share of the tax burden cast upon him

- either by the Minister of Finance, or by a municipality,

town, city, or whatever the case may be — when that is

recognized, we will understand clearly, I think, that so long

as we have inequality in assessment, we will have inequality in

the sharing of the tax responsibility as between real property

owners

Yes, there is no question that if we apply to 100 per cent of actual value

in 1975, and if there were no change in the tax laws in this province, there

could be a shift in the burden of tax as between classes of property owners.

Yes, it is true that at 100 per cent of actual value, with no change in the

tax laws of this province, there would be a shift in the burden of tax from

the industrial-commercial class to the residential class — the direct opposite

of what happened last year when there was a shift from residential to commercial-industrial.

But, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of real property tax

legislative change. I would have hoped that the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), in introducing this legislation

here tonight, would have indicated to this House that before

this meeting of this Legislature is at an end, we will have

from him changes in the real property tax legislation, because

even with this amendment, we will have as a consequence of the

inequalities of assessment already existing, as restated by

this amendment, continuing inequalities in the burden of tax

which can only be cured if we have changes in tax legislation.

But we are dealing with the assessment in this province.

For years we had equality of assessment; then a period of

time when in order to protect, I suspect, certain individuals

or groups of individuals in this province, we had a fiddle with

the assessment procedure so that inequality resulted, which

brought us to where we are today. That can be cured by the

legislation which is presently on our books, This legislation

is therefore a retrograde step; a step which we must face

dither this year or next year. And it disheartens me to find

that at a time when the government should be moving to tax

legislative change, they are instead retreating to the old

assessment practices of a bygone era.

It disheartens me because I know from representations made

to the committee from the assessment commissioner and members

of his staff, that to retreat, as we are with this bill, to a

modified 1974 assessment roll, is going to leave us with

assessments in the Province of British Columbia of

significantly poorer quality than would have been the case if

we had proceeded with 100 per cent of actual value assessments

as provided for in the assessment Act: significantly poorer

quality. That is the result of the bill that is before us

today. With that poorer quality comes tax inequity — tax

inequity which is going to be felt most severely by individuals

who are least able to pay.

The Premier mentioned some large corporate organizations

who, under Bill 71, were obliged to pay a greater share of

real property tax than had been the case previously. That's

easy. They pass on that burden to the people who consume the

products that those corporations produce. But equally, Bill 71

and this legislation, this bill before us, will cast upon

individuals owning their own parcels of land for their

[ Page

4661 ]

own private use, increasing amounts of tax which they cannot

pass on to anyone. That is their obligation. It is their

obligation because the Minister of Finance has failed to

recognize that the consequences of Bill 71, and of this bill,

will be to preserve high levels of assessment for those

individuals, and without change in real property tax

legislation they will pay on the fixed mill rates under the

taxation Act significantly higher real property tax. It's easy

to correct that problem, and the Minister of Finance could do

so if he had brought in as a companion with this legislation

changes in the taxation Act. But that would have only changed

the situation as it affected those areas lying outside of

cities, towns, and district municipalities. Within those

municipalities, the consequences would continue to cast unfair

burdens on certain individuals within the community.

Assessment, as we have it in the law today, provided a way

out. This legislation shuts the door. As a matter of fact, it

occurs to me that this legislation is much like the bill that

we debated and voted upon at 10 minutes to six this afternoon:

interim changes in the Landlord and Tenant Act which do not

solve the problem, only intensify it. This Bill 170 does not

solve the problem. It only serves to intensify it for a limited

number of our citizens.

The opportunity was present to the government and the

government has turned away from that opportunity, all in the

name of…what, no one knows. Certainly the Premier in his

opening remarks on this motion did not clearly indicate the

purpose for which we are dealing with Bill 170.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, already we know that with

Bill 170 we have omitted some of the consequences of

retrogressive steps. The City of Vancouver has pointed out to

the Premier that under this legislation, where we go back to a

modified 1974 roll, one major corporate organization in the

City of Vancouver serves to gain through saving some estimated

$500,000 to $750,000 in tax.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's a question of wording.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Yes, well, I've read the Act very

carefully as to what the wording is, and so on. The City of

Vancouver has theirs, and they recognize the problem; and

Marathon Realty has theirs.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Premier fails to recognize that under

the assessment Act as it presently is the law that problem

would have been resolved beyond doubt. There is no question

what the consequences to Marathon Realty would be under the new

legislation.

Equally, there is no question that under the assessment law as we presently

have it any individual, who by reason of poor quality of assessment felt that

he was being badly done by, had the right of access to improved courts of revision

which the assessment Act, passed in this House this spring, provided for — a

vastly improved situation over what was previously the law. That facility was

available in the event that there should have been any shortcomings in the 100

per cent of actual value concept.

This we are now casting to one side and delaying until next

year the true advantages of equalized assessment.

I wonder, when I consider the representations made to the

committee, and when I consider the reaction of the committee to

those recommendations, whether next year we won't be faced with

a postponement again, because there was a clear recognition on

the part of the committee as to what the problem was and a

sidestepping of the solution.

The solution does not lie in changing the assessment laws;

the solution lies in changing the tax laws of the province. It

is to that that we should be addressing ourselves at this

time.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We need time to do that.

Mr. L.A. Williams: The Hon. Premier says there isn't

time. Well, there is time. There is time to deal with it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We need time. They don't even have

a policy.

Mr. L.A. Williams: The report of the special

committee on assessment which was tabled in this House earlier

this year clearly indicated to the government the nature of the

changes which it would be obliged to make with the new

assessment legislation which that same report recommended.

We've passed the assessment legislation and the government

has sat on its hands and done nothing. Indeed, having done

nothing with the real property tax field, it is significant

that when we're dealing with amendments to the assessment Act,

the government has very carefully ignored one of the key

recommendations of the committee on assessments, which

recommended that immediate consideration be given to clarifying

the question of farmland classification, residential use of

property, the intended residential use of property and the

separation of industrial from commercial uses on a single

parcel of land.

None of those matters, which were placed before this House

and the government on April 5, 1974, are included in the

amendments to the assessment Act at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the subject is a vast one, but it can be

canvassed very shortly. As I said earlier, this is a retrograde

step. The government has failed to seize the opportunity which

it was given this spring.

[ Page 4662 ]

Interjection.

Mr. L. A. Williams: Well, perhaps the Hon. Member

doesn't like the suggestion that the government was given the

opportunity this spring.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) introduced the

legislation. It was debated and passed in this House and the

government was given the authority then to proceed. Now, less

than six months later, the government is coming back and

saying: "We take it all back; let's go back to 1974."

Now the Hon. Premier was talking about the Union of B.C.

Municipalities. Yes, the Union of B.C. Municipalities

recommended caution. They recommended caution in changes in

real property tax laws. But we are not debating changes in real

property tax laws. We're debating the change the government is

proposing to make in the assessment legislation, not real

property tax laws. If the government has brought before us

changes in real property tax laws, then it might be worthwhile

considering the concerns expressed by UBCM.

Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that by changing the assessment

legislation and ignoring the required changes in real property

tax laws, the Minister of Finance and the Union of B.C.

Municipalities themselves face a most serious challenge, and

that is that in budgeting for revenues from real property

taxation in 1975 they must exercise the greatest caution and

restraint, because the consequences of reverting to the

modified 1974 roll, with its inequities in assessment and

therefore the direct consequences of inequities in tax, will be

multiplied if the Minister of Finance as a revenue gatherer and

the municipalities as revenue gatherers do not take care with

regard to the budgets of the expenditures they propose to

make.

They must show caution. They must show restraint, since they

have been unwilling to accept the assessment law as it

presently stands and the government has been unwilling to bring

before this House the required and companion changes in real

property tax.

Mr. H.D. Dent (Skeena): Since the debate is to

continue, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just offer a few

comments, since I was a member of the committee. Like most of

the other Members of the House — I'm sure they've had the same

experience I've had — I've had a great number of people bring

their problems to me, or comment on their problems with regard

to assessment and property taxation. Starting as an amateur and

having to work my way through all of these problems, certain

things registered in my mind.

I was very surprised at the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)

for some of his comments. It seems that he's talked to different people than

I have, or he's run into different kinds of problems in some ways than I have.

I am surprised, since he sat on the committee that had hearings and heard briefs

over a period of time.

First of all, I want to begin by saying that I can't

overemphasize the mess created by the action taken by the

previous government in 1966. You know, to listen to them talk

over there, they think we caused the problems last year. That's

nonsense. The problem was created by the 10 per cent limitation

applied across the board in 1966. It's just incredible the

problems that that thing has caused.

I just want to give one as an example. Passing through the

centre of Terrace is the Canadian National Railway. I believe

that it can be said that the Canadian National Railway in

Terrace is probably the biggest landowner, without a doubt.

They were somewhat jolted when they received their assessment

notice this past year and discovered that there was a

substantial increase in their assessment. Evidently they phoned

the assessor long-distance, screaming very loudly about this

thing. But it turned out that their property had been assessed

at only one-fifth of the market value. Naturally, when the bill

was passed last year, this meant a very substantial increase in

their assessment.

I repeat: the CNR is the biggest land holder in Terrace, I

believe, without a doubt, and they were paying much less than

their proper share of the property taxes. Terrace cannot afford

that loss in tax revenue, and they have lost it over the past

number of years. In fact, the total assessment for Terrace went

up by 50 per cent in one year, and a large part of it was

companies like the CNR, some of the larger logging companies —

Can-Cel was one — and so on.

But I can't, again, overemphasize that this whole problem

was the result of that action of the previous government in

1966. I just want to give one quick illustration of how that

worked.

If the property increased very rapidly in value, people who

were lucky enough to hold that kind of property found

themselves paying a much smaller proportion of the taxes in

relation to the value of their property as the years went by. I

don't need to repeat that; everyone is familiar with that, I'm

sure. But I just want to give a quick example.

Suppose two pieces of property were equally worth $10,000 in

1966. If one went up very rapidly in value and one went up very

slowly in value, it meant, with a 10 per cent limitation, that

one person had a capital gain on their property, a very

substantial capital gain, but was paying a relatively small

amount of taxes for that capital gain in relation to the other

on the property.

The District of Terrace, in their wisdom, took the

opportunity last year to increase their budget substantially —

I think by over approximately 55 to 60 per cent. There was an

overall mill-rate increase on general taxation of approximately

2 mills or so.

[ Page 4663 ]

Now, what should have happened, in my judgment, had Terrace

been a prosperous community and had a bigger tax base to begin

with, is that there should have been a tax break for those

people who had been paying a disproportionate share of the

taxes since 1966. If there had been a mill rate reduction, many

of those people would have enjoyed a benefit; they would have

had a tax reduction, as they should have had.

Maybe this happened in some other municipalities. In fact,

it did happen in some other municipalities. In fact, it did

happen in Smithers on a very modest basis — residential

property owners mainly. Those people whose property had

increased relatively slowly in value should have had a tax

break, but they didn't. Terrace was in a very desperate

financial situation because of the fact that their assessment

base was low and still is low compared to other centres such as

Prince George and Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

So in order to keep their head above water, they were very

fortunate that that bill came in because it increased the tax

base. By a very modest increase in the mill rate they were able

to begin to pay for some of the services or have some of the

services they should have been having long before. I don't

blame the District of Terrace for what they did. But just the

same, had there been justice, those people who had been paying

a larger share than they should have, should have had a

reduction, but they didn't.

I wonder how many other municipalities did the same thing.

They had an overall increase instead of giving a break to those

people who had been paying too much over the years.

Now, there were implications of that change in Bill 71, and

we have had the chance to examine them, to talk and think about

them here, and read letters on them and so on. There are many

of them. But I believe and I would think there would be many

more implications to going into 100 per cent assessment — many

more implications. And I for one — and I know the people that I

represent — would like to have another opportunity to have some

idea what those implications are going to be before we jump

into it.

Interjection.

Mr. Dent: Because of the representations made by

people in my constituency to me, I find it necessary to support

this legislation even though I personally would like to see us

go to 100 per cent assessment at this time. I think it is a

move in the right direction but I think it is going to require

considerably more preparation than we have had so far,

considerably more preparation.

Therefore, I support this bill, and I support it for a third reason. I think

the District of Terrace acted honourably in what they did, but they did take

advantage of an opportunity presented by Bill 71 to increase their budget substantially

and which resulted in an overall tax increase for the District of Terrace. And

I've no doubt, if we brought in 100 per cent assessment now, again the municipalities

who might be having some problems might take advantage of the opportunity to

further increase their budgets. I think this would be a blow to the taxpayer

and I think the taxpayers have had enough of a blow for the last year or two.

There should be a period where they get to understand what

this whole direction is going to mean: the fact that it will

bring a greater degree of equity, that they can be prepared for

the kind of results that are going to take place, and so

on.

Finally, there is a relationship obviously between capital

gain on land or property and tax increases. There has to be. I

would just put forward this as a suggestion because that report

which the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis)

read from the ratepayers' association of Terrace was one which

I discussed with them at the time that they were putting these

ideas together. The total improvements within a municipality

that are paid for collectively by the taxpayers give a capital

gain to each piece of property within that tax area. Therefore,

everybody should pay on an equitable basis toward that total

capital increase for the net value of all of the property,

including their own.

But it is also true that individuals put money out of their

own pockets in order to make capital gains to their own

property. Unfortunately, they get penalized in the same way or

they have to pay in the same way as if this was the net result

of a municipal action or all of the people within the

municipality.

So I would make a suggestion that could be considered by the

committee or by those who prepare legislation. They should try

to make a distinction between capital gain or increased

assessment that is the result of the action collectively of

everybody in the municipality and that which is the result of

the individual's own efforts and their own willingness, you

might say, to paint up and clean up. People can in some way be

rewarded for their own efforts to beautify their own property

and to improve their own property.

This would be an incentive, if you like, or an encouragement

to people to beautify their places and make improvements to

their property which would have the net effect of increasing

everybody's assessed value, not only from a financial point of

view but in terms of the quality of life.

So this is just one suggestion that could be thrown out.

That's why I'm very pleased that they haven't jumped suddenly

into a massive change to 100 per cent assessment before we have

had a chance to examine every possible thing that could take

place or could be done to improve property taxation

generally.

[ Page 4664 ]

Mr. Chabot: Are you going to support the tunnel? Will

you support the tunnel'?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: There is an old saying that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: There is an old saying that goes

something like this: not only must justice be done but justice

must also appear to be done. And justice, Mr. Speaker, is not

being done by this bill which is before this Legislature this

evening. This bill will perpetuate the injustices of taxation

that were with us in the taxation year, 1974. It shows once

more the inability of this government to come to grips with the

problems which they themselves have created. Make no mistake

about that, Mr. Speaker: the problems which they themselves

have created.

The homeowners in this province, Mr. Speaker, have over the

past year paid approximately 40 per cent of the taxes in

British Columbia….

The homeowners in this province have over the past year paid

approximately 40 per cent of the taxes in British Columbia. The

remainder, or 60 per cent of the taxes, have been paid by

commercial and industrial lands and others. The taxpayers who

own homes in British Columbia have in the past paid less taxes

in the Province of British Columbia than in any other province

in Canada. And yet some of the opposition speakers would lead

you to believe that there were great inequities.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of

serving on the municipal….

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt for a minute? I wish

the Hon. Members would not suggest that any other Member in the

House is lying.

Would the Hon. Member please withdraw?

Mr. Phillips: I just consider where it comes from.

It's typical of the Member.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Interjections.

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

continue? I think that the Hon. Member made the remark, "saliva

test," and I think he withdrew the remark.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Member for Columbia River on

a point of order.

Mr. Chabot: Order, Mr. Speaker, prior to your taking

the chair as Deputy Speaker, the Speaker was in the process of

asking the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings) to withdraw the word "liar" which he uttered just

before you took the chair. It hasn't been withdrawn, as far as

I know. I was wondering whether you were going to pursue the

matter raised by the Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: On the point of order, I understand

the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver- Little Mountain (Mr.

Cummings) withdrew the remark. Would the Hon. Member rise in

his place and withdraw the remark once again so he may be

heard'?

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

Speaker, I withdraw "saliva test."

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! I believe the word

ascribed to the Hon. Member which he quoted was "saliva test."

He said that he withdrew this remark. The Hon. Member….

(Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: Very distinctly the Speaker suggested

that he had uttered the word "liar," and he was in the

process of asking him to withdraw it. I don't know who is

confused about who said what, but the Speaker suggested that

the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain suggested that

the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was a liar. He

was in the process of asking that Member to withdraw that

statement. Now, I'm sure the Speaker wouldn't put words in the

mouth of the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain and I'm sure

the Speaker wouldn't assume having heard this word if it wasn't

true.

Deputy Speaker: On the point of order, I would just

make the point that the Speaker was of the opinion that he had

used this word. However, the Second Member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mr. Cummings) corrected him and said that the words

he used were "saliva test" and he withdrew those words.

[ Page 4665 ]

Mr. Chabot: I don't think the Speaker has a right to

jump to conclusions. I think the Speaker must be able to

clearly and distinctly hear what is said in this chamber and

not jump to conclusions as to what a Member says in this house

and ask him to withdraw on the basis of his assumptions in this

House.

Deputy Minister: A correction was made. Would the