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)

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1974

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4375 ]

CONTENTS

Morning sitting Statement Notification of Mr. Curtis' move to official opposition.

Mr. Speaker — 4375

Routine proceedings

Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act (Bill

168).

Hon. Mr. King. Introduction and first reading — 4375

Department of Health Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 166).

Hon. Mr. Cocke. Introduction and first reading — 4375

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill

165).

Hon. Mr. Stupich. Introduction and first reading — 4375

Motion Adjournment of the House on matter of public importance.

Mr. Bennett — 4375

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4377

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 4377

Mr. Bennett — 4378

Mr. Speaker — 4378

Routine proceedings

Division on time of next sitting — 4379

Appendix — 4380

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have

received a communication from the Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands (Mr. Curtis) requesting that he be included in the

official opposition. A seat has been provided for him

there.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): I didn't know the Titanic

needed more crew members.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Levi (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to Mr. Tom

Barnett, who for many years was the Member for Comox-Alberni.

He's in the House and I'd like you to welcome him.

Mr. R.E. Skelly (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

introduce a few more important visitors from Alberni. The first

is the gentleman who led us in prayer this morning, the

Reverend Lester Goertz from Arrowsmith Baptist Church in Port

Alberni.

Also in the gallery today are Mrs. Goertz and two of my

constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Ken McRae. I'd like the Members to

make them welcome.

Mr. E.O. Barnes (Vancouver Centre): I would like to

take the time to introduce a recently acquired acquaintance of

mine on my tour back home after some 35 years down to Los

Angeles and New Orleans and New York — I have several homes — a

young lady that was so convinced by my story that she came to

see for herself if it was real: Ms. Merry Miles. Mr. Speaker,

for the benefit of Hansard , it's not Mary; it's

M-e-r-r-y.

Introduction of bills.

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

LABOUR DISPUTES ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Elevator Construction

Industry Labour Disputes Act.

Bill 168 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of

the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Department of Health Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 166 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING

(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Natural Products

Marketing (British Columbia) Act.

Bill 165 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): Mr.

Speaker, I have some notes that I'd like to have distributed on

the bill, with your permission.

Mr. Speaker: Well, they can be distributed by the

Sergeant-at-Arms' staff.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Liden from the Select Standing Committee on Municipal

Affairs and Housing presented the committee's first report

which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, under standing order 35, I ask leave of the House to

make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose

of discussing a matter of public importance, namely

unemployment in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Hon. Leader would

present me with the statement. I think the first step, if I

recall the standing order, is that it must be a definite matter

of urgent public importance. The particular matter should be

submitted to the Speaker in a written statement as a matter

proposed to be discussed.

Mr. Bennett: It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that

I may read the statement before I present it to you.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, certainly. But do you have an extra

copy for me?

Mr. Bennett: No, I don't, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You'll send it up in due course.

[ Page 4376 ]

Mr. Bennett: Certainly. The most recent figures we

have now compiled within the past two weeks make it clear that

unemployment is rising rapidly in every part of the province.

In some regions it has already reached crisis proportions.

Significant recessions in the forest industry and in housing

construction, coupled with the traditional problems of specific

and seasonal unemployment which this province has always faced,

have created a situation which now requires immediate

discussion by this House, leading to a positive plan of

action.

In the forest industry the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers'

Association, encompassing the region around Williams Lake,

reports 1,133 unemployed out of a normal — work force of 3,600.

Thirty-one per cent of the sawmill work force is unemployed.

The percentage of logging contractors out of work is even

greater, approaching 50 per cent.

The Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, encompassing

the southwestern interior forest sector, reports 3,400

unemployed out of a work force of 11,000. That's 31 per cent

unemployment, Mr. Speaker.

The northern interior lumber sector reports 3,204 out of

work of a normal work force of 17,000. That's almost 20 per

cent unemployment.

On the coast, which remains the most buoyant sector of the

industry, 5,000 men — 13 per cent of the work force — are

unemployed. Ten major sawmills are shut down and dozens of

small operators have shut down.

The industry-wide picture is grave, Mr. Speaker.

Unemployment is nearing 20 per cent, and the industry is

prepared to predict that the worst is yet to come.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. I think that it long

has been the authority from various Houses that it's not a time

for an argument on the question, but to bring before the House

a definite matter of specific importance. The question I have

to decide is the question of the urgency of debate, not the

urgency of unemployment. That's a matter for the House to

decide, should it be able to debate it in this manner.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the

Journals of the House, which make no limit on the

statement accompanying the motion.

I'd refer to the decision of the Speaker on January 27,

1958, page 15, in which the Speaker addresses the Members. He

says:

"Hon. Members, on Friday last when the Hon. Leader of the

Opposition sought leave to move a motion to adjourn the House under standing

order 35, I allowed him only to state the substance of his motion, rather than

read it in toto. In this I was in error as the said order provides that the

Member moving the motion shall state the matter and make no limitation."

Mr. Speaker: Well, it may be that the Hon. Member has

mistaken what he was discussing.

You are entitled to state the matter, but that does not

include arguments on the matter or such detail that it becomes

really one side of a case, or a statement of a series of facts

that really goes beyond the purpose of this particular standing

order.

I certainly can find authority for that….

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the

unemployment relates directly to the news, or the information

that is provided, that unemployment is indeed serious in these

specific areas of the province. This is the reason I'm making

the motion for adjournment at this time, and this is the

reasoning that I have for making the motion. It's part of my

statement for introducing the motion for adjournment.

If you'll allow me, I can continue. It will be just a few

moments more.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think we're all aware and have

grasped the matter as being a general matter of unemployment

that is affecting the forest industry in particular.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the House in not aware of

it. I'm advising the House….

Mr. Speaker: I think that what you have stated

already indicates a general economic situation. You're stating

that it should be debated because of the importance of the

matter.

Mr. Bennett: Well, I think you're presupposing the

rest of my statement. I'm giving that part that led me to

introduce this motion: that is that we have a serious

unemployment situation in this province and that regionally

these figures of unemployment and the predictions that have

been made of what will happen in the future, Mr. Speaker,

cause the urgency of this debate.

Mr. Speaker: The reason I ask you to contain the

matter at this stage is because it should not descend to a

debate itself. Is there much further that you wish to state on

the matter?

Mr. Bennett: I didn't find these statements

argumentative, Mr. Speaker; I thought they were factual. I

present them as….

Mr. Speaker: I'm quite sure that the motive of the

Hon. Leader of the Opposition has been to make clear to the

House what the matter is about. Is there much more on the

subject, please?

[ Page 4377 ]

Mr. Bennett: Just very little, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Well, would the Hon. Member proceed

then? Press on.

Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to the very serious weaknesses of these two key

industries — housing and the forest industry — we must consider

the economic consequences that specific industry recessions

will have on the more stable aspects of the province's economy,

particularly the service industry.

In the forest industry, for example, the loss of one job

will mean the loss of an additional two jobs outside the

industry. Mr. Speaker, it's not good enough to say that the

condition of British Columbia's economy is simply a consequence

of global economic conditions for which there is no provincial

solution, or no opportunity for a positive plan of action by

this House. This is a most serious matter which I place before

this House, because this motion can only be offered if the

matter to be discussed lies clearly within the administrative

responsibility of the government.

I want to make it unquestionably clear that the official

opposition is not only willing to state the problems, but we

are most anxious to present specific proposals before this

House for discussion under this motion.

We are prepared to propose new and innovative measures to

secure a better employment picture….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Now the Member is really

launching into a debate which is not the purpose of stating the

matter.

Would the Hon. Member please remit the statement of the

matter to me so I may study it? Indeed, because I feel it is an

urgent and important matter, I would like to examine it for a

few minutes. But you must remember that my duty is to follow

the rules. I'm bound by the precedents of this House. Indeed,

my job, as I see it, and I've been told often enough, is to

determine the urgency of debate at this time by interfering

with or changing the ordinary business of the House.

Mr. Bennett: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was only

trying to make the point that this was within the provincial

jurisdiction; but I will submit the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I wonder if the House would

agree to a short recess while my advisers and myself examine

the matter.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): I was wondering if, on behalf

of the government, I could make a point now — a statement that may assist the

House and you in this decision with which you're faced.

It is that the government intends to introduce in a matter

of a very few days a specific bill relating to the forest

unemployment situation. It's quite obvious, with the

introduction of that bill in a matter of a few days, laid

before this House, that all Members in this House would have an

opportunity to take

part in such a debate as the Hon. Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) is suggesting. At that time they

will have an opportunity to put their vote on record.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Without getting into an

argument on it, I would like a recess now to consider both what

the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said and what the House

Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has said.

The House took recess at 10:23 a.m.

The House resumed at 10:31 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we have given urgent

consideration to the proposal by the Hon. the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) for an emergency debate under standing

order 35.

I point out that May in the 17th edition, which is

the one that sets out all the rules with regard to such debate,

very clearly states with many examples at page 364 through to

367, that the matter must be definite — that is, not a

generalized matter, but a specific matter that can be isolated

into an emergency, a very important situation, but where it

must be debated now. Those instances, as you will note in

looking through the authorities, are very few.

I will just recite what May says in general on the

matter:

"It must be a single specific matter, "

according to May at page 364.

"It must not be couched in general terms or covering a great

number of cases. It is not offered when facts are in dispute or

before they are all available, and it must not import an

argument."

In other words, it must be something that everyone can agree

right away, instantly, that there is urgency of debate.

Now there are many instances in all the authorities, as I

found in the House of Commons in Ottawa and at Westminster,

where cases of unemployment and matters of a general nature

regarding the economic situation have been dealt with. Indeed,

in our own jurisdiction on numerous occasions Speakers have

dealt with this, and I can do no better than refer the Hon.

Members to volume II of Speakers Decisions , as Mr.

Speaker Pauline at page 69 ruled out the matter of unemployment

for urgency debate, and stated it must be done upon

[ Page 4378 ]

notice.

He repeated that decision again on the ground that I've

mentioned in May , the same year again, because it was an

emergency situation in the general economy. He stated that the

unemployment situation had reached the most acute stage and

become of great urgency and public interest, but nonetheless,

because we are bound by these rules of the generality of such a

subject it was not an appropriate one, according to May ,

for that method.

Again in 1923 this was ruled out of order on the same

question of unemployment and also in a matter dealing with

labour. All of these are found in Volume II of Speakers'

Decisions .

Now in Ottawa the question of the effect on the footwear

industry, which laid off thousands of employees, became of such

urgent consideration that the same motion was sought for

urgency debate. There again, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux rejected it.

I can give you various examples of that, June 20, 1970, in the

House of Commons records, and all of them lead to the same

result.

I can only say that it would therefore not be in order.

Now, without going into the statement by the government,

because there is nothing on the order paper to indicate that a

bill is coming forward, I cannot say really other than it is

not, I think, a major consideration, although I note Mr.

Speaker Perry, in his decision dealing with the question, where

Mr. Pattullo was then the Premier of the province, had assured

the House that action was being taken on the matter and that

Ottawa had been informed of this question dealing with salmon fisheries. In that case

the Speaker apparently accepted that as an assurance that there

was some opportunity to debate.

Now I don't accept that ground necessarily as being binding

on me because it seems to me that we must rest the case of

where it stands upon the general rule and Speakers'

decisions.

I point out that it is not for the Speaker to change the

rules of the House or change the

interpretation of previous

Speakers. Consequently I am bound to follow the precedents that

I have recited and in view of that it would be out of order at

this time. But the Member can always, by notice of motion, put

the motion that he wishes to put on the order paper for debate,

and of course, we will all wait to see whether, in fact, some

legislation is forthcoming.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that you've

realized the urgency of this debate. I said there were specific

areas that we mentioned in my statement that dealt with the

urgency, and while it may not be urgent to those who have got

increased salaries, this is a very urgent debate for those

people who are unemployed.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

This is really not a subject for debate now, or to debate

the ruling. I would love to debate the ruling, but

unfortunately I am bound by the precedents of this House, and I

must go on to the next order of business.

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, it says "when

ordinary opportunities provided the House do not permit the

subject to be brought in early enough." We don't have the

Speech from the Throne, and we don't have the normal debates

that have gone past in which to discuss this subject.

Mr. Speaker: I really must disagree that I can take

any other course. If I were not bound by my precedents that I

recited that were made in this House, and were, I might say,

the judgment of the House, not my judgment, the judgment of the

House. I am bound by them and I must abide by them. So we must

go on to the next order of business.

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I challenge your

ruling.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry, you can't challenge the

ruling on a decision of urgency of debate under standing order

35. That's the way it is.

You see, the standing order depends upon the Speaker's

decision as to whether there is urgency of debate.

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are cases when

the former Leader of the Opposition…where they were

challenged and there was a….

Mr. Speaker: That's right, but it is correct that

there have….

Mr. Bennett: …on the very urgency of debate.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That was before D-Day.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that if it was done it

was done in error, and the authorities are quite opposed to

it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: You don't expect me to compound the

error, I'm sure. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: How about the rest of your errors?

[ Page 4379 ]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

I would ask the Clerk to read out the business of the

House.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): We are not

proceeding today with orders of the day because of the fact

that the chairman of the committee on assessment has presented

a report which I know will want to be studied, on taxation. We

have also introduced several bills which I know the opposition

will want to study, and so, in other words, you have your

homework to do for the weekend. (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, on Monday

we will be entering into debate on the bills of the Minister of

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

Mr. Cocke). They will be prepared for work on….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Would you be prepared to

debate those now?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Do you want to debate them now?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: That will be the order of business

for Monday. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do

stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

I would remind the Hon. Members that this is Friday, and

under standing orders, this is a government day and therefore

the question of private Members' bills does not have precedence

unless the government allows it.

Interjections.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): What

about the report of the standing committee on…?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the House Leader to

decide. That is not for me to decide.

An Hon. Member: Is there a motion that could lead to

debate?

Mr. Speaker: I have a motion before the House, are

you ready for the question?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 34

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

King

Lea

Young

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS - 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

McGeer

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of

the House.

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents the report of the Overall Medical

Services plan of British Columbia.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): We've got

quite a heavy order paper here, and I notice that there are

many, many questions that the government has had some six weeks

to answer. I wonder if the Premier could give us any indication

of when the questions on the order paper will be answered.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could take that up later

between yourselves.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that up with

the Whip.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

[ Page

4380 ]

APPENDIX

The following report is referred to on page 4375:

MR. SPEAKER:

The Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters and

Housing begs leave to report as follows:

On June 5, 1974, the Legislature of British Columbia ordered

that the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters, both

during the Session and. upon prorogation of the House, be

authorized to review real property taxation procedures in

British Columbia, with particular emphasis on making

recommendations to the House at the next Session respecting

real property tax legislation necessary to ensure the equitable

distribution of real property taxation.

In order to assist its deliberations, the Committee had the

power to examine existing legislation bearing upon the taxation

function at the Provincial and municipal levels as well as the

legislation of any other jurisdiction.

Following advertisements placed in the newspapers of the

Province inviting public participation, about 300 responses

were received.

The Committee's deliberations began with a working session

involving the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the B.C. School

Trustees Association on September 17 in Vernon.

On September 25, 26, and 27, the Committee heard

representations from Dr. Mason Gaffney, Acting Director, B.C.

Institute for Economic Policy Analysis; Prof. Arthur Becker,

University of Wisconsin; Mr. Jonathan Rowe, Director, Property

Tax Project, Tax Reform Research Group, Washington, D.C.; Dr.

Jack Knetsch, Professor, Economics and Commerce Department,

Simon Fraser University; Mr. Percy Wright, Assessment

Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia; Mr. John

Moore, Surveyor of Taxes for the Province of British Columbia;

Mr. Fred Macklin and Mr. Larry Ting, Consultants in the

Department of Education.

Public hearings were held in Prince George, Kelowna,

Cranbrook, New Westminster, Victoria, Parksville, and

Vancouver, at which numerous briefs were presented.

Your Committee wishes to take this opportunity to express

its gratitude to all of the individuals and organizations who

contributed their time and experience in making submissions to

the Committee, thereby assisting it in discharging its

responsibilities.

Your Committee particularly wishes to record its thanks to

Mr. Reg Sampson, who served as Consultant to the Committee on

loan from the Assessment Authority of British Columbia. His

efforts providing advice and statistical information at the

request of members of the Committee were of immense value.

The authority for taxation of property is contained in the

Taxation Act , the Public Schools Act , the

Municipal Act , Water Act , Local Services Act , and

Regional Hospital Districts Act .

At this time, fixed Provincial taxation rates exist which

vary considerably on improved land, forest land, tree-farm

land, wild land, timber land, and farm land.

A variety of well-thought-out and carefully documented

suggestions for real property tax overhaul came before the

Committee. Some of these include:

(1) The site value taxation system —An approach to property tax

based on land only, with no consideration of improvements, was outlined for

the Committee.

(2) Differential mill rates —The general idea suggested was that

there should be separate mill rates for different classes of property. The classes

generally referred to were commercial, industrial, farm land, vacant land, and

residential land in use.

[ Page

4381 ]

APPENDIX

(3) Exemptions —It was suggested that a system similar to that

used for income tax purposes be introduced whereby every land-owner would be

granted a basic assessment exemption. Property taxes would then be calculated

only against the remaining assessment.

It was pointed out to the Committee that several hardships

exist within classes of property. For example, small parcels of

residential land being held for future home construction have

been assessed and taxed the same as speculative land, and some

small business people are experiencing hardship as a result of

commercial assessments being established at 50 per cent of

market value.

The Committee reached the conclusion that even with every

effort being made to achieve equity in real property assessment

and equity in the levying of tax, there will still remain

instances where, by reason of the nature and the circumstances

surrounding particular properties, hardship will result.

These individual cases of hardship can only be resolved by

facilitating consideration of each individual case.

The Committee also considered

(

a) the advisability of higher tax rates for British Columbia

land held by foreign owners;

(

b) the fact that under existing legislation certain properties

are exempt from taxation, including community halls, churches, cemeteries, Crown

lands, summer camps, Farmers' Institutes, and horticultural societies, among

others; it was suggested that all properties should be assessed and taxed,

but that municipal governments should maintain the right to make grants in

lieu of taxes.

In a submission to the Committee, Provincial Assessment

Commissioner Percy Wright stated that the actual value rolls

now under preparation would pose problems. He also pointed out

that use of the 1974 rolls would perpetuate existing

inequities.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture urged caution, stating

they would prefer the 1974 roll over the new roll being

prepared at actual value in order to provide sufficient time to

study all possible effects of the new 100 per cent

assessments.

Numerous representations referred to the complexities of

real property taxation and urged the Committee to proceed

slowly.

The Council of Forest Industries stated: "…the

matter is too complicated to be properly dealt with in the

current year…."

Additionally, the Union of B.C. Municipalities' brief

pointed out the difficulty in devising legislation to deal with

problems that have not yet been fully determined and stated: "…that authenticated 1974 assessment rolls, modified to

reflect physical changes, be used again in 1975…."

These are but some of the viewpoints brought to the

Committee reflecting the difficulty in rapid implementation of

100 per cent assessment rolls.

The Committee concludes that it is better to live with an

imperfect assessment roll created over the years by restrictive

legislative provisions than to proceed rapidly to implement

actual value assessment without sufficient time to study the

implications of such a move.

Recommendations

Therefore, the Committee recommends:

(1) That assessments in 1975 should be as they were in 1974,

but in cases where changes have occurred in physical character

of a property or new construction has taken place the

assessments should be as they would have been in 1974.

Land on which a residence is located, where situated in an

agricultural land reserve or where, by municipal or regional

district by-laws cannot be subdivided, then the parcel as a

whole shall be given the benefit of residential

classification.

[ Page

4382 ]

APPENDIX

(2) That consideration should be given to the establishment

of an agency empowered to investigate individual cases of real

property tax hardship, and to grant appropriate relief (i.e.,

locked-in land and small businesses).

(3) That a Special Commission be appointed to inquire into

all the ramifications of the implementation of an assessment

system based on actual value, and that the Commission review

all aspects of real property taxation procedures.

This review should be unrestricted in scope, but should

include the following:

(

a) Interjurisdictional sharing of tax revenue.

(

b) Classification of real property and the definition thereof.

(

c) Property tax exemption.

(

d) Tax burden or incidence, as between property classes.

(

e) Differential taxation of nonresident-owned land.

(

f) The impact of Government grants in an equitable tax system.

(

g) Site value taxation.

(

h) Consolidation of real property tax legislation under a single

statute.

(

i) Simplified tax language (i.e., change "mill rate" to "percentage").

(4) That the B.C. Assessment Authority continue to function

as an independent authority and be instructed to complete, as

soon as possible, an assessment roll based on actual value of

land, improvements, and machinery.

Respectfully submitted.

CARL LIDEN, Chairman

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada