1983 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 33rd 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 )

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 1983

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1059 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Crofton-Vesuvius ferry. Mr. Stupich –– 1059

Mrs. Wallace

Crown Corporations Committee. Mr. Howard –– 1059

Construction of Site C Dam. Mr. Skelly –– 1059

Mrs. Wallace

Northeast coal. Mr. Lea –– 1060

Rental charges on propane tanks. Mr. Lauk –– 1061

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act –– 1083 (Bill 17). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1061

Mr. Stupich –– 1063

Assessment Amendment Act, 1983 (Bill 22). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 1068

Mr. Stupich –– 1069

Mr. Blencoe –– 1073

Mr. Nicolson –– 1077

Tabling Documents

Report of Special Committee of the Legislative Assembly to Appoint an Auditor-general for the Province of British Columbia.

Mr. Veitch –– 1080

Mr. Howard –– 1081

THURSDAY, AUGUST 25, 1983

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We have in our galleries today Mrs. Phyllis

Ainsworth, who is visiting British Columbia from Charleston, South

Carolina. I ask all members to bid her a special welcome.

MR. MOWAT: It's an honour to have in your gallery today, Mr.

Speaker, a Vancouver citizen. She was a parks commissioner on the

Vancouver Parks Board for four years and is a very dedicated community

citizen in our community. I'd ask the House to welcome Mary Ann Fowler.

MR. NICOLSON: Also visiting us from Nelson today are three friends: Roger and Louise Crossley and their daughter Chrissy.

MR. REYNOLDS: Mr. Speaker, sitting in your gallery this

afternoon are two distinguished British Columbians and residents of my

constituency: the president of Inland Natural Gas Co., Bob Kadlec, and

the vice-president of Inland Natural Gas Co., Jim Randall. I'd like the

House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, would the House please welcome

two friends of mine. We have Mr. John Shewan, president of the

Abbotsford Teachers Association. With Mr. Shewan is Mike DeJong. Mike

is visiting from Carleton University, which he's attending. Mike,

before going off to Carleton, was the president of the Fraser Valley

Social Credit youth group. Would you please welcome these fine folks.

MR. MICHAEL: I would like the House to welcome a relative of mine. Sitting in the gallery today is Mr. Kyle Michael, a resident of Victoria.

Oral Questions

CROFTON-VESUVIUS FERRY

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I know there's cause for amusement

over there, but would the real Minister of Finance stand up and

identify himself? Well, the Premier's the real minister, but he won't

stand up.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the absence of the

Minister of Finance, I would like to ask the Minister of Highways a

question. He's a member who's always in the House.

Residents of my constituency have been informed — this is relative to the Crofton-Vesuvius

ferry — that the ferry will be out of service for at least a month because of

the damage that occurred to the landing and the studies that have been undertaken

by the Ferry Corporation. Will the minister explain the reasons for this delay

in commencing reconstruction of the damaged dock?

HON. A. FRASER: I thank the member for the question. I'm

aware of the accident they had, and I think I see why it'll take a

month. But I’ll be attending a ferry board meeting Monday morning, and

then I can reply in a better fashion.

MRS. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister would also agree to

advise the House as early as possible of the in-service date for that

ferry, because there is a lot of concern. A lot of commuters who use

that ferry are finding it very difficult. Will he give me that

undertaking?

HON. A. FRASER: I should be able to give a definitive answer on Monday.

MRS. WALLACE: I have one final question, Mr. Speaker.

Residents are now being forced to pay $200 a month — that's $5 per trip

each way for, say, 20 working days in the month — to get on and off the

island to go to work. That is prohibitive. When the ferry was

previously out of service the minister was good enough to provide water

taxi service at a reasonable rate for those people. Would the minister

undertake to assure us that that or a similar alternative service will

be provided for commuters and others needing to get off the island at

that end during this downtime?

HON. A. FRASER: I'll look into all those things and try to reply on Monday.

CROWN CORPORATIONS COMMITTEE

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree), the gentleman who is the chairman

of the Committee on Crown Corporations. In his capacity as chairman,

has he decided to call any meetings of that committee so that it can

examine the subject matters that have been referred to it?

MR. SPEAKER: The question is in order, hon. members.

MR. REE: To the member: yes.

MR. HOWARD: Delightfully informative. Could the member say

when and which of the subject matters referred to the committee will be

dealt with as a priority item?

MR. REE: Soon. The annual report for the last year.

MR. HOWARD: Any idea when this committee might meet?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's already answered that!

CONSTRUCTION OF SITE C DAM

MR. SKELLY: A question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. Can the minister advise whether his ministry has

received the report of the Public Utilities Commission panel which

inquired into the construction of the Site C Dam on the Peace River?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[ Page 1060 ]

MR. SKELLY: Supplementary to the same minister. Can the

Minister advise when the Site C report was delivered to him or his

ministry, and has he decided when the report will be made public?

HON. MR. ROGERS: About a month and a half ago, and no.

[2:15]

MR. SKELLY: A supplementary question. Has the minister decided whether the report will be made public at all?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Yes, in due course.

MRS. WALLACE: On the same topic, can the minister confirm

that the Site C report recommends that interveners recover their costs

on the same basis as the Utilities Commission and the applicants

recover their costs: that is, on the regulated rate base of the utility?

HON. MR. ROGERS: I take the question as notice.

MRS. WALLACE: The minister must be a slow reader if he hasn't read the report and found that in it yet.

Can the minister explain why he has written to the Utilities

Commission ordering them to cease cost awards to participants at its

hearings, and why he has done so without securing the necessary

legislative changes to

section 3 of the Utilities Commission Act?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's a matter of government policy as announced in the throne speech.

NORTHEAST COAL

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and

Small Business Development. There has been what appears to be an

unofficial policy of the Japanese steel interests, when looking for

cutbacks to their needs in coal supply from around the world, and with

new mines coming on that they've encouraged, that they would not cut

back in those areas. There seems to have been a shift in the Japanese

policy, as the Gregg River mine in Alberta has just been told that they

will be cut back a metric tonne from $87 to $74 per tonne. In northeast

coal, we know that with any tonnage volume cuts or any price cuts, the

difference will have to be made up by the taxpayers of this province.

Has there been any communication from the Japanese steel industry to

this government or to the companies involved in northeast coal — to the

minister's knowledge — that there would be some look at a new price

structure by the Japanese steel interests?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: In answer to the member's question, the

negotiations between the Gregg River people and the Japanese steel

industry.... The contract that they have with the Japanese steel

industry — to my understanding, Mr. Member — is somewhat different from

the contract which exists between Quintette Coal Ltd. and Bullmoose and

the Japanese steel industry, in that the possible opening negotiations

for price would not occur until after 1989. Also, because of the fact

that the northeast coal-mines — Quintette and Bullmoose — have much

larger participation by the Japanese banking and steel industries,

various mining interests and the new energy development organization

under the Minister of International Trade and Industry, any

negotiations will of course be on a much higher plane. Therefore I'm

not aware that any solid negotiations between the Japanese steel

industry and the two mines in the northeast part of the province have

taken place or been requested or that there is the desire to have

further negotiations. But I want to assure the member and all British

Columbians that due to the very good relationships among the Japanese

steel industry, trading companies, banking system and government

harbours authority, the government of British Columbia, and all of the

people involved in this great project which is creating, as I outlined

this morning, some 5,000 jobs in the province at the time.... If there

is a difficulty, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, the Chair has very

patiently allowed the member an opportunity to respond to a question,

and I think the member must bear in mind that he must give an answer

and end the response.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I realize that, but I

just wanted to make sure that the member was fully aware of all the

facts, and to give him a thorough answer.

MR. LEA: I have a supplementary question for the minister, Mr. Speaker, if he's not lost for words.

If what the minister says is indeed correct and there is this good

relationship all round, we're pleased to hear it, because the taxpayers

of this province are going to suffer if there isn't a good

relationship. But it's also obvious to us that if there is a price cut

it will affect the taxpayers. The taxpayers will have to pay more money.

AN HON. MEMBER: How?

MR. LEA: By the contract. The minister knows that, because it's based on so much a tonne.

The fact of the matter is that this is not....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question?

MR. LEA: The question is: is the minister saying that the

Japanese steel interests will not do exactly the same thing to

northeast coal as they did to southeast coal? They did not honour the

contracts. The contracts are not firm and the coal companies had to

take what they could get.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I hate to inform the House

and the gallery that the member is really somewhat misinformed in

saying that the taxpayers would have to pick up any deficit or downside

on negotiations in price. I'd like to inform the House and the member

opposite, if he doesn't already know, that because of the great

negotiations by the government on behalf of everybody, we will

participate in the upside. In other words, if the price of coal goes

up, the taxpayers of British Columbia will participate in that new

price and help pay for the infrastructure. In the history of any

resource development in British Columbia, Canada or indeed in North

America, such a deal has never before been struck. The companies have

also put up a $750 million bond to protect the taxpayers of British

Columbia. So we do share in the upside, but we don't share in the

downside.

[ Page 1061 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, certainly.

You know, Mr. Member, that we have a percentage of the price of the

coal at the mine, the same as for copper or any other commodity. Three

new coal-mines — not the two northeast — will be officially opened in

western Canada within the next month: the Gregg River mine in Alberta,

which is supplying two million tonnes a year to the Japanese steel

industry; the Line Creek mine, which is being opened by Shell

Resources; and the Greenhills mine, which has participation with Pohang

Iron and Steel Works in Korea. All of that has taken place since 1976,

when this government started going out to seek new international

markets for our coal so the people could be gainfully employed in the

long term in the province of British Columbia.

RENTAL CHARGES ON PROPANE TANKS

MR. LAUK: My question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources. In the last several years the federal and

provincial senior levels of government have taken steps to encourage

people to rely less on oil as a home heating fuel in particular, and

for their other needs encouraged them to go into propane. I think the

minister will recognize that there's a certain rural dependence on

propane, and that there have been significant increases in the cost of

that fuel. Many consumers of propane have complained that they are

paying excessive rental charges for their tanks these days. In some

cases, I'm told, the annual rental is more than 25 percent of the value

of the tank. I wonder if the minister can advise what action has been

taken or is being taken by his ministry to prevent such price-gouging.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The member is asking about future action of

the ministry, but I might tell the member, for his own information,

although I'm advised that he already knows, so I'll tell the House

because the House may not know that he already knows, that the rates

for the rental of propane tanks are based on the replacement rate for

those tanks, and they have a limited lifespan under Canadian safety

standards, which are enforced by both the federal and provincial

governments.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the hon. member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly) sought, pursuant to standing order 35, to move

adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public

importance. As members are aware, under standing order 35 the matter

brought forward by a member should be stated briefly, and subsequent

examination of Hansard indicates that this was far from the

case at the time. The member's statement cannot be characterized as

anything other than a speech, the content of which would be heard in

the budget debate, upon which the House has embarked. The member did

not forward to the Chair a statement, as required by standing order

35(3). It is abundantly clear that the matter does not come within the

ambit of standing order 35.

Hon. members, it is my duty to remind all members of the House that

when recognition by the Chair is sought and subsequently gained, it is

incumbent upon that member to ensure that he or she does not abuse the

procedures of this House, which is tantamount to abusing the rights of

all other hon. members. It would be accurate for the Chair to reflect

that the manner in which the member for Alberni sought the floor

yesterday fell into this latter category.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, on this very prophetic day,

being four months until Christmas, I would ask leave to proceed to

public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 17.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES (FINANCE

MEASURES) AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill

17, Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act, 1983, an

omnibus bill containing a number of amendments with varying financial

impact. I say again that it is a relatively typical omnibus bill, in

that a number of the amendments do not relate one to the other. Given

that, and with the permission of the Chair, I propose to address

briefly several of the more significant measures during this stage of

the bill, and perhaps at a later date to discuss more generally the

remaining items at committee stage.

Perhaps the first and most important aspect is that the bill

provides for the necessary amendments to implement improvements in the

control and measurement of staffing in the government. I previously

explained the change which occurred earlier in this session, and I

identified those at the time of the presentation of the estimates; I

want to review just the main points of the new system and explain why

it is being introduced.

The government has changed the way in which staffing numbers are

presented in the estimates book. Prior to this year, only the number of

authorized full-time continuous positions were given for each program

of activity in government. The flaw in that presentation style — and it

had been in place for many years — was that numbers for auxiliary staff

were not provided. In order to be more accountable to this Legislature

and indeed to those people of the province interested in our activities

as government, and in order to provide a more accurate figure for the

use of paid employee time or the actual workforce required in each

ministry, the estimates now before the House contain a staffing

estimate on a full-time- equivalent basis. One or two members will look

for an acronym; we don't have a perfect acronym but they are shown as

FTEs. I explained earlier that one FTE — one full-time equivalent — is

the equivalent of one person employed full time for one full working

year: for example, two people employed for six months each.

We've made the change to allow more accurate measurement and control

to be maintained over the use of staff within the public service. There

will be more accurate control over the number of staff employed, as

well as the cost of that staff. Ministries have been notified in this

regard — fully canvassed, in fact — and they understand that they will

not be permitted to exceed the number of FTEs shown in the estimates.

As before, they may not exceed the budgeted amount for salaries. A

monitoring procedure is to be put in place to allow the actual use of

manpower by ministries to be checked monthly against the target that

has been assigned to them.

[ Page 1062 ]

[2:30]

There are advantages to ministries in using the new system, because

ministries will be given the flexibility to employ the proportions of

full-time and part-time staff most suitable for providing a specific

program or series of programs within the ministry, instead of being

constrained to a certain number of full-time staff. A number of us can

very easily imagine that in some ministries the ability to alter the

number of employees from season to season is highly desirable. The new

system will have no effect on the current status of employees who are

covered by collective bargaining agreements or on those who are

excluded. The change will simply assist the government in monitoring

progress towards its goal of a particular size of public service. By

the end of September 1983, it's expected that most ministries will have

met the target of a 15 percent reduction from the base which was in

place for 1982-83. A further reduction is to be achieved in 1984.

Moving to another aspect of Bill 17, we also include a change to the

Home Owner Grant Act that will increase the minimum real property tax

payable to $150 from $125, after deduction of the homeowner grant. This

change is to come into effect on January 1, 1984. Again, I emphasize

that this new minimum will not affect eligible homeowners who are 65

years or over, or those who are, in the context of the act,

handicapped. Accordingly, the maximum grant of $630 that is currently

available to these property owners remains, as does the $1 minimum

property tax payable.

Under the heading "Miscellaneous taxation amendments" with respect

to some of the remaining items contained in Bill 17, there are a number

of amendments to various taxation statutes. The purpose of these is

twofold: first, to assist the Crown in protecting its revenue sources

and enhancing its ability to collect outstanding taxes; secondly, to

attend to several tax administration matters. With respect to the

latter, the bill makes provision for the prepayment of property taxes

in the non-municipal areas of the province and requires interest to be

paid on the money received. The amendment to the Taxation (Rural Area)

Act will therefore enable affected property owners, property taxpayers,

to take advantage of a convenience which is presently available in

municipal jurisdictions. I trust that that one has the full support of

all members. It has been a practice in most municipalities, if not all,

for interest to be paid on prepaid property taxes and for the ability

to prepay property taxes if one so chooses, but that has not been the

case in terms of property under provincial jurisdiction.

There is also a series of amendments to give legislative effect to

the recently signed reciprocal taxation agreement between the province

into force on April 1, 1983. Under this agreement the federal

government will pay taxes and fees,

whereas formerly the federal

government was exempt. Amendments to three taxation statutes are needed

to eliminate the exemption for federal government purchases following

April 1, 1983. These are the Social Service Tax Act, the Motive Fuel

Use Tax Act and the Gasoline Tax Act.

I spoke of other amendments impacting taxation administration. These

amendments clarify the existing provisions under four statutes with

respect to the timing of the coming into existence of the Crown's

statutory lien. The clarification confirms a taxation court decision.

The final administrative amendment corrects a drafting omission that

occurred in 1982 with respect to the exemption of goods leased by

fishermen under the Social Service Tax Act.

Speaking further of revenue protection measures with respect to

enhancements to the government's collection efforts, there are four

measures, each of which amend several taxation statutes. One of the

measures amends ten tax statutes in order to provide the government

with a greater ability to collect taxes by way of attachments or

third-party demands than is currently the case. The statutes to be

amended for this purpose under this amending act are the Corporation

Capital Tax Act, the Gasoline (Coloured) Tax Act, the Gasoline Tax Act,

the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Insurance Premium Tax, Act, the Logging Tax

Act, the Mining Tax Act, the Motive Fuel Use Tax Act, the Social

Service Tax Act, the Taxation (Rural Area) Act and the Tobacco Tax Act.

The remaining three measures impact consumer taxation statutes.

Together they ensure that taxes owing under these statutes are

collected and remitted to the Crown by vendors, hotel operators and

persons who function as receiver-managers. The measures concern

cancellation or suspension of vendor-operator registration for failure

to collect or remit taxes under the Social Service, Hotel Room and

Tobacco Tax Acts; court injunctions ordering vendor-operators to cease

operating until he or they fulfil obligations under those three acts

just identified; and clarification that receivers are required to remit

all taxes collected prior to distribution of property. This refers to

the Social Service and Hotel Room Tax Acts.

Finally, a number of amendments which the House may decide are more

appropriately dealt with in detail in committee: they render financial

management and control more effective and, we believe, less costly.

With one exception, all of these amendments impact the Financial

Administration Act. A significant result of these amendments will be to

broaden the government's access to information concerning the financial

affairs of public bodies. As well, Treasury Board will be empowered to

authorize the payment of fees and commissions to persons employed in

collecting, managing or accounting for public money, either before or

after deposit of public money to the consolidated revenue fund. This

will provide the flexibility to reduce the paper burden for all

concerned and will also reduce associated costs to government.

Further, Treasury Board, under this amending act, will be authorized

to approve additional expenditures from a vote based on the amount by

which actual recoveries or credits exceed estimated recoveries or

credits through the course of the year. I think this one will be widely

welcomed in government, Mr. Speaker — and I speak of those who manage

in government. It will permit flexibility by authorizing expenditure of

recoveries or credits not originally expected or planned for in the

determination of a net dollar amount in a vote. As an example, it would

enable something such as the Queen's Printer to fund any increased

demand for its services from the increased revenues generated by a

corresponding increase in business activity.

I thank the House for its patience as I dealt with these in considerable detail, and I move second reading of Bill 17.

MR. SPEAKER: I recognize the member for Nanaimo.

HON. MR. GARDOM: A six-month hoist?

[ Page 1063 ]

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm tempted to accept the

suggestion of the House Leader and say, let's have a six-month hoist on

this so that we can look at some of the sections the minister didn't

relate to in his remarks.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We'll deal with it in committee.

MR. STUPICH: I am encouraged by the House Leader to deal with

it in committee. The Minister of Finance chose to deal with it in

second reading, and I will deal with it somewhat in second reading. No

doubt there will be something left over for committee, if and when we

get to that point.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I am sure there will be.

MR. STUPICH: The minister is sure that we will.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, I said there will be something left over.

MR. STUPICH: Yes, there will be something left over. I

thought he meant that he was sure we would get to committee stage in

this bill. Frankly, I am not sure of anything these days. I thought we

were going to have a budget. We had a budget on July 7, we debated it

for three days, and then we forgot all about it until a just a few days

ago when we picked it up again.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. STUPICH: It is in order as much as anything else is these

days. Mr. Speaker, I have been urged to be in order. I don't know what

is in order these days. I thought we almost came to the point of voting

on the budget. Certainly we know how we are going to vote; I can only

assume the government has not yet decided how it is going to vote on

the budget. Once again they have backed off from budget consideration.

Now we are being ask to deal with yet one more bill. Earlier today,

I believe, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) went down the list

of bills that have been introduced for second reading, debated for a

while and then abandoned while the government decided which bill to

introduce next. You know, in the good old days when the Leader of the

House, who is interjecting, was in opposition in this House, it used to

be the format that we had a budget, we went through the budget debate

and we voted on the budget. Then we went through estimates and we knew

what the government was going to do with the money that it was raising.

This time we started a budget debate and we abandoned it. We have not

yet had one word from the government about its spending plans. We

should be talking about them before we deal with legislation raising

money.

In his introduction of this particular legislation, Bill 17,

Miscellaneous Statutes (Finance Measures) Amendment Act, 1983 the

Minister of Finance said that it has varying financial impact. I wonder

what that means. Varying to me means that in some instances it is

protecting revenue for the Crown; in other instances it is spending it.

Well, I don't know where the spending came in, except in his last

remarks where he said: "If the government comes into some fortuitous

gain — money that wasn't expected — then the members of the Legislature

shall have nothing to say about the spending of that money. The

Treasury Board are going to say how that money is going to be spent."

Talk about not a dime without debate!

We are now being ask to consider legislation. I suppose we are being

ask to approve it, but we are certainly being ask to consider

legislation at this point. I raise that question because I am not sure

that the government ever intends to get beyond second reading in

anything. As I interpreted the minister's remarks in second reading,

with this legislation we are giving Treasury Board the approval to

spend money that comes in — money that was not expected, money that

arrives because revenues in some instances exceeded expected revenues,

budgeted revenues or whatever. We are going to tell Treasury Board to

go ahead and spend this any way that they see fit. They have been doing

it anyway, so I suppose we are not really changing anything. At least

up to now it hasn't been legal.

[2:45]

We have had to make it legal afterwards. When the government decided

to blow $.5 million, $1 million, $1.5 million or whatever on an

expensive weatherman advertising campaign preceding the actual

election, they went far beyond the estimates that were voted upon in

the Legislature. Yet with the budget and these motions that are coming

before us, we will be approving those expenditures afterwards. In this

instance it would appear as though we were not even going to have the

opportunity after the fact to say whether or not this money that is

being spent purely at the discretion of Treasury Board is spent wisely,

should have been spent, shouldn't have been spent, should have been

hoarded or whatever. It is going to be up to Treasury Board to do as it

will. In the minister's remarks — there may be something in the

legislation — he didn't even indicate that there would ever be any

particular report to the House as to what Treasury Board did with this

money.

In his introduction the minister talked about several parts of the

legislation. The first thing I would like to ask him about is the

varying financial impact. I wonder if at some point — perhaps in

closing of second reading or in committee stage if he likes — he will

tell us just where the varying financial effect is.

Control the levels of staffing. There are several pieces of

legislation before us with the announced intention of doing something

quite different. The actual intention, though, would seem to follow the

line of the government, and that is to reduce the levels of public

service staffing. The Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), I

believe, was the first to indicate this to the House. He was the one

that first used the figure of some 300,000 employees in the public

service — 300,000 when you add them all up with all the different

agencies. This legislation before us is yet one more way of apparently

making sure that the government is going to reach that target — one

more way of ensuring that there will be increased unemployment in the

province of British Columbia, that fewer services will be offered to

the people in the province who need it most, and that the advances made

in the province of British Columbia over the last three decades are

going to be wiped out in the event that we do actually proceed far

enough to dispose of the legislation before us. As the minister said,

this is just one more way of making sure that we control the levels of

staffing.

That's not the way to go. The minister told us that previously in estimates we were given the number of authorized

[ Page 1064 ]

full-time staff, and the numbers of auxiliaries

were not accounted for. But he neglected to point out that when we

voted on those estimates we did vote dollars to each one of those

ministries and for each one of those votes, and by voting for those

dollars we in effect set the limit as to what might be spent for

auxiliary employees and everything else. The Legislature did have the

authority in those days to discuss with the minister, when estimates

were being presented, what the minister had in mind with respect to

full-time and auxiliary employees and what kind of services he intended

to offer in the various votes coming under the jurisdiction of his

ministry. We apparently are not going to have that any longer. We are

simply going to be presented with figures, and perhaps during estimates

we'll be able to ask: just what does one full-time equivalent mean?

I really did appreciate the minister's definition when he told us

one full-time is equivalent to two people working half-time. Some of

the mathematicians on this side of the House might have had trouble

working that out, so I do appreciate the minister's help. One full-time

equals two half-time. He might have gone on to say that one-full time

equals four at a quarter-time, and that would have been very helpful.

We really would have appreciated that kind of assistance. But I wonder

what that really contributes to the debate about how far the government

intends to go in withdrawing services from the people of British

Columbia.

I don't have a copy of the minister's notes; all I have is what I

scribbled down as he was speaking. One of the things he said, as I took

it, was: "As before, the ministers may not exceed the budgeted amount."

That makes sense. That's the way it's supposed to have been for the

last 20 years I've been around here at least: ministers were not

supposed to exceed the budgeted amount. But, Mr. Speaker, you'll recall

that in every year since this government took office late in December

1975, their expenditures in total have exceeded the budgeted amounts,

and generally by several hundred million dollars. There has been that

rule, it's not supposed to have happened, and yet it has been the

practice and pattern ever since this government was elected. Even last

year, when we came up with a deficit of some $978 million, when the

government was supposed to have been practising restraint, we find that

the actual estimated.... I believe it's called "actual estimated" in

the budget, since we don't have the final audited figures yet. We find

that the figures for expenditures include those budgeted for in the

budget for the year ending March 1983.

That happens, but I don't know that it should happen in the figures

it's been happening in. I said last year when the budget was presented

that I didn't believe the figures in the budget. I didn't believe that

the government really believed them, and I suspected at the time that

it was an election budget, one that produced figures where revenues and

expenditures magically balanced. I didn't believe it, and of course the

proof of the pudding was in the eating. We found out by the end of the

year that they were almost a billion dollars out, when you take into

account revenue shortfall and expenditure overruns.

Nevertheless, as has always been the case, ministers are not

supposed to exceed the budgeted amount. We know that in the year

1983-84, by the time we see the figures for the end of that year, once

again we're going to find out that actual expenditures will not equal

the budgeted expenditures. The difference this year is that I suspect,

and I think a lot of other people in the community suspect, that the

government's figures for expenditures are sadly overestimated. Either

that or its program of restraint is a complete and abject failure. For

the budgeted expenditures for the year 1983-84 to be 16 percent more

than the original budgeted figures for 1982-83 shows that they are

increasing their spending enormously compared to every other

administration, or shows that they are padding those figures in an

attempt to impress upon people the need for restraint in the province

of British Columbia.

I appreciate the minister's advice that his ministers are not

supposed to exceed the budgeted amount, but there ought to be some

obligation on them to spend the money that is going to be voted upon in

this Legislature in providing the services that they are supposed to be

providing. They shouldn't exceed them, but neither should they be

markedly less than the amount voted upon in this Legislature. One small

example of that: it should not happen during the year that the

government unilaterally decides to cut out one service, without any

discussion in the Legislature, without any discussion anywhere

presumably, except on Treasury Board benches, and to completely

disregard the wishes of the members of the Legislature and abandon a

program that was voted upon. In the same way that ministers should not

exceed moneys approved for them, neither should they cut back in

programs that were approved.

A case in point, Mr. Speaker, was the $91 million that was voted

upon some 16 months ago to provide some tax credits to low-income

people. It was a program abandoned, apparently, by the Minister of

Finance. Mr. Speaker, I see you nodding your head that we shouldn't be

talking about that. I would remind you that we have not yet concluded

discussion of the budget itself. We haven't talked about expenditures.

I would remind you that Bill 4, the Income Tax Amendment Act, has not

yet passed second reading. Everything we talk about these days is in

limbo. It's very hard to say that the Legislature shouldn't talk about

Bill 4 while talking about Bill 17, because Bill 4 is not legislation.

It's simply part of a government program that has been announced, has

been introduced for second reading and has been abandoned, perhaps

because the government has changed its mind and wants to bring in an

entirely different Bill 4. We don't know where we are with respect to

Bill 4, Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 6, Bill 7, Bill 9, Bill 11, Bill 16, Bill

23 — we could go right through the list. We don't know where we are

with any of them. We don't even know whether the government has changed

its mind about the whole budget. So it would seem to me that almost

everything is either out of order or almost anything is completely in

order at this stage of debate until the government decides what it

wants to accomplish in this session and when it wants to arrive at some

targets.

The minister said — another note I made — "no change in status on

staff covered by collective bargaining agreements." Mr. Speaker, you

sort of shook your head a little earlier, so I guess I shouldn't say

that one of the bills before us — Bill 3 — says in effect that in the

event a collective bargaining agreement is signed that is contrary to

any of the provisions of any of the other legislation, it isn't worth

the paper it's written on. It provides no protection at all, even

though a collective bargaining agreement has been signed, giving that

protection. So to say that there is no change in status — so what? The

government signed an agreement with the B.C. government employees that

there would be no firings, that there would be orderly cutbacks in the

level of staffing. This says "no change." That agreement's still in

[ Page 1065 ]

effect. Yet almost on a daily basis we hear of

programs being wiped out and people being laid off. So when the

minister assures us that the legislation before us right now actually

means that there's no change in the protection afforded people who are

living and working under collective bargaining agreements, he's telling

us the truth. There is no change. They have absolutely no protection

now, and this does not take away from them something that they don't

have at the present time. So that part of the legislation, I'm afraid,

is not going to be very reassuring to anyone.

The minister gave as his target that by the end of 1983 there will

be a 15 percent reduction in staff. The minister won't answer today, I

think, even if we get to concluding second reading today, but certainly

there will be opportunity, if we get to estimates, for us to ask

searching questions as to just what levels of staff are contemplated

and how the target of 15 percent reduction in one fiscal year is

reflected in the costs of the operations of the ministries, when we get

around to discussing those in detail. I think the ministers will be

hard put to show us that the figures they are actually presenting in

this House bear any relationship at all to a slowdown in programs to

the effect that the work being done will be covered by 85 percent of

the staff, rather than the present staffing level. He goes on to

promise his ministers to threaten the economy of British Columbia by

saying that there will be further reductions in the next budget.

Mr. Speaker, one of the sections of the bill changes the homeowner

grant. As the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

said to us, why not leave it until committee? But the minister did

mention this. It's one of the amendments in this bill. Once more,

whether the amount is reasonable or not, the government, in following

its program of restraint, is saying to the poorest people in the

community.... Anyone who lives in a house that is going to be able to

take advantage of this particular legislation is living in pretty poor

and mean circumstances. They're not living there by choice. They're

living there generally because that's all they are able to afford.

Sure, it isn't very much to a cabinet minister; it isn't very much to

an MLA to pay $25 a year more. It's the principle of the thing. For the

government to say to those who are in such low circumstances: "We are

going to ask each and every one of you" — most of them in rural areas,

because the figures would hardly be applicable in urban areas — "to

kick in another $25 each towards our fight against a $1.6 billion

deficit...." It's not reasonable. It's not fair. It's the wrong time to

go to those people and say they should make a greater contribution in

the fight against inflation.

The minister commented on the legislation giving effect to

reciprocal agreements with respect to sales tax, motive fuel tax and

gasoline tax. I wasn't able to write fast enough. I think he said that

there had been negotiations with the federal government on this and

that agreement has been reached. I would hate to think that it was

being done unilaterally. I'm not even sure about the legislative

authority to do it unilaterally. I believe the minister was reassuring

me, and he'll have an opportunity to do that in some detail when we get

to his windup — if we get to his windup. But I am pleased that the

government is not acting unilaterally by imposing taxes on purchases by

the federal government and that it is something that has been worked

out.

It reminds me again of something that came up in another context.

That was concern.... I expressed it at the time and I keep on bringing

it up because I want the minister to be aware and always to have in

mind that I think it would be a very backward step for the province to

start levying its own personal or corporation taxes. I had hoped that

the threat that was actually included in the budget speech about two

budgets ago, where B.C. was giving active consideration to that, was

something long forgotten; it hasn't appeared since. The fact that in

this instance the minister assures me from his seat that it was reached

by agreement encourages me to think that there is some cooperation at

least between the federal and provincial Ministers of Finance — that we

needn't worry about breakdowns. There are other problems, like logos on

ALRT transit — that kind of thing — but in this instance I gather that

the Minister of Finance is cooperating, rather than looking for

opportunities to fight with Ottawa.

[3:00]

He mentions revenue protection measures: four amendments relating to

tax collection. That's not an example of varying financial impact;

these are ways of making sure that the government gets every penny

that's coming to it. I have no sympathy for people who withhold what is

due the government. I sometimes wonder at some of the steps that are

taken to collect it. I did raise this yesterday, and I'm not sure that

the situation has changed very much. I was talking about the

government's laxity in making sure that it counts all the money that

comes in and that some of it doesn't go into the garbage. The apparent

concentration is on finding out who the messenger was, rather than

correcting the situation. I pointed out that the auditor-general has

been complaining about the lack of internal control in every report

filed with this Legislature. This was just one very concrete example of

a lack of sufficient internal control. It's all very well to say that

everybody should pay all the money they owe, but in some instances, no

doubt, with the examples I've produced, there are taxpayers in the

province who are being dunned for money that they have in good faith

paid, and the money just hasn't been recorded because of the breakdown

in internal control.

"Number of amendments, financial management more successful,

and the Treasury Board may set fees."

I'm almost back to the point where I started. Once again we're saying

that the actual business of the House will not be conducted in the Legislature,

not in the kind of public forum that we have here today, but that more and more

the raising and spending of money will be decided by cabinet, which does not

meet in public, or by Treasury Board, which presumably may report to the public.

Last year I put a question on the order paper asking for the amount

of revenue that the government expected to collect because of a large

number of user fee increases. The question was on the order paper, and

the minister promised to get the answer, but he said at the time that

it would take time. He did write to me and said that it would take some

time to get it, and I appreciate that. In the intervening period the

Legislature prorogued, we had a new election, and we had to start all

over again. I don't criticize the minister for not having given me that

information some time ago. I recognize that it's a lot of work getting

it, and I believe it's on the order paper again. I know I prepared it.

It's one that I do want to pursue.

I'd like to know just how much authority the Legislature has given

to cabinet for increasing revenues, rather than having them come into

the House and talk about changes in tax legislation. Just how much more

money is being collected? How much authority are we giving to Treasury

Board to set fees' What kind of fees are going to be set? What

[ Page 1066 ]

publicity will there be to the fees that are set by

Treasury Board? Orders-in-council — motions made by cabinet and signed

by the Lieutenant-Governor — at least are made public, and then the

public generally has an opportunity to find out to what extent the

cabinet is increasing government revenue. They're going around behind

the Legislature; it has nothing to do with the legislative debate. The

cabinet is making these decisions in cabinet meetings, but what is the

effect? How much money is it bringing in?

It would seem to me, from what I took from what the minister said —

I admit they were hasty notes taken down while he was speaking — that

the minister is saying that no longer will we have orders- in-council

to which we may refer when we want to find out how much more money the

government is extracting from the people of British Columbia without

introducing and discussing legislation; that we are also going to have

Treasury Board setting fees. Perhaps the only people aware of the new

fees established by Treasury Board will be those who are directly

affected. It's an axiom that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

Treasury Board might set a fee and then forget to tell someone, and yet

that someone may very well be responsible for paying that fee.

I don't know what kind of fees Treasury Board has in mind. I know

there is some explanation in the legislation and a little explanation

in the minister's remarks, but it seems to me that there's a lot left

unsaid with respect to giving Treasury Board — I believe it's the first

time it has happened; I don't recall that kind of wording before — the

right to set fees. Certainly the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has had

that right in the past. For the last four or five sessions we've argued

about the extent to which the Legislature is giving up its right to

control cabinet — is agreeing that cabinet shall have the right to set

fees, without benefit of legislative debate. I recall the cry, "Not a

dime without debate!" that was raised over and over by the Social

Credit Party when they were in opposition. Little by little they have

concentrated the power of government in the cabinet room. My concern

and suspicion about what the minister said with respect to the bill now

before us is that we are going one step farther, and that power is now

being concentrated in Treasury Board so that even the cabinet members

may not be aware of what is happening.

I come back to his conclusion and my conclusion. If money does come

in in excess of what is expected, or if it comes in from some source

that was not expected at the beginning of the year, that should be part

of consolidated revenue. I can appreciate what the minister said about

the need in some cases to have some flexibility. The machinery has

always been there to allow for that; there has always been provision

for special warrants; there have always been opportunities for

overexpenditures. In my mind, there is no need to say that any money

coming in in excess of what was budgeted for or of what was expected or

from any fortuitous source should be allocated to Treasury Board to be

spent any way in which it sees fit.

The record of this government since it was elected in December 1975 makes me

very concerned about the uses to which this particular Treasury Board might

put that money. If indeed the legislation before us, omnibus legislation though

it may be.... If by this legislation the Legislature is giving up any of

its rights to control the spending of public moneys, by giving some of those

rights to Treasury Board, then even though there might be some good features

in this — and there are some; I appreciate the need to cooperate with Ottawa

on taxation — if that is what the minister is asking us to do, we have no recourse

other than to oppose this legislation.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) — I

would call him House Leader, but he isn't here at the moment — invited

me to propose a six-month hoist. I think six months isn't long enough,

if that's really what the legislation says, if it's asking us to say to

Treasury Board: "Without ever coming back to the Legislature and

without even going to cabinet, go ahead and spend whatever money you

deem to be unexpected — any fortuitous grants or money that comes in.

If it wasn't expected and wasn't budgeted for, Treasury Board may spend

it at will." Do you remember the stories about the thousand-dollar

bills being handed out of the Premier's office? If Treasury Board is

going to have that kind of authority, then a six-month hoist isn't long

enough. However, it's the standard way for the House to express to

government that there should be further consideration of this

legislation, and I think it may come to that. For the moment, so that

we may have some further time to consider this, I would like to move

adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[3:15]

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 22, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOWARD: I want to raise with Your Honour a point of order

that was dealt with earlier today, but perhaps not as extensively as it

needs to be gone into. I draw Your Honour's attention to a decision of

Mr. Speaker on March 30, 1976, page 399, in substantiation of the point

of order.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I am going to ask members — particularly when a

member is on his feet with a point of order that has some validity to

the proceedings — to either take their places or leave the chamber, but

to do so quietly. This is the last time I will so advise members. I ask

for courtesy to be extended to all members by all members.

MR. HOWARD: The events leading up to the 1976 decision to which I referred you involved some comments in Hansard

by the then Premier, who is the Premier today as well. I can appreciate

that this may border on an area where Your Honour would say that he

should not have any knowledge. It relates to conversations leading up

to and involving the proceedings and the business before the House.

However, the Premier of the day went extensively into the relationship

of Whips — one to the other — and the orderly development of

legislation and business before the House so that the House would be

aware through the Whip system of what would or would not be called at

any given time. In 1976 the Premier went extensively into that,

unhindered, and I don't want to repeat what he said word for word. But

he said the Whip system is a system which must function and operate on

trust,

[ Page 1067 ]

one with the other, and cannot be policed, ordered or anything of that sort.

In calling the bill that the government House Leader has called, I

submit that the decision to call that particular bill was thoroughly

and completely contrary and opposed to the understanding which our Whip

advises me had been developed as to which bills would be dealt with

today. I ask Your Honour to take that into consideration.

Perhaps what we need to do is follow the Speaker's decision which

resulted out of comments in 1976. This is admittedly not out of a

specific ruling based upon procedural matters, but Mr. Speaker said on

March 30, 1976: "Because of that, and the fact that I believe that

something could be worked out" — that related to being worked out

between the Whips — "I hereby declare a 15-minute recess. I'll be back

in the chair in 15 minutes." The House then recessed and came back

again. The government House Leader then proceeded to declare what the

results of that conversation.

I submit that because there appears to be a breakdown in the

ordinary, normal and usual communication about what business will be

called at any given time, perhaps Your Honour might take under

advisement the possibility of now declaring a recess so that the Whips

might meet and conclude, if they can, between them what it is that will

be dealt with and what will be called. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, I submit

that the manner in which the government is proceeding is going to

completely destroy the communication between Whips, which is so vitally

necessary to orderliness in this House.

MR. VEITCH: On the same point of order, I believe the Whip

system can work very well in this House or in any parliament, but there

must be constructive agreement such as Whips have between each other.

But there also must be constructive debate and argument and not

obstruction in this House, and that's the problem at this point in time.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, we have

been very patient in listening to these points of order, which are

completely fraudulent.

MR. NICOLSON: Order! Are you calling Speaker Smith fraudulent?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: As the hon. member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) well knows, those matters which pertain to discussions between

Whips are not of interest to this House or to the Chair. I would

encourage Mr. Speaker to ask all hon. members to carry on those kinds

of discussions outside the chamber and, if they come to your attention

here, to call them out of order.

MR. HOWARD: On the same point of order, just very briefly, I

think Your Honour should appreciate that when the government Whip rose

to make comments about the point of order he entered into a purely

subjective analysis of something, and at no time indicated that what I

said was incorrect.

Secondly, with respect to the accusation of fraudulence on the part

of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Schroeder), the record should

show that that word is being applied by the Minister of Agriculture to

the words of his own Premier on March 30, 1976, when he went

extensively into the subject of Whips, with the support of the then

Minister of Agriculture as well.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at this point we clearly seem to

be engaging in a debate on a system that should best be conducted

outside the House. While it certainly is of concern to all members,

points of order dealing with Whippery are certainly best discussed

outside the chamber. Nonetheless, I would recommend to all members that

the smooth working of the House can be very greatly enhanced by the

cooperation and understanding of both sides of the House in dealing

with the Whips of their respective parties.

MR. LAUK: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker —and this

is the earliest opportunity to raise it — the remark of the Whip, the

member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Veitch), has caused me great concern

and should, I suggest to you, Your Honour, suggest a breach of the

privileges of hon. members. It is a clear admission that the tactics of

the government side are to inhibit the right of individual members in

this House to speak in accordance with standing orders on each and

every bill before the House. Of course, to say that the debate of the

opposition members in particular is obstruction is his opinion, and

that's fine. However, what the Whip has said is that the reason the

bills are being called out of order and not debated thoroughly is to

inhibit individual members in their right under standing orders to

debate — each and every one of us, if we choose to, and many of us feel

we have a responsibility to — for the full time allotted. That is

clearly the Whip's suggestion, and I suggest that that is a prima facie

breach of privilege against hon. members of this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. The Chair, with the

greatest respect, finds that it would be difficult at this time to

demonstrate how any member who wishes to take his place in debate in

this House can in fact be prohibited from so doing when the ample

opportunities before us will continue. And, hon. members, it is my

assurance to the members of this House that they will continue to have

every possible opportunity to conduct the debate for which they have

been elected and indeed charged with responsibility.

MR. LAUK: Perhaps I didn't make myself clear, Mr. Speaker.

The tactics employed are being used for the sole purpose of preventing

members taking their place in debate. That's what the Whip has said in

effect.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member....

MR. LAUK: Let me finish my point, because I want to show you

how under our standing orders and precedents no member can be prevented

directly or indirectly from exercising his privileges in this House. We

are elected to debate in this chamber, and it's an indirect way.... For

example — and I'm not suggesting it has happened yet, but these tactics

are leading to this point — if it's clear that an hon. member on this

side of the House who is away unavoidably, either through illness or

pressing engagement, wishes to speak on a bill, and the bill is called

for debate when obviously the government side knows that hon. member

must make remarks in this House and get the remarks in the record....

This is a breach of.... Using those tactics impedes the hon.

member's right to speak on that bill. The orderly form of debate allows

each and every MLA to order their daily

[ Page

1068 ]

routine in such a way as to participate in the bills they choose. This is my point of privilege.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker,

if the opposition would care to give us a list of those members who are

going to be inadvertently absent on any given day, perhaps that could

be given consideration.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I am not going to allow debate

to continue, and I mean that. I will take the matter under advisement as brought

forward by the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk). I will bring a

more detailed response to the House outlining why I will reject the application

on the matter, but at this time, hon. members, we shall continue on the orderly

business of the House. And lest our debates continue to affect a system, such

as a Whip system, which might be in place, I would at this time urge all hon.

members to take just a small step backwards. Let us give some thought to what

we are engaging upon, and as time moves on we will possibly find that we are

in a better position to carry on in the time-honoured traditions. I thank members

for that opportunity.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, the House Leader

had called for second reading of Bill 22, the Assessment Amendment Act,

1983. It is with pleasure that I take my place in this House to speak

to the act, one which I trust will have the support of all hon. members.

There is some history with respect to that which has arrived as a

proposed piece of legislation in this British Columbia Legislature. It

started with discussions in the fall of 1982, at which time the then

Minister of Municipal Affairs, now the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich), and myself, determined that reforms were available in terms

of the assessment procedure relative to property in the province of

British Columbia. We discussed these at some length with our officials

and with some of our colleagues, and through the period of

approximately November 1982 into December 1982, and concluding in

January of this year, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and I,

with two or three officials from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and

the Ministry of Finance, travelled throughout the province and held a

series of excellent public meetings on this topic.

[3:30]

I found, on reflection, that it was one of the more productive

series of meetings in which I have participated. They were, without

exaggeration, open-ended. They started usually at 9 or 9:30 in the

morning, and continued until everyone who was interested in the topic

had spoken at whatever length and in whatever detail was appropriate

for that individual or group. The meetings were held, as I indicated,

throughout British Columbia: Vancouver, Victoria, the North Shore, the

Courtenay-Comox area, Saanich municipality, Prince George, Kamloops,

Surrey, Kelowna, Fort St. John, Prince Rupert, Smithers, Cranbrook. If

I have missed one it is not deliberate; nonetheless, we were in

virtually every region of the province.

My colleague and I came back with a very good reading of the views

of interested British Columbians relative to assessment practices. We

have not been able to incorporate in this amending act all that every

participant, every person who spoke would have liked, but we found a

number of common themes. Having approached it on a completely open and

straightforward basis, we have been able to incorporate a number of

those themes in the bill which is now before this assembly.

Briefly stated, the bill accomplishes, in my view, sir, four

important purposes. First of all, it changes the dates in the

assessment cycle; this change is to take place in 1984. It provides for

a full assessment of every property in British Columbia in

even-numbered years, with a revised assessment in odd-numbered years to

take account only of any zoning or physical changes in a property. By

that, as members will certainly know, I mean zoning changes, additions

to a structure, significant additions to a structure, subdivision of

property and so on. It provides for the December 31, 1982, assessment

roll to be updated only for zoning or physical changes in 1983, and

that will be the roll used for property taxation purposes in 1984.

Significantly, the fourth point observed by many individuals who

came to us and spoke about their concerns provides for a property owner

to provide a lessee of all or part of the property with a copy of the

assessment notice for the property if the lessee requests it. I think

this is a very important reform, one which perhaps should have been

introduced some time ago. Nonetheless, it is before us today.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member interjects: "For a fee?" I see no

need for a fee, Mr. Member — simply a Xerox copy of the assessment

notice in order that the lessee can examine and could indicate either

to the property owner or to a court of revision, if that is

appropriate, that he or she has a particular concern with respect to

the assessment levied.

Moving to the assessment cycle, the new cycle will provide for the

completion of the assessment roll on September 30. That compares to the

present date, the date which has been in place for a good number of

years, of December 31. Assessment notices will be sent out at that time

— that is, following September 30 — and taxpayers will have one month,

approximately 11 days longer than at present, to lodge a complaint or,

more correctly, notice of the lodging of a complaint with the court of

revision — or the individuals who receive such a complaint to be

transmitted to the court of revision.

The courts will sit, under this amendment, from November 15 to

December 15, and the roll will be authenticated by December 31. This

is, as members will know, three months earlier than is the case under

current practice. It means that property tax payers and municipalities

and other interested bodies will receive assessment information earlier

in the year. Hopefully they can therefore react more effectively to

assessment changes in their budgetary and planning processes. We did

not introduce this specifically for municipalities, but certainly among

those who will find this to be beneficial will be local governments in

the province of British Columbia.

I might say, as an aside, that I think many of us who receive

assessment notices have found that they arrive at a time of unusually

heavy mail to our homes, either immediately before Christmas or in the

period between Christmas and New Year's, and then there is a limited

period of time before which no appeal can be allowed. So we have moved

all of that process out of that year-end period, which is in many

[ Page 1069 ]

instances a time when one is preoccupied with a number of other matters.

Insofar as the B.C. Assessment Authority is concerned, the new cycle

will permit that authority to improve the quality of assessments.

Again, the House will know that the authority is required by a

combination of legislative enactment and judicial decision to value

property and to complete the assessment roll on the day that I spoke of

earlier — that is, on December 31. We know, and it will come as no

surprise, that this is actually a physical impossibility. It forces the

authority to forecast at an earlier date what the assessed value of

property will be on December 31. In a rapidly changing market — and we

have experienced such in British Columbia in the recent past, and

perhaps will again — this can lead to quite seriously flawed

assessments, and I think some of these were experienced by most, if not

all, members of the House in 1982. This amending bill will correct this

problem by making July 1 the date on which value is to be determined

and September 30 the date for roll completion. With regard to the

biennial assessment, this also provides for assessment of every

property only every two years as compared to yearly assessment under

the existing system, with again a revision in the intervening year only

for those properties where the actual value of land and improvements

has altered as a result of a physical change such as demolition — but

not exclusively — new construction or new development, a change in

zoning or classification or new-found inventory. We believe that this

measure will reduce the cost of the assessment process by reducing the

cost of operating the British Columbia Assessment Authority, to a

certain extent the courts of revision, and the several assessment

appeal boards. As such it is consistent with our policy of reducing the

size and the complexity of government.

The new policy of having a full assessment only every second year is

to commence this year. We get into the cycle. The roll which was

completed on December 31, 1982, and on which property taxation for the

calendar year 1983 was based will be updated only for the four

situations indicated just a few moments ago.

I want to indicate to the House, and I know that some members are

particularly interested in this topic.... As presented, this might

suggest that a property owner would have the right to appeal only every

two years — appeal, that is, to the court of revision or, if the

property owner wishes, to the Assessment Appeal Board. I have received

interested comment since this bill was introduced; we have had ample

opportunity to examine it; and prior to committee stage I intend to

place an amendment on the order paper which will ensure that those who

would appeal will have the opportunity to do so once per year,

notwithstanding the fact that their property is assessed only every two

years.

The next full assessment roll under the model developed in this bill

will be done in 1984 for the 1985 taxation year, and it will be done

consistent with the cycle I have just outlined. So the next full

assessment roll will be completed September 30, 1984, with the next

full assessment roll after that being September 30, 1986.

I spoke about the notices. To elaborate as briefly as possible, the

measure requires owners of property to supply lessees who have leases

with a term longer than a year with a copy of the property's assessment

notice upon request. This provision, which by the way compliments a

present

section of the Assessment Act whereby a registered lessee may

obtain a property assessment notice, will ensure that lessors will be

provided with information on assessments so that they do have the

opportunity to appeal to the court of revision. In some cases they may

well do so in conjunction with the property owner. I say that almost as

an aside. It is not mandatory, but they would have that option.

In

summary, I feel very comfortable with the reforms which are

contained in Bill 22. I think they are important reforms. They were

produced after extensive consultation with interested individuals

throughout British Columbia. I want to thank those men and women, a

number of individuals — quite a few organizations, but a number of

individuals — who made the effort, in mid-winter as well, to attend

meetings. I think of meetings such as those held in the city of Fort

St. John, where we were very pleased to see individuals who had

travelled some considerable distance from the northern part of British

Columbia to express their concerns and to make their observations.

I think we had large crowds in virtually every meeting city, with

the possible exception of Prince Rupert, and I observed to Mayor Lester

at that time that apparently there were no concerns regarding

assessments in the general vicinity of Prince Rupert. But we had good

turnouts. We had enthusiastic and constructive participation. I would

want to express appreciation, on behalf of my colleague the present

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), formerly Minister of

Municipal Affairs, and myself, to MLAs who attended, to representatives

of local government and regional districts who attended and

participated, who submitted written briefs, and to those British

Columbians who simply made observations and spoke to us rather than

submitting formal briefs. This is also their document today; this is

their legislation. It is an undertaking that I would very much enjoy

doing once again. We don't pretend today to have solved, by any stretch

of the imagination, all assessment ills, but I think we have taken a

major step forward. I look forward to comments by members of the

Legislature.

I move that Bill 22 be now read a second time.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That opens debate. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Nanaimo.

[3:45]

MR. STUPICH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that opens debate. That starts

it. Sometimes it's a little easier to start it than it is to stop it.

Maybe that's the reason the government has chosen to start debate on

one bill after another, and then to abandon them and get on to

something else. As you say, it opens debate. It opens debate on Bill

22, and one wonders what we're going to open it on next.

Certainly the process that the minister described is an interesting

one. The idea of travelling around the province, giving people all over

B.C. an opportunity to make their presentations to himself and the

people who travelled with him, is good. I think it's not the ultimate.

The minister did say that many good presentations were made, that they

had a very good reading of what interested British Columbians had to

say about proposed or prospective changes in the Assessment Act, and

that some of those ideas are presented in the legislation before us

now. But that's only part of the story. We have no knowledge at all of

what ideas were presented in the various communities that were not

included in the legislation. This is not a criticism; it's just to say

that this information is missing. We have no knowledge really of the

extent to which British Columbians are dissatisfied, upset or worried

about the operations of the Assessment Authority. All we really

[ Page 1070 ]

have before us is a bill which the minister

describes as recognizing some of the concerns that were put to him and

his group as they travelled around the province.

I spoke yesterday, I think it was, on another issue, about the idea

of having a committee of MLAs travel around the province to listen to

people. It would seem to me that if the government actually wanted to

get a good reading and to make that kind of information available to

all members in the House, or at least to both parties in the House, he

might have invited some opposition members to travel around as well.

They could also have listened to some of the concerns, and might have

spoken in this debate not just on the information contained in the bill

itself but on ideas that might have been contained which might have

made the bill even more acceptable to the Legislature generally, and

more acceptable to the people of the province. We don't even know what

common themes the minister heard which he might have wanted to include

in the legislation and hasn't included. We don't even know whether all

of the themes included in the legislation are themes that were

presented to him as he travelled around the province, or whether some

of them are ideas that came from within his own ministry or even from

the Assessment Authority.

We really have a very small picture of a very worthwhile effort to

get a hearing from the people in the province, a picture that could

have been much more complete had the minister chosen to set up a

committee that included members of the opposition. When the NDP

administration was in office, they did set up such a committee — a

municipal affairs committee — which included members from government

and the opposition. The present minister was a member of that

committee. That makes me wonder all the more why, in setting up that

committee, the present minister didn't choose to broaden the

representation by including some opposition members.

HON. MR. CURTIS: You kept leaving me behind though. The plane would take off and I wouldn't be on it.

MR. STUPICH: Now it's coming back to me. I do recall that the

minister was left behind. He was busy politicking in various

communities when the rest of them were meeting and listening to the

ratepayers, so he kept being left behind.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the minister says that wasn't the

whole story, that there were other reasons for him being left behind on

occasion. I wouldn't even have known that he was left behind had he not

volunteered that information. Perhaps in closing second reading

tomorrow, the next day, next month, next year, or whenever he closes

second reading, he might tell us just precisely why he was left behind

and whether that was the reason that he chose not to include members of

the opposition on this committee that travelled around the province.

I think it's a very good idea to travel around the province on

legislation such as this — perhaps this more than anything else. Most

people don't particularly like paying taxes of any kind, and I would

think the most misunderstood, even the most disliked tax of all is the

property tax. I think there's a pretty widely held feeling among

taxpayers that the only fair tax is the one that somebody else pays.

When it comes to property tax, I've had more representations made to me

in my constituency than about anything else. There was a time that I

was in the business of filing tax returns for people, yet I still had

more problems dealing with people who were concerned about property tax.

For lunch today I had a guest from my constituency who, I might add,

voted Social Credit in the last election campaign. An 80-years-young

woman came down from my constituency to complain to me about property

tax. This was just by coincidence, because I didn't know Bill 22 was

going to be called today.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Did you refer her to her mayor?

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'm missing so much. If some of these members would stand on their feet and speak, then I could respond.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Oh, now I understand, Mr. Speaker. The member is

asking whether or not she complained to her mayor. She complained to

the assessment....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Did she have long hair? That's what the question was.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, she enjoyed the special in

the dining room. I said she was 80 years young, and people 80 years

young do not usually wear long hair. I don't think she did; I frankly

didn't notice.

Can I get back to the discussion about the assessment?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That would be great. Please proceed.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Speaker, without all this help I wouldn't be able to do it.

That's why she came down. As a matter of fact she made two trips.

She came down on the Monday, thinking I was going to be here, and I was

tied up with something else, so she phoned my secretary and made a

date, and I had lunch with her today, and she talked about her

assessment problems. She's living in a mobile-home park, next door to

someone else who has exactly the same trailer but who is paying

substantially less tax. As far as she can see, there is no difference

between the two properties.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I thought I was being asked whether the lady had been to the mayor.

She's been to the alderman in her district, to the Assessment

Authority and to the city collector of taxes, and she has argued with

all of them. She took me with her on two occasions. I can't tell her

why her assessment is higher than her next-door neighbour, who

apparently has the same trailer. I've seen them, and the only

difference is that the lady in question has a beautiful flower garden,

and she wonders whether she is being assessed a higher amount because

her flowers are so good. Then she told me about another one two doors

down — a larger trailer, three rooms instead of the two that she has,

and assessed at a lower amount again than either one of them. That one

has the lowest assessment of three.

[ Page 1071 ]

There are a lot of problems about assessments. Some, I am sure, can

be repeated in every constituency in the province. So when the minister

was travelling around and listening to these people, I wonder whether

he heard all of the common themes — he probably has. I wonder how many

of the common themes are actually dealt with in the legislation before

us and how many more might have been dealt with had there been a larger

committee travelling around, and had there been an opportunity for

opposition members to sit down, in the times when they weren't actually

taking

part in the hearings, and meet with government members to talk

about ways and means of handling the problems which people were putting

to them. Because, as I say, there just isn't any tax that is resented

more than property tax.

Some people feel that they improve their property and others blow

their money. The ones who spend their money looking after their

property are the ones who are paying the highest property tax, and from

what I have seen, there is some justification in them feeling that.

There seem to be problems with the system. We tried to deal with that

when we were in government, and the previous government tried to deal

with it. The previous Minister of Finance — that is, before 1972 — did

bring in provisions that assessments could increase at a maximum rate

per year. Leaving aside the possibility of changes in zoning or

anything else, which the minister mentioned.... In the ordinary course

of circumstances, assessments could not increase by any more than, I

think, 10 percent per year. At least that gave some control.

Now we're going to have a change in the assessment cycle. On the

face of it, it sounds like a good idea. It's going to save costs and,

of course, costs are paid by the taxpayers. We're going to have a full

assessment in even-numbered years. That's great. I know that the

assessment doesn't really control the amount of tax you're paying; I

know the way the system works. But I know that when people get

assessment notices they right away get concerned. Unfortunately some of

them don't wait until they get their tax notice. Some of them look at

the assessment notice and start to worry.

If the assessment notice were to come out in 1981, for example, a

year when properties were assessed at very high levels, and in 1982 the

only changes that could be made were in instances where the property

was being rezoned or added to, or for some other reason, how could the

assessments in 1982 reflect in any way the dramatic change in property

values from 1981 to 1982? I heard nothing in the minister's opening

remarks to give me any feeling that there is any way of dealing with

rapid changes in property values in an off year. If there were the kind

of protection that was there prior to the establishment of the

Assessment Authority — that is, if there was a maximum amount by which

assessments might increase in any one year — then I can see this system

working, but there is no such protection in the legislation. There's

nothing in the minister's remarks that would lead me to believe that a

concern which I'm sure must have been expressed to him on many

occasions, that rapid changes in property values, either up or down —

not because of changes in use, or because of expansion or addition, or

zoning changes, but because of market conditions.... There's nothing in

the legislation or in the minister's remarks to persuade me that any

recognition was given to what I think must have been a very common

theme expressed to him as he travelled around the province: that the

Assessment Authority does not seem to be able to react quickly enough

to dramatic changes in market prices. That theme is one about which we

should be very concerned.

There is one way that it could have been handled in the past: that

is, of course, to have beefed up the Assessment Authority.

Unfortunately that isn't the way we've been going. The Assessment

Authority has been held back staffwise. They have not been able to

cover an expanding province. I don't mean that the boundaries are

getting any wider, but certainly within the province more and more

properties are being established and more and more buildings are being

built. There is more and more work for the Assessment Authority, yet it

does not have the manpower to do it.

I understand that staff levels at the Assessment Authority have been

frozen since 1975. There have been no additions at all in complement

since the NDP went out of office in 1975. In spite of that, the

authority has managed. They have improved their productivity; since

1975 they have achieved a 30 percent increase in assessments. The

people who are there are doing their level best to get the work done,

but I wonder at what cost to the people who are being assessed. If the

same number of people are having to produce 30 percent more

assessments, does it mean that the assessment itself is liable to be in

error because it had to be a rush job? It's one thing to operate at the

same level as in 1975, to have improved procedures and become better at

their jobs, with more experienced people — to be able, since 1975, to

achieve a 30 percent increase in assessments without increasing staff

levels. But now the situation is to worsen: now they are going to be

asked to do as much as they had been doing to accommodate the growth

that was taking place in the province, and to do it not with the same

staff they had in 1975 but with a 25 percent drop in staff over the

next 14 months.

[4:00]

If the minister thought he was hearing complaints about the

operation of the Assessment Authority, as he travelled around the

province — and I'm sure he was....

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, very few, actually.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says very few. I accept his word as

an honourable member of the Legislature. I can't help but say that I'm

surprised.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Complaints about assessments; very few about the Assessment Authority.

MR. STUPICH: Complaints about assessments? Well, it's like

saying you don't mind at all the work the baker is doing, but you can't

stand eating his bread. There are no complaints about the Assessment

Authority, but there are complaints about the assessments. Okay, I'll

be careful when I.... They have no dislike at all for the Assessment

Authority as an institution, but they just don't like the results. That

was happening; I'm sure there's no question about that. As I said,

we've all experienced it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

The feature that property owners should be obliged to provide a copy

to the lessee, on request, is a good one. As I said, there are parts of

this legislation that we can support. Under the ordinary course of

events, it might have been disposed of very quickly by the Legislature.

But once again we're dealing with legislation that has to do with

raising

[ Page 1072 ]

money. The provincial government raises a good deal

of its money from assessments in rural areas, and from assessments in

municipalities, now that they take from the municipalities all the

school board revenue for commercial and industrial property. The

provincial government stands to take quite a bit of money out of all

areas of the province, on the basis of assessments calculated by the

Assessment Authority. Once again we're talking about the raising of

money, and you'll recall that there's a budget before us that talks

about the rate of rural taxation. They're talking about raising money

without any one minister being able to stand up and tell us how he is

going to spend that money.

There was concern earlier — and it was all out of order — about the

lack of communication between the Whips as to what we're doing here,

perhaps because neither Whip knows what we should be doing here. Our

concern is with the process. In the normal course of events, we talk

first about what the ministers are spending their money on, and then we

talk about raising that money. That's a logical way to go. Here we're

talking once again about assessments that have a great deal to do with

raising money, without talking at all about what the government is

spending it on.

A lot of this money is going to be raised for education. When are we

going to get to the estimates of the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) so that we know what he proposes to do with the money that is

being raised — money that is calculated on the basis of the work being

done by the Assessment Authority? When are we going to complete the

budget debate so that we'll be ready to start the debate on estimates?

It's the process that concerns us. I know it's not in order here.

Neither Whip is here right now — well, one of them is — but if the

Whips could sit down and talk about what the government has in mind and

what plans they have for this session, then perhaps there could be some

meaningful discussion about what is going on here. Until there is, we

don't know what's going on. Until there is, we're determined that as

much as we can, we're going to wait until the government is prepared to

discuss its spending plans before we approve further measures to

increase government revenues.

I was concerned when one member on the opposition side of the House

said to the minister in an aside: "Will there be any fee for the copy

of the assessment notice that is going to be provided to a lessee on

request?" The minister said no, he didn't see any need for that at all

— just a Xerox copy. It worried me. Here was one place the government

hadn't thought to raise money. I wish he hadn't put that idea into the

minister's head, because we may find out that there will be a fee on

that. After all, in normal places....

HON. MR. CURTIS: It's a private matter.

MR. STUPICH: Well, yes, it's a private matter. Someone has to

pay for that Xerox copy. If somebody buys that Xerox copy, is there

going to be sales tax on it?

HON. MR. CURTIS: No.

MR. STUPICH: The minister says "no." If the assessment notice

is photocopied, and if the lessee is charged for that, the minister has

told us that the Ministry of Finance will not be applying the sales tax

to the provision of that document. I don't know how long that's good

for, and I'm not sure how good that denial is at the moment.

Nonetheless, it's on the record for what it's worth.

I suppose the only thing I can say about the idea of completing the

assessment roll by September 30 rather than December 30 is that I

wonder why somebody didn't do it one year ago, five years ago, ten

years ago, twenty years ago or thirty years ago. It's a good idea. I do

applaud the government for that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Oh, you're not through yet?

MR. STUPICH: No, I'm not through yet. Almost.

One of the things that has bothered people is that they get their

assessment notice and if they're a day or two late picking up the mail,

it's too late to do anything about it. One wonders why this couldn't

have been done long ago. I suppose I have to share some responsibility

for that and wonder why we didn't do it when we were in office because

it certainly is a very logical step to take. I think it couldn't have

been done without the efficient work that the Assessment Authority is

doing with the very limited staff that they have. We're now able to do

this, and that is a step forward. I wish that the Minister of Finance

was prepared to exclude from the requirement that the staff of the

Assessment Authority must be reduced by 25 percent, because I believe

if they had an opportunity to put more effort into the work they're

doing, a lot of the problems about assessments.... The minister did

agree that in travelling around the province they did have concerns

expressed about assessments themselves. At least there would be fewer

questions about assessments. I believe that....

MRS. JOHNSTON: Did you read that in this bill somewhere?

MR. STUPICH: The reference to the assessment cycles? The

first member for Surrey asked whether I read in this bill that there

will be a reduction in the assessment authority. Not in this bill.

Unfortunately, this is only one of 26 pieces of legislation that were

introduced on July 7 with the budget. It's all part of one package.

Because it's all part of one package, it's our determination that it

should be dealt with in an orderly manner.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Order!

MR. STUPICH: If we were going to be following order, we'd be

dealing with the budget first; then we would be dealing with estimates

of expenditures. That's order. The Minister of Finance is calling me to

order. I call him to order. Let's have the debate on the budget. Let's

conclude that. Then let's get into the estimates of expenditures and

deal, vote by vote, with what we're spending money on. Perhaps then

we'll start making some progress. The Whips then can sit down and talk

and see what's going on. I would urge that course of action upon the

government, Mr. Speaker, but I don't suppose they'll pay much

attention. They must have some plan. I just can't believe that the ship

of government is as rudderless as it has seemed to be since the budget

— I guess before that things went in the normal way. We had an opening

speech on June 27. We dealt with it in an orderly manner and got rid of

it. Then we had the budget and things went along fine.

[ Page 1073 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are discussing Bill 22.

MR. STUPICH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 22 will reduce the cost of administration. I mentioned earlier

that that sounds good. Any time we're reducing the cost of

administration it does sound good. But it's not dealing, unfortunately

— I would invite the minister to comment on this sometime later — with

the concern I raised about the rapid changes in market values. I had a

note to raise the anomalies of assessments, where one's property is

assessed at an amount that doesn't seem reasonable compared to that of

the neighbour. There will be opportunities to appeal that, he said;

amendments will be coming in to take care of that problem. But it

doesn't deal with what we do in the event of rapid changes in market

value. Supposing in the biennial assessment we're at a high and

assessments are up very high; then there's no way in the next year....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Do you want me to answer that?

MR. STUPICH: Yes. Would you make a note of it and deal with it in second reading?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, I can answer it right now.

MR. STUPICH: Perhaps you'll get an opportunity to close very soon. You never know.

The fact that they may appeal annually does deal with the

neighbour-by-neighbour situation; to me it would appear as though it

doesn't deal with the question of rapid changes in market value. The

Minister of Finance is anxious to close debate on this. I'll come back

briefly to the first point I made and leave it at that.

When we were in government, we set up an all-party committee that

travelled around. We went further and established a royal commission to

deal with property taxation; even the committee that travelled around

wasn't able to deal with that problem. The commission did not report

until the change in government. The commission was asked to conclude

its report quickly. At that time, it did bring in what they said was

not a complete report. One of the recommendations of the commission was

that they have some additional time to wrap up the report and to make

it a better job than it was. The Social Credit administration chose not

to give them that time. That's unfortunate because there were some good

recomendations in that report. In effect, they said that the government

should accept a higher proportion of the share of education costs; it

had nothing to do with assessment as such. But a person getting his or

her tax notice.... Most people don't differentiate. We recognize the

difference but most taxpayers don't recognize that difference.

The McMath commission did good work; it was a good approach. The

all-party committee that the NDP administration established was a good

approach. I would recommend to the minister, if he has any other

proposals, at any time, for listening to the people in the province,

that he take a leaf out of the book of his own administration on one

occasion. I remember one committee that sat between sessions of the

Legislature, travelled around the province and gave concerned people an

opportunity to talk to it — only one that I can think of. But there

were several such groups that travelled under the NDP administration.

It made people feel that they had some direct contact not only with

their own MLA but also with government and opposition members alike at

some hearings. I think it's a good process. It's one that I would

recommend to the minister.

Mr. Speaker, in general we can support the legislation that's before

us. We have some concerns; the minister has taken note of some of those

concerns. Perhaps after we've heard the minister close the debate on

second reading we will then be prepared to vote either for or against

the legislation, depending upon the rest of the debate in the House.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, in debating Bill 22, because I

haven't spoken for some time this is my first opportunity to reflect on

why the government seems determined not to complete business in an

orderly fashion. We have serious business in the budget: estimates,

deficits and, I believe, serious overestimations of deficits and

underestimations of revenue; and we continue to avoid speaking about

those, moving on to things like Bill 22.

[4:15]

A number of bills have today been brought forward. I don't know why

the government feels it has to bring Bill 22 forward at a time when the

people of British Columbia are waiting to talk about other things, are

waiting to see what the particular spending habits and direction of his

government will be in its budget deliberations. Yet here we are again,

on the sixth or seventh bill today. We haven't completed the budget,

and we are on to a technical area of assessment in the province, which

really is in the wrong place in terms of the logical order of business

of this House — in my opinion, of course. I believe the people of

British Columbia are entitled to orderly business, are entitled to have

budget deliberations presented in a rational, intelligent way rather

than jumping around on a daily basis and confusing the people of

British Columbia in terms of the intentions of this government.

On previous bills I have talked about the assessment situation in

British Columbia. I have talked at length about the inadequacies of the

real property tax system, and I don't intend today to go into it or

reiterate the particular positions I have put. Suffice to say, however,

that the inadequacies of that system are well known and have been known

for 100 years. In discussions over coffee with members of the

government, they will admit the same thing. They will admit that

someday a government — and it looks like it will have to be our

government, Mr. Speaker — will indeed have to radically alter the real

property tax system and the assessment system in the province of B.C.

and bring in a system....

MRS. JOHNSTON: You won't live that long.

MR. BLENCOE: I will live far longer than you, Madam Member.

It will have to bring in a system that the people of British

Columbia understand, one that is clearly defined and based once and for

all upon the ability to pay taxation at the local level. In my

considered opinion, Bill 22, like a number of the other bills relating

to taxation, only tinkers with a sick taxation system in British

Columbia. It applies the 1,007th bandaid to a collapsing system.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You want the seniors to pay more.

MR. BLENCOE: I have already suggested to you, Madam Member,

that if you are serious about the problems of taxation for senior

citizens, stop giving them grants through

[ Page 1074 ]

the back door in terms of homeowner, and look at a

system to ensure that seniors do not have to pay on the same basis as a

wage-earner. Use a formula of taxation that is based upon what a person

can pay. A senior citizen can no longer pay what a wage-earner pays,

and yet we have a real property taxation system in British Columbia

that indeed forces the senior citizen to pay taxes according to the

same formula as the rest of us. The $60,000 or $70,000 executive

director pays according to the same formula as the senior citizen. That

is ludicrous and ridiculous, and if we quietly get together we all

admit that that is what is sick about the real property tax system.

Bill 22 does nothing to radically alter the real property tax system in British Columbia.

MRS. JOHNSTON: You want the seniors to pay more.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, if that member knew what she was

talking about she would not say those things. I believe senior citizens

in British Columbia have paid enough taxes, and when they are on a

fixed income there should be a formula to ensure they pay taxes

according to what their fixed income allows — the ability to pay

according to that fixed income. At the moment that is not in place. I

know hundreds of senior citizens in this community who, based upon the

taxation system in place for the province, every year wonder whether

they are going to keep their homes. Every single year. This government

refuses to do anything about that. It tries to con the people by Bill 7

and Bill 12 and Bill 22 that they are introducing evolutionary changes,

but they are not. It is another band-aid on a system that has been

studied to death by well-educated intelligent commissions across this

country, and indeed in North America. Other jurisdictions where they

have real property tax have said we need to devise a system of taxation

whereby, at least for the majority of services that are rendered at the

municipal level, people pay taxes based upon what they can afford to

pay, not on what the real estate market says it might be able to get

for their homes. That's the kind of taxation system we want. In that

way — and I see the member has now left because she knows she was

talking.... Well, she was not exactly accurate in her statements so she

decided to leave. If we are to protect our senior citizens in the

province of British Columbia from the ravages of a tax system such that

every year they're not sure what they're going to be paying, and

whether they're going to stay in their homes, that's the system we

require.

I want to very quickly take a look at Bill 22 and what I consider

are some of the problems with it. The Assessment Authority was

established a number of years ago. Unfortunately, the Assessment

Authority has had its staff complement frozen since 1975. If the

government of the day — and currently it's the Social Credit government

— insists on maintaining an archaic and unfair taxation system, it

should ensure that the very institution responsible for assessing

properties in British Columbia, and therefore the local council

administering and applying the various tax formulas, has adequate staff

to have up-to-date information on the value of individual properties.

What concerns me — and has concerned me for a number of years, having

been involved at the local level for six years and chairman of finance

in the city of Victoria for a number of years — is that we get

information that is inaccurate and unfair, which compounds the problem

of a taxation system that outlived its time a hundred years ago.

I would tell the Minister of Finance that if he thinks he is doing

the municipal taxpayers of British Columbia a favour by only having a

roll every two years.... I will say today that we will have the chaos

that happened two years ago when very high assessments came out at a

time when the market was dropping dramatically, and assessments were 30

to 40 percent higher than they should have been. You're building in to

the assessment process the potential for chaos every two years. What

will happen is that when the market, for instance, starts to drop or

die, people's tax assessment levels will reflect the assessment for the

year before, and they won't pay a fair level of taxation. It'll be an

inflated level of taxation. You won't get an accurate reflection of

what properties are worth.

I maintain — and our party maintains — that if you are going to

continue to band-aid a tax system that really needs major surgery, at

least ensure that the institution that is in place to tell

municipalities how much taxes they can collect is staffed adequately;

ensure that it has an accurate roll on a yearly basis.

We all recall — I think it was approximately two years ago, and I'm

sure the Minister of Finance will recall this quite vividly — the major

revolt of local taxpayers when they got their assessment notices. That

was when a roll was done on an annual basis. It put incredible tensions

on a lot of taxpayers because they thought they were going to have to

pay taxes on that incredibly inflated value. Thousands and thousands of

British Columbians had to go to courts of revision to try and get their

assessments reviewed. There was a mad panic by the Assessment Authority

to try to come clean a little bit. There were some general reductions

of 10 or 15 percent in some jurisdictions. In the city of Victoria, I

think, before the appeals were even heard, there was a 10 or 15 percent

reduction before people went to the courts. But there were hundreds of

thousands of people in British Columbia forced into a very complicated,

not well-understood process. They had to go and deal with a complicated

matter of taxation, because the Assessment Authority was understaffed —

and it will be even more understaffed, by 25 percent — and not able to

keep up with the fluctuations in the market and reflect actual values

that people should pay taxes on.

Now what the Finance minister is saying to the people of British

Columbia is that we will build that chaos into the system by only

having a roll every two years. That's what the government is doing.

I'll again reiterate — and I will continue to do that as long as I'm

allowed to speak about taxation systems in the province of British

Columbia — if you insist on having a real estate system for municipal

purposes, at least ensure that the assessment authority that the

municipalities have to rely on for accurate information is up to date

on a yearly basis. It's not going to be anymore; that's not going to be

in place.

I believe it's also more important that assessments be precise and

that equity between properties of the same class be exact, particularly

when the government has gone to the introduction of a variable mill

rate. If municipalities are going to be able to adjust the various

taxations on particular types of properties, they must have accurate

information to make fair and equitable changes in the taxes on

particular categories, according to the variable mill rate the

government has introduced. It's extremely important that if that

variable mill rate system is to work as the government thinks it will

work, the information that local government works with be

[ Page 1075 ]

accurate. What they will be working on is

two-year-old information. In some jurisdictions that may violate the

very premise the variable mill rate was introduced under: that is, to

try to introduce a degree of fairness in various property categories

and shift the load.

One of the particular aspects of this bill that may indeed give some

concern, or may create some problems for local municipalities, is the

$10,000 exemption for commercial properties. We all know that

industrial and commercial properties have gone through some major

shifts in assessments in the last few years. I've talked about that for

a number of hours, in terms of how we should deal with that. I don't

think it's a matter of creating exemptions or special privileges in the

system, when you don't create special privileges for the single-family

owner, the senior citizen or the handicapped person who manages to own

a house. If you're going to create special privileges for the

commercial or business property holder, you should have special

privileges for the senior citizen and the handicapped person, and you

should have exemptions in there.

[4:30]

I understand the government's concern for the industrial and commercial

property holder, particularly when the government itself — and I address this

to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips)

; and maybe he'll remind the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who

attacked the local council for forcing industry out of Victoria — put up the

lease fees for those industrial leases on the working harbour in Victoria dramatically

in the last few years. Indeed, a number of industries have had to move out because

of that, one of them being the Lime Bay shake mill, which gave employment in

good times to 100 to 150 Victorians. The person who owned that is actually a

well-known Socred supporter, and at the time he did not have very good things

to say about this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he go broke?

MR. BLENCOE: I would remind that member that that shake mill

has been a family business for a long time in this community. They

worked very hard to maintain that business. A major factor why that

shake mill is gone and now no longer operating is the government's

decision to increase the lease fee on that property dramatically, and

therefore the assessments and the taxation increased dramatically.

If I may, I would ask the Finance minister and the Minister of

Industry if they would indeed review those increases in lease fees and

therefore those increases in assessments and therefore those increases

in taxation for industries on the harbour front in Victoria. That's one

of the basic reasons why this community continues to lose its

industrial base. The Provincial Secretary may not be aware of that

particular situation when he attacks the local council. I'm sure he's

not aware that the shifts experienced in terms of assessments on

commercial and industrial property owners in Victoria have had a major

impact on local industry, and that's why local industry in this

community is in trouble.

You cannot tinker with that particular system. If you are concerned

about the commercial or industrial property holders not only in

Victoria but in the province of British Columbia, you've got to have an

industrial policy, one that is understood clearly and that sees

industrial property with a policy behind it to ensure that those

industries are not subjected to the vagaries of real estate

speculation. That's what's been happening, and Bill 22 does nothing to

do that.

Yet they have decided that there will be an additional exemption for

commercial properties. Well, Mr. Speaker, there's nothing in particular

wrong per se with that move, but the difficulty with doing that is that

municipalities that are constantly struggling to maintain their

services and infrastructure.... Their revenues are dwindling all the

time. The provincial government, in its wisdom, reduces grants and

revenue-sharing to those municipalities, or it radically changes the

formula for sewer or underground grants, cutting back provincial

contributions to municipalities. Therefore what happens is that

municipalities have a shortfall in terms of trying to maintain their

essential services.

What you may indeed do, by that exemption for commercial properties,

is initially help those commercial property holders. But by creating

exemptions and not resolving the long-term problems of a particular

category of property holders, you are putting a further burden on the

local taxpayer. Particularly, that shift, that exemption, has to be

made up somewhere, and what invariably happens is that the

single-family owner has to take the shift, has to make up the

difference. That's not fair. That's not right. The first member for

Surrey (Mrs. Johnston) across the way is talking about her concern for

senior citizens; I would put it to that member, and to the Finance

minister, that creating exemptions for one particular category of

property holder is nice for that particular category of holder, but

what happens is the five or ten others — there are about eight property

categories used in this province — have to take up the slack.

Why not tax the industrial or commercial property holders according

to their annual income, rather than based upon property adjacent that's

not being used for industrial purposes but becomes the subject of land

speculation and consequently radically affects the assessment of those

industrial property holders? They pay inflated taxes based upon

inflated assessments because of upland property being subjected to

speculation. Ninety-nine percent of the time those commercial or

industrial property holders do not wish to end their activities.

Here in Victoria we have, I think — at the last count I did — 93

major industrial property holders, most of them longtime family

businesses. Yet they are being virtually forced out of this community

because we have an assessment system that is unscientific and unfair,

and we have a bill today — Bill 22 — that does nothing to change that

long-term problem.

I urge the provincial government to look at an industrial commercial

development strategy that takes into account those vagaries in the real

property tax system.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Some of our industrial property holders saw their assessments go up

not 100 percent, not 200 percent, not 500 percent, but 1,000 percent.

Major industrial bases in this community saw their assessments go up

1,000 percent. B.C. Forest Products, which at the time was closed down

and which used to give hundreds and hundreds of jobs to this

community.... When it was closed and not earning money it was faced

with a $1 million tax bill. Its assessment had jumped 1,000 percent

because in the Uplands area there were some of those fine development

people talking about putting in high-priced condos and strata titling

and fancy

[ Page 1076 ]

hotels. What happened is that the adjacent

properties owned by B.C. Forest Products saw their assessments jump

1,000 percent, and they had to be forced to pay $1 million in property

taxes when they weren't earning a penny. They were shut down. That's

what this government has to tackle. That's the problem. That's the only

way you're going to maintain jobs in the province and particularly in

Victoria. You've got to tackle that. This won't do it, with respect. I

know you're trying to improve things. I'll give you that. You're

trying. But if you're really to resolve those deep, deep problems of

job loss and industrial assessment skyrocketing, and consequently $1

million for a plant that's not even operating, you've got to be

determined to look right at the root of the problem. There's an old

adage. Governments always go around fire-fighting problems, looking for

the quick and immediate solution. I think we have a variable mill rate;

Bills 7, 12 and 22 are part of that quick solution. But there's an old

adage: if you don't ask the right questions, it doesn't matter what

kind of solutions you find. With respect to those hon. members who have

been part of putting together Bills 7, 12 and 22, I give them their

due. They may indeed be trying their best. But, with respect, I don't

think they're asking the right questions.

Do not be so concerned with saying you found a magic solution so

that the people of British Columbia think this government is doing a

good job. That's the name of politics, I realize. That's what it's all

about. But....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: Was it a private joke? You'll share it with me later.

Ask the right questions. As I said, I know in political life it's

very tempting to always be saying: "We're finding a solution; we'll

find it in two or three weeks and we'll get it out there. Everyone

thinks we've done a marvellous job." But take a little time and ask the

right questions. Participate with local government in looking at

assessment problems. Don't cut them back by 25 percent so they can't do

a good job and play an accurate role, so that people will pay fair

taxes on an annual basis. That's not right. That's not fair. Ask the

right questions. I suggest that one area in western constitutional

democracy that needs major revamping and changing is the property and

real estate system and how we assess for taxation purposes.

This question may be somewhat rhetorical, because I'll try to answer

it a little bit. If the government introduces — and it seems to want to

do that — a system whereby we have a semi-scientific analysis of

property values every two years, many property holders may be facing

higher taxes than they should be according to their assessment. If that

happens, what is the government prepared to do when the thousands and

thousands of property holders, like they did two years ago, say: "For

heaven's sake, do something about the assessment system." I recall when

it happened two years ago. The Premier and the Finance minister said:

"We will really get to the bottom of it. We'll really try to improve

it. We'll really try to avoid sending assessments out that reflect nine

months hence." You know what happened? Those assessments came out, and

they didn't reflect the value of their properties. They knew what the

value of their property was. Now it could be that we'll have close to a

two-year gap between the assessments and the changes in the market.

[4:45]

Does the government have a course of action — as it said it did two

years ago — to tell the people of British Columbia that that won't

happen again? With respect, if this bill goes through as it is, that

will happen again. The market, as you know, may suddenly pick up and

then drop again. And what happens is that the assessments will come out

reflecting someone's house at $150,000, and it's dropped down to

$100,000 and they'll pay taxes according to the $150,000 assessment.

Then you will get the angry citizens saying: "Why didn't you resolve

that problem?" You're not doing it. You're weakening the system by

having a roll done every two years. Improve the system. Don't lay off

25 percent of the Assessment Authority, They can't keep up now; they

can't do a good job now.

It's incumbent upon this government to ensure that municipalities

have fair and accurate documents to work with when they are allocating

taxation levels for particular categories — particularly, if you're

serious about Bills 7 and 12, the variable mill rate, and if you want

those bills to do what you say they're going to do — that is, a degree

of fairness over property categories — you've got to have an accurate

roll. You won't have it with Bill 22. You cannot take into account the

swings. You didn't do it two years ago with a roll done each year. Now,

every two years, can you imagine what swings you could get, and what

could happen to particular property categories? I hate to think what

may happen to B.C. Forest Products. It's open now; I hope it stays

open. But what could happen is that because of the swing or because of

the major jump in assessments in properties surrounding it, that

company could face a $1.5 million or a $2 million tax bill, when really

that property is nowhere near worth that. That's what you're doing with

this particular bill. You're certainly not trying to r