[ Page 4375 ]

CONTENTS

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

Mr. Speaker — 4375

Routine proceedings

Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act (Bill 168).

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

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

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

Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act (Bill 165).

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

Motion Adjournment of the House on matter of public importance.

Mr. Bennett — 4375

Hon. Mrs. Dailly — 4377

Mr. Speaker's ruling — 4377

Mr. Bennett — 4378

Mr. Speaker — 4378

Routine proceedings

Division on time of next sitting — 4379

Appendix — 4380

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 1974

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House that I have received a communication from the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) requesting that he be included in the official opposition. A seat has been provided for him there.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): I didn't know the Titanic needed more crew members.

Interjections.

Hon. N. Levi (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to Mr. Tom Barnett, who for many years was the Member for Comox-Alberni. He's in the House and I'd like you to welcome him.

Mr. R.E. Skelly (Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a few more important visitors from Alberni. The first is the gentleman who led us in prayer this morning, the Reverend Lester Goertz from Arrowsmith Baptist Church in Port Alberni.

Also in the gallery today are Mrs. Goertz and two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Ken McRae. I'd like the Members to make them welcome.

Mr. E.O. Barnes (Vancouver Centre): I would like to take the time to introduce a recently acquired acquaintance of mine on my tour back home after some 35 years down to Los Angeles and New Orleans and New York — I have several homes — a young lady that was so convinced by my story that she came to see for herself if it was real: Ms. Merry Miles. Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of Hansard, it's not Mary; it's M-e-r-r-y.

Introduction of bills.

ELEVATOR CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
LABOUR DISPUTES ACT

Hon. Mr. King presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Elevator Construction Industry Labour Disputes Act.

Bill 168 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Department of Health Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 166 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

NATURAL PRODUCTS MARKETING
(BRITISH COLUMBIA) ACT

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Natural Products Marketing (British Columbia) Act.

Bill 165 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I have some notes that I'd like to have distributed on the bill, with your permission.

Mr. Speaker: Well, they can be distributed by the Sergeant-at-Arms' staff.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Liden from the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing presented the committee's first report which was taken as read and received. (See appendix.)

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, under standing order 35, I ask leave of the House to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of public importance, namely unemployment in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Hon. Leader would present me with the statement. I think the first step, if I recall the standing order, is that it must be a definite matter of urgent public importance. The particular matter should be submitted to the Speaker in a written statement as a matter proposed to be discussed.

Mr. Bennett: It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that I may read the statement before I present it to you.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, certainly. But do you have an extra copy for me?

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

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

[ Page 4376 ]

Mr. Bennett: Certainly. The most recent figures we have now compiled within the past two weeks make it clear that unemployment is rising rapidly in every part of the province. In some regions it has already reached crisis proportions. Significant recessions in the forest industry and in housing construction, coupled with the traditional problems of specific and seasonal unemployment which this province has always faced, have created a situation which now requires immediate discussion by this House, leading to a positive plan of action.

In the forest industry the Cariboo Lumber Manufacturers' Association, encompassing the region around Williams Lake, reports 1,133 unemployed out of a normal — work force of 3,600. Thirty-one per cent of the sawmill work force is unemployed. The percentage of logging contractors out of work is even greater, approaching 50 per cent.

The Interior Lumber Manufacturers' Association, encompassing the southwestern interior forest sector, reports 3,400 unemployed out of a work force of 11,000. That's 31 per cent unemployment, Mr. Speaker.

The northern interior lumber sector reports 3,204 out of work of a normal work force of 17,000. That's almost 20 per cent unemployment.

On the coast, which remains the most buoyant sector of the industry, 5,000 men — 13 per cent of the work force — are unemployed. Ten major sawmills are shut down and dozens of small operators have shut down.

The industry-wide picture is grave, Mr. Speaker. Unemployment is nearing 20 per cent, and the industry is prepared to predict that the worst is yet to come.

MR. SPEAKER: Excuse me, Hon. Member. I think that it long has been the authority from various Houses that it's not a time for an argument on the question, but to bring before the House a definite matter of specific importance. The question I have to decide is the question of the urgency of debate, not the urgency of unemployment. That's a matter for the House to decide, should it be able to debate it in this manner.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I would refer to the Journals of the House, which make no limit on the statement accompanying the motion.

I'd refer to the decision of the Speaker on January 27, 1958, page 15, in which the Speaker addresses the Members. He says:

"Hon. Members, on Friday last when the Hon. Leader of the Opposition sought leave to move a motion to adjourn the House under standing order 35, I allowed him only to state the substance of his motion, rather than read it in toto. In this I was in error as the said order provides that the Member moving the motion shall state the matter and make no limitation."

Mr. Speaker: Well, it may be that the Hon. Member has mistaken what he was discussing.

You are entitled to state the matter, but that does not include arguments on the matter or such detail that it becomes really one side of a case, or a statement of a series of facts that really goes beyond the purpose of this particular standing order.

I certainly can find authority for that….

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the unemployment relates directly to the news, or the information that is provided, that unemployment is indeed serious in these specific areas of the province. This is the reason I'm making the motion for adjournment at this time, and this is the reasoning that I have for making the motion. It's part of my statement for introducing the motion for adjournment.

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

Mr. Speaker: Well, I think we're all aware and have grasped the matter as being a general matter of unemployment that is affecting the forest industry in particular.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the House in not aware of it. I'm advising the House….

Mr. Speaker: I think that what you have stated already indicates a general economic situation. You're stating that it should be debated because of the importance of the matter.

Mr. Bennett: Well, I think you're presupposing the rest of my statement. I'm giving that part that led me to introduce this motion: that is that we have a serious unemployment situation in this province and that regionally these figures of unemployment and the predictions that have been made of what will happen in the future, Mr. Speaker, cause the urgency of this debate.

Mr. Speaker: The reason I ask you to contain the matter at this stage is because it should not descend to a debate itself. Is there much further that you wish to state on the matter?

Mr. Bennett: I didn't find these statements argumentative, Mr. Speaker; I thought they were factual. I present them as….

Mr. Speaker: I'm quite sure that the motive of the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has been to make clear to the House what the matter is about. Is there much more on the subject, please?

[ Page 4377 ]

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

Mr. Speaker: Well, would the Hon. Member proceed then? Press on.

Mr. Bennett: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In addition to the very serious weaknesses of these two key industries — housing and the forest industry — we must consider the economic consequences that specific industry recessions will have on the more stable aspects of the province's economy, particularly the service industry.

In the forest industry, for example, the loss of one job will mean the loss of an additional two jobs outside the industry. Mr. Speaker, it's not good enough to say that the condition of British Columbia's economy is simply a consequence of global economic conditions for which there is no provincial solution, or no opportunity for a positive plan of action by this House. This is a most serious matter which I place before this House, because this motion can only be offered if the matter to be discussed lies clearly within the administrative responsibility of the government.

I want to make it unquestionably clear that the official opposition is not only willing to state the problems, but we are most anxious to present specific proposals before this House for discussion under this motion.

We are prepared to propose new and innovative measures to secure a better employment picture….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Now the Member is really launching into a debate which is not the purpose of stating the matter.

Would the Hon. Member please remit the statement of the matter to me so I may study it? Indeed, because I feel it is an urgent and important matter, I would like to examine it for a few minutes. But you must remember that my duty is to follow the rules. I'm bound by the precedents of this House. Indeed, my job, as I see it, and I've been told often enough, is to determine the urgency of debate at this time by interfering with or changing the ordinary business of the House.

Mr. Bennett: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I was only trying to make the point that this was within the provincial jurisdiction; but I will submit the statement.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. I wonder if the House would agree to a short recess while my advisers and myself examine the matter.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): I was wondering if, on behalf of the government, I could make a point now — a statement that may assist the House and you in this decision with which you're faced.

It is that the government intends to introduce in a matter of a very few days a specific bill relating to the forest unemployment situation. It's quite obvious, with the introduction of that bill in a matter of a few days, laid before this House, that all Members in this House would have an opportunity to take part in such a debate as the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) is suggesting. At that time they will have an opportunity to put their vote on record.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Without getting into an argument on it, I would like a recess now to consider both what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition has said and what the House Leader (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has said.

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

The House resumed at 10:31 a.m.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we have given urgent consideration to the proposal by the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) for an emergency debate under standing order 35.

I point out that May in the 17th edition, which is the one that sets out all the rules with regard to such debate, very clearly states with many examples at page 364 through to 367, that the matter must be definite — that is, not a generalized matter, but a specific matter that can be isolated into an emergency, a very important situation, but where it must be debated now. Those instances, as you will note in looking through the authorities, are very few.

I will just recite what May says in general on the matter:

"It must be a single specific matter, " according to May at page 364.

"It must not be couched in general terms or covering a great number of cases. It is not offered when facts are in dispute or before they are all available, and it must not import an argument."

In other words, it must be something that everyone can agree right away, instantly, that there is urgency of debate.

Now there are many instances in all the authorities, as I found in the House of Commons in Ottawa and at Westminster, where cases of unemployment and matters of a general nature regarding the economic situation have been dealt with. Indeed, in our own jurisdiction on numerous occasions Speakers have dealt with this, and I can do no better than refer the Hon. Members to volume II of Speakers Decisions, as Mr. Speaker Pauline at page 69 ruled out the matter of unemployment for urgency debate, and stated it must be done upon

[ Page 4378 ]

notice.

He repeated that decision again on the ground that I've mentioned in May, the same year again, because it was an emergency situation in the general economy. He stated that the unemployment situation had reached the most acute stage and become of great urgency and public interest, but nonetheless, because we are bound by these rules of the generality of such a subject it was not an appropriate one, according to May, for that method.

Again in 1923 this was ruled out of order on the same question of unemployment and also in a matter dealing with labour. All of these are found in Volume II of Speakers' Decisions.

Now in Ottawa the question of the effect on the footwear industry, which laid off thousands of employees, became of such urgent consideration that the same motion was sought for urgency debate. There again, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux rejected it. I can give you various examples of that, June 20, 1970, in the House of Commons records, and all of them lead to the same result.

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

Now, without going into the statement by the government, because there is nothing on the order paper to indicate that a bill is coming forward, I cannot say really other than it is not, I think, a major consideration, although I note Mr. Speaker Perry, in his decision dealing with the question, where Mr. Pattullo was then the Premier of the province, had assured the House that action was being taken on the matter and that Ottawa had been informed of this question dealing with salmon fisheries. In that case the Speaker apparently accepted that as an assurance that there was some opportunity to debate.

Now I don't accept that ground necessarily as being binding on me because it seems to me that we must rest the case of where it stands upon the general rule and Speakers' decisions.

I point out that it is not for the Speaker to change the rules of the House or change the interpretation of previous Speakers. Consequently I am bound to follow the precedents that I have recited and in view of that it would be out of order at this time. But the Member can always, by notice of motion, put the motion that he wishes to put on the order paper for debate, and of course, we will all wait to see whether, in fact, some legislation is forthcoming.

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I don't feel that you've realized the urgency of this debate. I said there were specific areas that we mentioned in my statement that dealt with the urgency, and while it may not be urgent to those who have got increased salaries, this is a very urgent debate for those people who are unemployed.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

This is really not a subject for debate now, or to debate the ruling. I would love to debate the ruling, but unfortunately I am bound by the precedents of this House, and I must go on to the next order of business.

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, it says "when ordinary opportunities provided the House do not permit the subject to be brought in early enough." We don't have the Speech from the Throne, and we don't have the normal debates that have gone past in which to discuss this subject.

Mr. Speaker: I really must disagree that I can take any other course. If I were not bound by my precedents that I recited that were made in this House, and were, I might say, the judgment of the House, not my judgment, the judgment of the House. I am bound by them and I must abide by them. So we must go on to the next order of business.

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

Mr. Speaker: I'm sorry, you can't challenge the ruling on a decision of urgency of debate under standing order 35. That's the way it is.

You see, the standing order depends upon the Speaker's decision as to whether there is urgency of debate.

Mr. Bennett: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are cases when the former Leader of the Opposition…where they were challenged and there was a….

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that if it was done it was done in error, and the authorities are quite opposed to it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: You don't expect me to compound the error, I'm sure. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

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

[ Page 4379 ]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

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

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): We are not proceeding today with orders of the day because of the fact that the chairman of the committee on assessment has presented a report which I know will want to be studied, on taxation. We have also introduced several bills which I know the opposition will want to study, and so, in other words, you have your homework to do for the weekend. (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, on Monday we will be entering into debate on the bills of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke). They will be prepared for work on….

Interjections.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Would you be prepared to debate those now?

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: That will be the order of business for Monday. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. Monday.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

I would remind the Hon. Members that this is Friday, and under standing orders, this is a government day and therefore the question of private Members' bills does not have precedence unless the government allows it.

Interjections.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): What about the report of the standing committee on…?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the House Leader to decide. That is not for me to decide.

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

Mr. Speaker: I have a motion before the House, are you ready for the question?

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS - 34

NAYS - 16

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

Hon. Mr. Cocke presents the report of the Overall Medical Services plan of British Columbia.

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): We've got quite a heavy order paper here, and I notice that there are many, many questions that the government has had some six weeks to answer. I wonder if the Premier could give us any indication of when the questions on the order paper will be answered.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could take that up later between yourselves.

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

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:45 a.m.

[ Page 4380 ]

APPENDIX

The following report is referred to on page 4375:

MR. SPEAKER:

The Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters and Housing begs leave to report as follows:

On June 5, 1974, the Legislature of British Columbia ordered that the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters, both during the Session and. upon prorogation of the House, be authorized to review real property taxation procedures in British Columbia, with particular emphasis on making recommendations to the House at the next Session respecting real property tax legislation necessary to ensure the equitable distribution of real property taxation.

In order to assist its deliberations, the Committee had the power to examine existing legislation bearing upon the taxation function at the Provincial and municipal levels as well as the legislation of any other jurisdiction.

Following advertisements placed in the newspapers of the Province inviting public participation, about 300 responses were received.

The Committee's deliberations began with a working session involving the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the B.C. School Trustees Association on September 17 in Vernon.

On September 25, 26, and 27, the Committee heard representations from Dr. Mason Gaffney, Acting Director, B.C. Institute for Economic Policy Analysis; Prof. Arthur Becker, University of Wisconsin; Mr. Jonathan Rowe, Director, Property Tax Project, Tax Reform Research Group, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Jack Knetsch, Professor, Economics and Commerce Department, Simon Fraser University; Mr. Percy Wright, Assessment Commissioner for the Province of British Columbia; Mr. John Moore, Surveyor of Taxes for the Province of British Columbia; Mr. Fred Macklin and Mr. Larry Ting, Consultants in the Department of Education.

Public hearings were held in Prince George, Kelowna, Cranbrook, New Westminster, Victoria, Parksville, and Vancouver, at which numerous briefs were presented.

Your Committee wishes to take this opportunity to express its gratitude to all of the individuals and organizations who contributed their time and experience in making submissions to the Committee, thereby assisting it in discharging its responsibilities.

Your Committee particularly wishes to record its thanks to Mr. Reg Sampson, who served as Consultant to the Committee on loan from the Assessment Authority of British Columbia. His efforts providing advice and statistical information at the request of members of the Committee were of immense value.

The authority for taxation of property is contained in the Taxation Act, the Public Schools Act, the Municipal Act, Water Act, Local Services Act, and Regional Hospital Districts Act.

At this time, fixed Provincial taxation rates exist which vary considerably on improved land, forest land, tree-farm land, wild land, timber land, and farm land.

A variety of well-thought-out and carefully documented suggestions for real property tax overhaul came before the Committee. Some of these include:

(1) The site value taxation system—An approach to property tax based on land only, with no consideration of improvements, was outlined for the Committee.

(2) Differential mill rates—The general idea suggested was that there should be separate mill rates for different classes of property. The classes generally referred to were commercial, industrial, farm land, vacant land, and residential land in use.

[ Page 4381 ]

APPENDIX

(3) Exemptions—It was suggested that a system similar to that used for income tax purposes be introduced whereby every land-owner would be granted a basic assessment exemption. Property taxes would then be calculated only against the remaining assessment.

It was pointed out to the Committee that several hardships exist within classes of property. For example, small parcels of residential land being held for future home construction have been assessed and taxed the same as speculative land, and some small business people are experiencing hardship as a result of commercial assessments being established at 50 per cent of market value.

The Committee reached the conclusion that even with every effort being made to achieve equity in real property assessment and equity in the levying of tax, there will still remain instances where, by reason of the nature and the circumstances surrounding particular properties, hardship will result.

These individual cases of hardship can only be resolved by facilitating consideration of each individual case.

The Committee also considered

(a) the advisability of higher tax rates for British Columbia land held by foreign owners;

(b) the fact that under existing legislation certain properties are exempt from taxation, including community halls, churches, cemeteries, Crown lands, summer camps, Farmers' Institutes, and horticultural societies, among others; it was suggested that all properties should be assessed and taxed, but that municipal governments should maintain the right to make grants in lieu of taxes.

In a submission to the Committee, Provincial Assessment Commissioner Percy Wright stated that the actual value rolls now under preparation would pose problems. He also pointed out that use of the 1974 rolls would perpetuate existing inequities.

The B.C. Federation of Agriculture urged caution, stating they would prefer the 1974 roll over the new roll being prepared at actual value in order to provide sufficient time to study all possible effects of the new 100 per cent assessments.

Numerous representations referred to the complexities of real property taxation and urged the Committee to proceed slowly.

The Council of Forest Industries stated: "…the matter is too complicated to be properly dealt with in the current year…."

Additionally, the Union of B.C. Municipalities' brief pointed out the difficulty in devising legislation to deal with problems that have not yet been fully determined and stated: "…that authenticated 1974 assessment rolls, modified to reflect physical changes, be used again in 1975…."

These are but some of the viewpoints brought to the Committee reflecting the difficulty in rapid implementation of 100 per cent assessment rolls.

The Committee concludes that it is better to live with an imperfect assessment roll created over the years by restrictive legislative provisions than to proceed rapidly to implement actual value assessment without sufficient time to study the implications of such a move.

Recommendations

Therefore, the Committee recommends:

(1) That assessments in 1975 should be as they were in 1974, but in cases where changes have occurred in physical character of a property or new construction has taken place the assessments should be as they would have been in 1974.

Land on which a residence is located, where situated in an agricultural land reserve or where, by municipal or regional district by-laws cannot be subdivided, then the parcel as a whole shall be given the benefit of residential classification.

[ Page 4382 ]

APPENDIX

(2) That consideration should be given to the establishment of an agency empowered to investigate individual cases of real property tax hardship, and to grant appropriate relief (i.e., locked-in land and small businesses).

(3) That a Special Commission be appointed to inquire into all the ramifications of the implementation of an assessment system based on actual value, and that the Commission review all aspects of real property taxation procedures.

This review should be unrestricted in scope, but should include the following:

(a) Interjurisdictional sharing of tax revenue.

(b) Classification of real property and the definition thereof.

(c) Property tax exemption.

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

(e) Differential taxation of nonresident-owned land.

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

(g) Site value taxation.

(h) Consolidation of real property tax legislation under a single statute.

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

(4) That the B.C. Assessment Authority continue to function as an independent authority and be instructed to complete, as soon as possible, an assessment roll based on actual value of land, improvements, and machinery.

Respectfully submitted.

CARL LIDEN, Chairman