[ Page 4641 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Assessment Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 170). Second reading.

Mr. Curtis — 4641

Mr. Liden — 4657

Mr. L.A. Williams — 4659

Mr. Dent — 4662

Mr. Phillips — 4664

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): I move the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

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

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

(continued)

Mr. Speaker: Are you leading off as the designated speaker'!

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich And The Islands): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was going to inform you that I am the designated speaker on this debate at this point.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Would you like a copy of your old speech? (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member defer a minute?

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Hon. Mr. Strachan: Point of order, yes. I wonder if the Member…. He says he's the designated speaker; I wonder if he'd care to say for which party.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: Oh, order, please! That's merely facetious. Would the Hon. Member proceed? I apologize.

Mr. Curtis: Thank you. I was going to reply to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, through you, briefly.

Yes, I've read my old speeches, and the one thing, Mr. Premier, is that I'm really not prepared to live in the past, because the situation…. As I said the other day to the Premier, he can have his fun and it's really not going to have that much effect.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I think that it's important that we engage in some rational debate on this bill, the Assessment Amendment Act, 1974, Bill 170, which was introduced a few days ago and which was the subject of spirited introduction by the Premier and Minister of Finance just before the dinner adjournment.

I have some comments with respect to those terrible corporations who are suffering, or will be made to suffer as a result of the NDP government. I got quite a few letters — not from corporations, but from individuals who have experienced grave difficulty as a result of the assessment mishmash which started quite some time ago. I admit that, and I emphasize that point: we have a problem which has been underway for a good number of years in British Columbia. It is continued tinkering ….

Interjection.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): We're not the Minister of mismanagement like you are.

Interjection.

An Hon. Member: Bumbling Minister. The bumbling Minister of….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! The Hon. Member is entitled to be heard.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please! You're consuming your Hon. Member's time.

Mr. Curtis: I am the designated speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, I'm sorry, yes. (Laughter.) Well, you're consuming my time.

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

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

Mr. Curtis: A little bit of background may be helpful before we turn to the main points at issue tonight. I notice from Votes and Proceedings, No. 71, of this assembly of Friday, April 5 of this year, the special committee to review assessment procedures in British Columbia filed its report. Page 3 of Votes and Proceedings for that date spoke strongly about the need to return to equalized assessment for the assessment roll of 1975 or, at the very latest, the assessment roll for 1976.

On page 4 the committee said:

"The committee therefore strongly recommends that careful study be undertaken into the changes in taxing procedures necessary

[ Page 4642 ]

to ensure the equitable distribution of the real property tax contemporaneously with the legislation which will return equalized assessment to British Columbia. The committee realizes that such a study will be a major undertaking and urges that it commence at the earliest moment in order that changes with respect to assessment will not be delayed beyond the time recommended earlier in this report, section C(3)."

Repeating one portion of that paragraph:

"The committee realizes that such a study will be a major undertaking, and urges that it commence at the earliest moment……

That was April 5, Mr. Speaker, and the committee appointed later in the spring session, for one reason or another, was not in a position to commence its study until September 17, when it met in Vernon with representatives of the Union of B.C. Municipalities and, the following day, with representatives of the B.C. School Trustees Association.

Now we could spend a great deal of time, and perhaps other Members in this debate will ask the question: why did it take from very early April — receiving a report and recognizing that a problem of considerable magnitude faced this House, all parties of this House — why did it take until the middle of September before the committee could get down to work?

I suppose it was realized by some committee members very early in the fall that it was not going to be possible to complete the task assigned to it unless there was some tremendous breakthrough, which could not be foreseen. But I emphasize the point — identifying this as a very major problem facing the people of British Columbia and facing this Legislature as representatives of the people of British Columbia — that we sat around from April 5 until September 17. We should not lose sight of that fact: the committee did not start soon enough.

The real tragedy of this entire property tax exercise, in my view, is that the government did suddenly discover the magnitude of the task, the complexities of the whole real property assessment and taxation process, but somehow and somewhere lost its resolve, lost its determination to carry the job through to a logical and a fair conclusion.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that it's important to realize that that wasn't the early opinion or attitude of several government Members — indeed all members of the committee perhaps. Just a few weeks ago when we heard expressions such as "We have to bite the bullet"…. .

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Curtis: This was the attitude of government Members in committee discussion: "We have to bite the bullet." Yet a few days later there were words to the effect that "no matter which way we go, we are in the glue."

There's a headline in the Vancouver Province for October 8, page 25, Mr. Speaker, which is thus: "Barrett Putting Brake on Tax Reform" — October 8, 1974.

" Everybody is telling the committee to slow down. Timing is the question. The safest thing I can say is that there will not be major shifts in taxes within the year, because that's the obvious demand of the community through the taxation committee."

End of quote from the Vancouver Province for that date.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, while the municipal affairs and housing committee was still travelling the province, still conducting hearings, hearing representations from a variety of organizations and individuals, the Premier and Minister of Finance was already directing the committee.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

An Hon. Member: Interference.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Same old slippery Hugh.

Mr. Curtis: The Premier was directing the committee through the press, giving us the message that he, as the First Minister of the Crown in British Columbia, would not tolerate a certain type of recommendation from the committee. Now that was a very clearly delivered message as the committee was struggling with a major problem.

There's another interesting couple of headlines.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister Of Health): Did you quit then? Did you stick with it?

Mr. Curtis: No, I did not. I stayed with it all the way through, Mr. Minister of defence — stayed with it all the way through.

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

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order!

Mr. Curtis: Then there are just two more newspaper stories which I would like to refer to in

[ Page 4643 ]

the opening part of these remarks.

This is the Colonist for Saturday, September 28: "Property Tax Overhaul Heads for Chaos." This was after Mr. Wright, the assessment commissioner, appeared before the committee on the day previous. The subhead is: "Wright Drops Shocker, Urges Remedy Policy This Fall or Delay in 1975 Full Value Yardstick." That was the Colonist.

However, on the evening of September 28, the Times in Victoria carried a headline: "Eased Home Tax Predicted by 1975." It goes through a number of points, but later in the story it refers to the MLA for Delta (Mr. Liden), the chairman of the committee, and it said:

"Mr. Liden today expressed surprise that Wright" — that is Mr. Wright of the assessment authority — "had narrowed the viable option down to one: the setting of a lower mill rate for residential property.

"The committee respects Mr. Wright's judgment, and will give it every consideration, but it is premature to state what the committee's decision might be. However, we cannot go into 1975 with the status quo."

He said: "The committee will be recommending tax changes to the Premier in November, and he was confident the government would take speedy action."

The final quote:

"It might be an interim report, but it will recommend changes to ease the burden on the homeowner."

An Hon. Member: Where are they'!

Interjections.

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fun back and forth, assessment and property taxation matters are admittedly most complicated. It was necessary, in our view, for the government to "bite the bullet." In all probability, as I said earlier, some Members of this House would have supported the government in a move towards completion of the job in biting the bullet and pushing ahead with the kinds of decisions which were clearly necessary to overcome the inequities and the unhappiness which became clearly evident to all committee members during the course of our hearings from September until very late in October.

Now, Mr. Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as you get ready to leave for China, I hope you recognize the reality of the situation.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you tell me that you will be in the same party when I get back?

Mr. Curtis: I'll be here.

I hope you realize the reality of the situation. Mr. Speaker, a return to the 1974 assessment levels is not a safe harbour, the safe haven for the government that it may think it is. It is not what is required urgently by the people who experienced very drastic and dramatic property tax increases in 1974 over 1973. This is no shelter for the government.

Briefs presented to the committee this fall, as background I would outline for you, Mr. Speaker, fell mainly into three categories: representation from various organizations, including the UBCM, the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, B.C. School Trustees Association, principal cities, district municipalities, a few regional districts, chambers of commerce, boards of trade and citizens groups. In the second category were presentations which I think we could call academic. They were dealing with the fundamental philosophy of property taxation: the need for tax reform; how property tax could be improved in British Columbia; what is wrong with the present system as employed not only in B.C. but in other jurisdictions as well.

But thirdly, we heard from a variety of individuals who brought to the committee in hearings specific complaints based on their 1974 assessments and resultant property tax bills — the assessments which led to higher taxes in their cases.

Each member of the committee has copies of that material, distributed through the office of the chairman, the Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), and I believe that this House in debating this bill should be aware of the type of complaint which we heard; not from category 1 or category 2 but rather from the individuals — the men and women who appeared before the committee to cite their specific examples. The House should hear these in order to fully appreciate the fact that passage of this assessment amendment bill will extend those inequities into 1975 at least.

In fact, the statement by the Finance Minister, which was released to the press on November 4, makes it very clear that it's quite possible these same inequities will be extended beyond 1975, into 1976 and beyond.

The statement, I believe, was that clear, full-value assessment will be "delayed indefinitely." So as a result, Mr. Speaker, these difficulties will remain with us until bold remedial action is finally taken.

So here are some of the injustices which will continue next year due to the government's change of attitude.

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

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

Mr. Curtis: Any time.

[ Page 4644 ]

Again, Mr. Speaker, these are selected from copies that have been available to each member of the committee. This one is from the Lasqueti Community Association, Lasqueti Island, dated August 16:

"Lasqueti Island has been fighting vigorously to keep its rural atmosphere and to stop too much development. The Islands Trust appears to agree with the uniqueness of Lasqueti and the aims of the islanders.

"However, the present provincial tax policy seems to be in direct opposition to such goals. Wild or undeveloped land is now taxed at a higher rate than residential or improved land. Tax increases due to increased valuation have been phenomenal.

"As a direct result of such policies, many landowners who would prefer to keep their land undeveloped are beginning to fear that they can no longer afford to do this. Therefore, they must develop or sell in order to pay taxes.

"On the one hand, the government is opposed to developing Lasqueti in the same manner as other Gulf Islands. On the other hand, the present tax policy is forcing such development. This is particularly true of landowners whose property consists of separate parcels. They are taxed as improved land only on the piece on which their house is built, but other contiguous property is taxed at the higher wildland rate.

"We realize that such policies were intended to discourage holding land for speculation or investment but it also forces more and more land to be developed."

The Lasqueti Island Community Association.

Now here is one of the big corporations — the massive international conglomerates to which the Premier alluded in his few minutes just before the supper hour adjournment. This is a major firm, Mr. Speaker, probably one of the largest in British Columbia. How many, many millions of dollars would they turn over in a year? — it's Wing's Market of 3912 Cedar Drive, Port Coquitlam.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

An Hon. Member: A real multinational.

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

"Dear Sir,

"I started a retail grocery business in 1972 at the above address. It is one store plus living quarters. In 1973 my property tax was $1,273.80, provincial homeowner grant reduction was $200; net taxes came to $1,073.80.

"This year my taxes come to $2,361.14. The provincial homeowner grant deduction is $240; net taxes $2121.14, plus water, sewer and licence. The total comes to $2,400 for this year.

"I would like to pay my share of taxes, but I cannot afford to pay over 100 per cent increase within a year.

"Retail grocery stores are open 12 to 14 hours every day and make little profit. I have monthly payments to make, high overhead, plus four children to support. If taxes don't decrease I don't think I will be able to operate my business for any long period."

A major corporation.

Interjections.

Mr. Curtis: Yes, it is.

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

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, there are other categories; we will come back to some other small businessmen a little later. This is the Richmond Pacific 5 Branch of the Royal Canadian Legion — again addressed to the chairman, the Member for Delta, of the select standing committee:

"I am writing to you on behalf of 2,000 members of this Royal Canadian Legion Branch No. 5, with respect to our assessment, the assessment of our club located at the above address, in hopes you may be able to help us in this matter.

"Our taxes in 1972 were $9,699. In 1973 they were $14,104 and in 1974 — $20,243.82." The letter goes on:

"There is no way we can pay these kind of taxes and carry on with the benevolent work we do. I would say we have helped some 5,000 children in Richmond this past year by sports, Scouts, Girl Guides, scholarships, bursaries, youth training plans, UBC, track, and field, vocational schools, crippled children; donations to the Richmond hamper, Salvation Army. Shaughnessy and George Darby Hospitals. Over and above all this, we send our senior citizens to summer camps each year.

"Our main project at the present time is our senior citizen housing, with over 100 units in Richmond with help from both the federal and provincial governments.

" I could go on, but what I have mentioned will give you some idea of the work and help, plus the finances that we do. I can assure you that there will be no way we can carry on with the above."

[ Page 4645 ]

"We have managed to pay the taxes for 1974; however, there is no way we can meet them next year unless we forgo our benevolent work donations. I know there will be many disappointed children and organizations that have been depending on us for the past few years for our help. These children will be running the streets as there will be no one to sponsor them. This means more police work, and many other problems.

"We realize there have to be taxes, but why on non-profit organizations such as ours? At least the mill rate could be reduced in all service clubs. Yours truly, the Royal Canadian Legion, Richmond Branch."

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

Mr. Curtis: There's another one from the Royal Canadian Legion, Branch 113 in Ashcroft, Mr. Speaker. This is also addressed to the chairman of the committee, August 3:

"The executive committee of the Legion, Ashcroft Branch, instructed me to request an opportunity for the principal officers to appear before your committee to express the concern of the branch regarding the very large increase in the 1974 property and school taxes. For last year, the municipal and school taxes amounted to $882.70, and for 1974, we are requested to pay $1,507.51 — an increase of $624.81. This is a severe financial blow to this branch. We are a non-profit organization and have had to struggle to keep our heads above water. In spite of the assessed value increases this year, it is noted that the municipality increased the mill rate by approximately 2 mills while the school mill rate was lowered by only 1 mill. The Legion building is located on lot 12, and their adjoining lot 11 provides off-street parking, et cetera."

Taxes in Ashcroft then for a non-profit building: $ 882 in 1973, and $1,507.00 in 1974. This is another major corporation. These are the kind of individuals who appeared before the committee and made it very clear that they don't consider 1974 assessment base, as set out in the assessment amendment Act, to be of any great assistance.

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

"In presenting you with the following comments on the above subject, let me emphasize that I am aware of present-day trends governing B.C. land values and cost of public services, particularly as they apply to the Gulf Islands. I have no complaint concerning the 1974 increases in assessed values of lands and property. I am aware of the recent tremendous increase in the cost of public services. I consider, until 1973, the property taxes we have paid in recent years, even if we are to ignore homeowner grants — which, incidentally, I think to be nonsensical except for those property owners who are on welfare or old-age pensioners — are extremely low.

"I own two parcels of land on South Pender Island. One of these — three unimproved waterfront lots, 10 acres in all on Gowland Point — has been in my possession since 1950. The other 154 acres in the centre of the Island was purchased by my mother in 1949. On the corner of the latter, I built my home in 1964. For 1973, the taxes on the Gowland Point property were just over $200. For 1974, they rocketed to $606. This I consider to be an exorbitant and unjustified rise, and I'm left with no other option than to sell out in the next year or two. I should like to sell it to a private buyer at the current inflated real estate prices. This would in turn possibly mean not only would the taxes increase for the new owners, but so would those on neighbouring lots which are currently owned mostly by people with only modest means.

"Let me point out I have kept this Gowland Point property literally as a private park. It is unposted; both strangers and neighbours use it for recreation, and one neighbour pastures ponies on it. This past summer, I estimate between 300 and 400 people have used the land for recreational purposes — waterfront with hinterland open to the public. Let me mention it is at a premium on these islands.

"At least once or twice a week my family and I visit this land to stroll and observe marine life. The 1974 taxes for my 154 acres in the centre of the island were $941. This is more than double what they were for the previous year. My home cost me about $16,000 to build, ignoring the many hours of work I've spent improving this land. I spent approximately $1,500 improving the environs about the house. The remaining 150 acres I've left wild and unfenced.

"Twenty-five years ago this land was logged over drastically. The scars of the logging have healed, and while there is a fair amount of marketable timber still standing, I am adverse — unless I could have strict selective logging which I believe is uneconomic and unprocurable in this day and age — to harvest this timber, as it represents a relic of the mature woodland that once covered these islands. As a conservationist, I wish to preserve this land as it is."

Another example, Mr. Speaker, of the many

[ Page 4646 ]

presentations made to the committee earlier this fall, where the owners say quite simply: "We happen to own several acres, a large number of acres of wild land, and we cannot hold on to the land. We shall have to sell it to speculators or to those who can afford to wait." Here is another one from Galiano Island. This is a Mr. Stephen Enke:

"The following statement indicates perhaps that private ownership of undeveloped wild land may be socially desirable and therefore should not be diminished by punitive taxation based on the belief that such owners are hoarders and speculators. In my case, I own 80 acres on the north side of Active Pass and five acres on the north side of Sturdies, Bay, both on Galiano Island. The reason I have not developed the 80 acres on Active Pass is that I wish to conserve the virgin timber and natural state of this property. The adjoining bluffs, immediately to the west, were given by my parents to the Galiano Association — a property that is now called Bluffs Park — and located there is a small memorial to my parents. Like them, I wish to prevent the north shore of Active Pass from being spoiled through logging or clearings for numerous homes. Accordingly, I have held this property as undeveloped land and paid taxes on it for many years.

"My taxes this year tripled. My ownership means paying taxes to educate children I have never seen, and to preserve beautiful scenery for people going through Active Pass on the ferries. I would be more than happy for the province to purchase this property at a fair price, combine it with Bluffs Park, and thereby form an adequately-protected provincial park. The point is that I am not holding this land to make a financial killing — quite the opposite. I have no way of realizing money from this property, except through a sale or development that would impair the beauty of a shoreline that several thousand people see daily.

"The five acres on Sturdies Bay are not now developed, although I did drill a well there last year, because it makes no sense for me to build a retirement home there until I retire in two years' time. The point is visited by many people staying at Galiano Lodge, or waiting for the ferry. Given the sort of people who come over from Vancouver to Galiano and camp around and about, an empty home with furniture would invite vandalism. There is no one on Galiano with police authority, even as a deputy, to make trespassers move on. Our taxes really buy us no police or fire protection.

"These two properties have been in my family for over 60 years, and I acquired them at a fair price from my father shortly after World War II. When I die or sell these properties, there will be a capital gains tax. Meanwhile, these parcels of undeveloped land occasion no expensive government services which, last, should surely be financed from taxes on structures and improvements rather than on wilderness land."

So the man has attempted to hold his property on Galiano Island as an attractive part of British Columbia, and his taxes this year tripled.

We're back to Port Coquitlam. I don't recall, in going through all the correspondence, singling out that particular part of British Columbia. This is from 1221 Pitt River Road, addressed to the chairman — amendments to the Tax Equalization Act, unoccupied land:

"The Premier has stated that 13 per cent of the people affected by this Act are actually innocent victims of the Act and therefore are unjustly taxed. If this is so, and if such land was purchased, and is presently held for the sole use of the owner and not for the purpose of selling or subdividing, then a way must be found to correct this injustice of skyrocketing taxes.

"I would like to deal specifically with one parcel of land located in Surrey — eight acres purchased in 1945. Improvements at that time included a small house and barn; the taxes were $14. A few years ago, one acre was subdivided from the original eight, and was registered in the owner's wife's name. This action was taken strictly as a family security measure in the event that something may or could happen to the husband. There was never any intention of selling this, or any other part of the property.

"Here are the figures showing tax payments since 1970: 1970, eight acres, $86.98; 1972, the one acre, $107.55, the seven acres, $449.97; and in 1974, the one acre parcel had risen from $119.27 in 1972 to $353.30, while the seven acres had gone up to $474.67.

"As shown, the taxes of the seven-acre parcel are somewhat stabilized and, though high, may be acceptable. There is, however, no justification whatsoever for the unreasonable increase on the one acre of unoccupied land. The total taxes this year, $827.67, have become such a burden to the owners that they will have no choice but to sell part or all of this land. If this happens, the land will become just another chess piece in the hands of speculators for the sole purpose of profiteering." The letter continues:

"I ask you, is this justice? Is this part of the platform on which this government was elected? Having some knowledge of the socialist principles regarding land ownership, I

[ Page 4647 ]

nevertheless maintain that this land was legally purchased and that taxes have been paid yearly, according to demand. Therefore the owners of such land are fully entitled to own land and use what is rightfully theirs without being forced to sell because of unreasonable taxes. If this government wants this land, or if it for any reason wants the present owners removed from or deprived of the use of this land, then they, the government, should say so and should not by any devious means of taxation force the owners to part with what is legally theirs.

"If there is a way to enact laws such as this, and obviously there is, then there must also be a way of correcting injustices created by such laws. I hope you will find a way to resolve this problem."

The thread running through so many of these letters, Mr. Speaker, as you will have gathered thus far, is: "We will have no choice but to sell; we cannot hold on to the land." And who will buy? Well, probably, perhaps, the government may buy and, in some instances, the government would be well advised to purchase this land — not through punitive taxation but through direct negotiation, negotiation with the owners. That's the way to add to the parkland and greenbelt which this province requires. This one is from North Vancouver:

"Dear Sir, Recently we heard Premier Barrett on the radio. He mentioned your name and also that you are on the committee to do with retirement homes, small homes that people have worked for all their lives. If this is so, I hope you can help us with some information — as we hear rumours that no one seems to know too much about — how the government can aid us at this time.

"I retire as a bus driver from Hydro in the next year; I am 59 years old. We have a 75-ft. lot on Quadra Island where we have built ourselves a small cabin, and when I say we built it, I mean just that. My wife and I have hauled beams off the beach, cut our own cedar shakes, mixed our cement by hand, and the two of us have accomplished a great deal with sweat and a few tears, but mostly joy.

"We have been told that our taxes will be so high that we will be tossed off our property, and this concerns us. We are starting to build on to the cabin or start a little larger place to retire to next year. We do want to know what is the best thing for us to do.

"We own two lots, waterfront lots 21 and 22, together 150 feet, and 140 feet deep. A road cuts across the back of our property. Would it be any advantage to us to join the two lots and have it turned into just one tax instead of two separate lots?

"Are there any grants for people like us who are trying to build ourselves a nice, comfortable home to enjoy for our later years? Does the home acquisition grant apply to us? Would it pay us to defer taxes? Please let us know if there is any way in which there is some help. We don't want to lose the property because of higher taxes.

"We plan on having our own vegetable garden, cut our wood from the beach and try to be as self-sufficient as possible. We hope you can give us some information on our problem. We see a retirement home going out to sea or down the drain."

Down the drain. This as a result of what happened in assessments and what is intended now to happen again in 1975.

This one is from White Rock:

"Enclosed are photocopies of items I've received concerning lease property that I have at Young Lake, which is 34 miles east of 70 Mile House in the Cariboo. This property can only be reached by driving 24 miles on dirt road. We're at an elevation of 3,050 feet, have no electricity, water or other services. Due to climatic conditions, distance from White Rock and the fact that no working man gets more than one to two months a year holiday, the maximum use we can get at the lake is about two months per year.

"I feel that the raise of over 400 per cent in our lease rental is exorbitant, when one hears that other rental increases…."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Is that leased property?

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

An Hon. Member: Where's your 10.6 per cent increase on leased property, eh?

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mr. Curtis: The Minister of Finance may have a point.

Mr. Speaker: I really think that we should deal with matters of assessed value in relation to fee simple property.

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

[ Page 4648 ]

Mr. Speaker.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Curtis: This one is from…. Well, someone from the left here, Mr. Speaker, said: "It's better than reading letters." We received hundreds of letters, Mr. Member, as the committee well knows, hundreds of letters from individuals who are extremely unhappy with the situation in which they find themselves. I have tried to select just a few which are representative of those which came before the committee, or which were made available to the committee. This one is addressed to the lady Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) as a member of the committee, I assume:

"I'm writing this to protest and also to ask your help in correcting this unjust and iniquitous property tax which I am compelled to pay on my recreational lot on Gabriola Island. Since purchasing this property, I have paid more taxes than others with similar property on the island, but I have never complained until now.

"On receipt of my assessment notice, I lodged an appeal, but because the appeal hearing was to be held in Nanaimo on a weekday, it placed too great a financial burden on me, and therefore I could not appear.

"When we elected the NDP to office, I felt that at last we had a people-oriented government, one that would protect the interest of the little man. On the introduction of the land Act, I was sure that my tax assessment would be more realistic. Instead, my taxes have been doubled, while again similar properties are paying less than 1. My neighbour has been charged $28 less on an empty lot like mine and $36 less on another lot next to mine on which there is also a cabin. How can this be so?"

Then it goes on to deal with the land Act, and once again there is the thread through here;

"With this lot in question I was hoping to put up a cabin so that when I retire I will have a place to enjoy some peace and tranquility, but with taxes such as this, I shall have no alternative but to sell."

And the Xerox copies of the tax notices were enclosed.

The Terrace Ratepayers' Association:

" In July of 1974 the taxpayers of Terrace formed a ratepayers' association. Many people were upset with the method of assessment and the high increase of taxes. A committee was formed to submit a brief to the Select Standing Committee on Municipal Matters in your review of real property taxation. The following are some of our views on how this area could be improved:

1. Equalization of assessment rates. Bill 71 is not fair to the public. We feel that all assessments should be made at the same rate regardless of zoning. With business and industry being assessed at a higher rate than residential we see two things happening: either the extra tax load will be passed on to the consumer, or the businesses will be forced to close their doors. We feel that neither of the above was intended by the Legislature.

2. The vacant land Act should be amended or rescinded. This act penalizes many people who own two adjacent lots using the same for one purpose, i.e. (1) home and garden, (2) business and parking lot. We feel that land in this category should be assessed as one parcel of land, not as an occupied lot and a vacant lot." We'll have other examples of this, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure.

" In the case of other vacant land extra taxes will once again be passed on to the purchaser, leaving the burden of taxes on the consumer once again.

3. Assessment on rezoned property. This association feels that rezoned land should not be reassessed until such time as the rezoned property is used for the rezoned purpose.

4. Unorganized and organized areas. The people in Terrace pay very high taxes providing such services as schools, hospitals and recreation centres. The people in Thornhill unorganized residential area have a much lower tax base and yet are using the services of Terrace. We would like to see this tax base equalized.

5. Municipal powers: this association feels that the assessment method should be the same for the whole province. The provincial government should have some control over municipal zoning and subdividing or, at least, the taxpayer should have a chance to appeal to the provincial government.

"We feel the present method of taxation penalizes taxpayers who make improvements on their property. We hope the government will look into this problem to find a solution that will reward rather than penalize these taxpayers."

This one was written for Miguel Aguirre of Graham Avenue in Terrace:

"In response to the above notice," - that is the notice of public hearing by the committee

[ Page 4649 ]

- "We should like to advise that on our 50 acres of agricultural land, used for potato crops, our taxes went up by $2,451 since 1973.

"This property has always been used for the growing of potatoes, and still is. We find it hard to understand why our taxes should have gone up so drastically. We realize that all costs have gone up over the past year, but certainly not by a margin of 319 per cent.

"We should appreciate any help you can give us in order to bring these taxes down to a more realistic level, also, if possible, to have any such reduction, if obtained, made retroactive for 1974 taxes."

Well, here's the B.C. Federation of Labour, Mr. Speaker, again for the chairman and the committee:

"The B.C. Federation of Labour is pleased the government of British Columbia is reviewing real property taxation, and is pleased to take this opportunity to state briefly our views on the subject.

"There can be little doubt that the present municipal tax structures place an unfair burden of taxation on those taxpayers in the middle and lower income scales. This results from the fact that the present tax structure ignores entirely the principle of ability to pay.

"We hope the government shares our view that this kind of regressive tax structure is undesirable and should be reformed. Any measures taken by this government to alleviate this situation would naturally, therefore, enjoy the support of our federation.

"Specifically, we propose that the government transfer the primary burden of taxation from owner-occupied residential property and farm property to income-generating properties. We propose that corporate-held property be taxed at generally higher rates than at present, and that land held for speculative purposes be subject to a new, anti-inflationary excessive profits tax.

"The government has, in reviewing real property taxation in B.C., an opportunity to help dampen the fires of inflation by acting to make land speculation one of the chief factors in rising housing costs less profitable, and therefore less widespread. We hope the government will move decisively in this area."

Mr. Speaker, I think members of the committee will recall this case. This was a lady who appeared before the committee in Victoria, although she owns property in the Cowichan Lake district, and the letter was written from Vancouver. The lady broke down in tears during her appearance, and the letter concerns lots 11 and 12, block 78-1790 Cowichan Lake.

"Attached herewith are our tax receipts for the above-mentioned lots reflecting the unreasonable escalation in the past two years. I bought this piece of property because we are hoping to retire there and have a small shack there. My husband and I are ready to settle there but now find that it will cost us approximately $85 a month for this privilege.

"Considering that there are no services, lighting or water, and no fire protection, in that the road is non-existent, I herewith wish to apply for a reassessment.

"If the purpose of this assessment is to get us to sell to some promoter, then you are going about it the right way.

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

"If the purpose of this assessment is to get us to sell to some promoter, then you are going about it the right way," and this is the 1974 assessment formula which is to be extended into 1975. This is another letter from Vancouver regarding property in Langley:

"I own 3.54 acres there. When these two lots, 1 and 2, belonged to my dad for the past 60 years, the taxes on these two lots, which were taxed as one, were approximately $175 to $190 a year.

"After my dad's and mother's death it was left to my brother and myself, then we had it transferred — lot 2 into his name and lot 1 into my name. By doing this the taxes in 1971 were $143 which made an increase in taxes more than 25 or 30 per cent.

"With your land equalization Act, the assessment was increased 2.5 times, which increased my taxes to $475.22.

"Your land equalization Act is a good thing in many ways, but it certainly is not fair or equal under this Act. For one thing, I cannot class it as a farm because it is under five acres. I cannot subdivide because Langley will not let anyone subdivide under five acres. No relief from taxation because I can't put four cattle over one year old on it, plus one acre with residence for farm classification. Also it is under the greenbelt area. It is too small to farm to make a living on it; I cannot subdivide or put it to commercial use. The only thing I can do with it is build a house on it for myself. You tell me what I can do with it under those conditions and these higher taxes."

And the end of the letter:

"If you don't do something about Bill 71 in the near future you sure will lose a large volume of votes in the next election. With a new government in, it will probably change this for the smaller landowner, so you people might as well do something about it very soon."

Earlier we talked about the Royal Canadian

[ Page 4650 ]

Legion, and this is another non-profit organization represented before the committee by Mrs. F.J. Willavoys, who lives at 1060 San Marino Crescent, in the greater Victoria area:

"On behalf of the Victoria United Chapter Society I respectfully request that a grant be made in lieu of taxes on lot 1, section 8 1, Victoria district plan 20961.

"Our society consists of the members of four chapters of the Order of the Eastern Star. For many years our meetings were held in the Knights of Pythias hall, Cormorant Street, Victoria. Upon demolition of this hall, we were forced to seek other facilities. Having foreseen the possibility of this happening we banded together in 1959 to make every effort to obtain our own building.

"On November 27, 1961, we were duly incorporated under the title of the Victoria Chapter Society. Through the means of teas, bazaars, luncheons, dinners, fashion shows, rummage sales and personal donations, we were, in May, 1973, able to acquire a building known as 3281 Harriet Road, Saanich, which was owned by the Parkdale Free Evangelical Church. The taxes at that time were $71.20." And the letter goes on to outline the programmes which are undertaken by this organization of ladies — scholastic contributions, cancer research, cancer dressing stations, the Irma Boyce Library, Save the Children Fund, and so on. Good works within the province and outside.

"The building is used four times a month by the International Order of Job's Daughters, girls aged from 14 to 20 years. We keep the rental charge at $7.50."

As stated above, Mr. Speaker, the taxes on the building at the time of purchase, that was in 1973, were $71.21. This year they were $1,016.12. That is $71 to $1,016. The letter concludes:

"We do not feel that our membership can cope with heavy taxation without curtailing our contributions to the named projects and to the detriment of those members 65 years of age and over, to our young people, and still play a part within our community."

Mr. Speaker, in case it is thought that I am misleading the House, I am reading from a copy of a letter which was actually addressed to the greater Victoria municipality with respect to a grant, as the letter stated at the outset. A similar letter was presented before the committee, and when the representative, Mrs. Willavoys, appeared, she made it clear that the tax increase was as has been stated. But I would not want to leave the impression that I was actually reading from the letter which went to the committee.

1061 East 57th Ave., Vancouver — this is to the Surveyor of Taxes, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, with reference to the assessment district Vernon, lots 29, 30 and 31; district lot 3945, plan 7720:

"We are but working people, raising five children and trying to look ahead to retirement. This piece of property" — that is, in the Vernon area — "was purchased recently so that in 1972 taxes were $174.23. The 1973 taxes were $182.40, and now for 1974, taxes are $414.01.

"Seeing as I am a housewife, how is one to be able to pay taxes of this sort out of one's income? This is a formal application for a reduction. "

A direct result of assessment increases on vacant land — from $174 in 1972 to $414 in 1974.

I won't read the rest of the letter because it deals, really, with the fact that this lady encountered the assessor, had some comments to make and received some in return.

Let me use as a microcosm my immediate neighbourhood. This letter is from 46 West King Edward Avenue, addressed again to the chairman of the committee, from Mrs. W. Milbourne:

"My neighbourhood is made up of people who have lived here for 15, 24 and 34 years — working class or small business people - who bought their homes at a cost of $3,000 to $15,000, with lot costs being $400.

"We are not moving types, being neither speculators nor opportunists wanting to cash in on high market prices. We have seen two money-grabbing types sell for cash at prices of $68,000 to $80,000.

"Why should we, who are mostly all at retirement age on fixed incomes, have to pay taxes on this inflated market value? This injustice is also reflected in the rise of natural gas, electricity, salaries and services. When will it all stop? Will we be taxed out of existence, or will someone finally realize the stupidity of basing taxation on inflated, usurious times?"

The Malaspina Ratepayers Association in Powell River — their submission undated, but received fairly recently:

"The Malaspina Ratepayers Association hereby responds to your request for a submission on real property taxation.

"These opinions as gathered from the directors of the ratepayers are diverse, but representative of the general feeling.

"A landowner holding his land for future generations, and not for development, should have some form of tax concession. The conservation plan for leaving the land to the benefit of wilderness would be sworn to by affidavit. If at some later time subdivision was done, the landowner would be retroactively penalized for the full amount.

[ Page 4651 ]

"If assessments are raised to market value, the mill rate should be reduced on a formula basis. School taxes should be raised through means other than against real property.

"Existing taxation levied against industry, tree farms and forest reserves should be thoroughly reviewed.

"An owner making home improvements should not be penalized by increased taxes. However, if the improved property is sold, the new owner would pay on the basis of the assessed value.

"As we and the Powell River regional district believe in a slow-growth policy, owners of unused land must not be penalized."

This one was addressed to me, Mr. Speaker, but it went to the committee, I believe. 1650 Allison Road, Vancouver:

"This is with reference to the assessment increase on my Saturna Island property. I wish to thank you for the information about the general mill rate; also the copy of the legislative committee report on assessment procedures.

"Unlike most municipalities which set the mill rate after determining budget requirements, the provincial government has declined to reduce the general mill rate on Saturna Island" — and incidentally, throughout the province in unorganized areas - "and has increased the public schools mill rate. Consequently, my tax bill on this unimproved lot has increased from $40.99 in 1973 to $137.84 in 1974, a jump of 236 per cent. Copies of my tax notice are attached.

"If the government intends to assess unoccupied residential property on a different basis than occupied property, it does result in an unequal tax burden which should be investigated by the standing committee. In cases such as mine, the government could specify a period of time in which to improve the property, and later grant a rebate of the higher tax paid due to the unimproved status of the land to that date.

"However, this problem could be avoided if all residential lots were assessed on the same basis, regardless of occupancy."

That was from Mr. E.R. Boyce.

This letter was from 3013 Heather Street, Vancouver:

"We are writing to you with regard to the recent increase in the assessment of a piece of property which we own on the Saanich peninsula as a result of legislation enacted by the NDP government. We feel this increase is unjustified and unwarranted, and that some attempt should be made to rectify the situation.

"We purchased the property in June, 1973, after a lengthy search, with the intention of building a permanent home on it. It is 3.7 acres in size and lies at the north junction of West Saanich Road and Old West Road. It is very rocky, and thus unsuitable for cultivation. At present there are no improvements on it. It is good for nothing more than single-family dwelling residential use because of the topography and the five-acre minimum subdivision."

And this is moving down in the letter, after indicating that there was 150 per cent increase in the assessment and, presumably, also their taxes:

"Further, because of the tax increases, we are tempted to sell our property and make as high a profit as possible in doing so. Surely this was not the intent of the legislation. Again, perhaps we should sell the property."

Now, Mr. Speaker, may we move on to some small business firms — I had a couple at the start. Thank you for your patience as I quote these examples.

This is from Olympic Motors Ltd., Campbell River, dated July 24 of this year, and signed by L.R. Guidi:

- In response to your advertisement in the press, we submit the following views regarding the increase in the taxation leveled on small business.

"As an example, our taxation for 1973 was $1,388 against $4,616 for 1974, which represents an increase of 200 per cent over the 1973 figures."

An Hon. Member: How much?

Mr. Curtis: It was $1,388.37 in 1973 and $4,616.02 this year. Then it sets out who owns the property and the respective increases which were summarized there:

"In all, a total decrease in working capital as a result of increased property taxation totaling $4,959.51. Surely this is just a little hard to swallow, never mind for marginal business like ourselves, but for anyone in right mind.

"Our position is simply, what with overhead and labour and the cost of doing business as it applies in this day and age, one cannot surely accept many increases such as this unfair tax increase without firstly becoming very annoyed, and secondly, selling his business and becoming a recluse.

"We believe that many marginal concerns would and have been affected and swayed by this extremely high increase in taxation as it relates to property used for business."

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

[ Page 4652 ]

This one is from Al Nichol of Allington Street in Duncan, quoting in part….

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

Mr. Curtis: Mr. Speaker, through you, a number of people saw fit to send these letters to the committee….

Mr. Speaker: Well, may I point out to the Hon. Member that the purpose of debate in second reading is to really establish the basic principle or position that you wish to take on the handling of a particular problem before the house …

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please…and not really ….

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

There is no such message as the Hon. Member is inferring, and no way would I accept messages of that sort from anyone.

If anyone has any complaints about procedure, you make them openly in this House, so far as I'm concerned. And then we'll discuss it between us.

On this question, though, you are apparently relating all the evidence that occurred before committee.

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

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

The question really is how you relate what you are saying to the general principles of a bill, and coming down to some summation of position so we know exactly what the debate is about.

As I see it now, we're hearing about the plights of individuals, and that has been going on steadily for about three-quarters of an hour.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: It may well do. But the question one must address himself to, as I see it, with respect, is what position the Members take on the general principle of the bill, either for or against, or in between or anywhere.

Mr. Curtis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the observation, and I will cut short the reading of letters.

But you did make, I think, my point very well, that these are letters from individuals who are very upset and unhappy about assessment increases in 1974.

Mr. Speaker: I gathered that.

Mr. Curtis: With respect to the unidentified Member who said "tedious" — yes, the business of serving people is tedious, but we have many, many unhappy citizens in this province, and if it's tedious to deal with them, then that is unfortunately.

I will ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, because the next letter — and I won't read all of it — I think, highlights the kind of problem which is encountered in small business.

This one comes from Miracle Beach Resort, Black Creek, Vancouver Island:

"On behalf of a number of upper Vancouver Island resort owners" — and there are some 25 or 30 resorts listed.

"The effects of assessment equalization tax…since our summer resorts have an average business season of 67 days at 100 per cent occupancy, we cannot possibly absorb the expected tax increases represented by the intent of Bill 71. The vast majority of resort owners, because of their short season, live at a marginal level of profitability.

"We will be forced to increase our rates to tourists by proportional amounts, or sell our properties to real estate investors, which will result in much of our province's recreational land becoming the private property of a few individuals."

Is this — departing from the letter — what the government sought, Mr. Speaker, with this change and change about in assessment legislation? Then it goes on to point out that many of the clients are British Columbians who, for one reason or another, cannot or do not travel further afield for their holidays and that this is a major industry.

I'm sure that members of the committee will recall, as I do, the marginal profitability in the resource business which was set out in four examples: No. 1, a net profit for the year of $800; No. 2, a net loss for the year of $300; No. 3, a net loss of $ 1,000, and resort No. 4 broke even — no profit or loss to report. But the case was very well made by those upper Vancouver Island resort owners that increased assessments, which the Premier told us before dinner this evening were certainly going to get the big fish, had caught many little fish at the same time.

Anchor Bay Marina, Port Alberni, was another example, but I will pass on to make a few more observations. Hopefully other Members who participate will find it possible, Mr. Speaker, to refer to the type of letter which I've documented over the past few minutes.

[ Page 4653 ]

We even received one from the Lochiel NDP Club in Langley which said in part:

"We assumed that the ugly legacies inherited from the simplicity of Bill 71 will be examined thoroughly and that a number of humane amendments will be recommended in your report to the provincial Legislature. Our club recommends that provision be made for a tax credit, not rebate, to those who have been overtaxed in 1974."

Well now, Mr. Speaker, in deference to your remarks earlier, those are just a few of the difficulties which face this government, face this Legislature and face also the assessment authority, municipal and provincial tax collectors. I can see nothing in the bill which indicates that the government is geared to cope with correcting these injustices and hardships to which the committee referred, and to which I've referred in the past few minutes.

Again, the statement released by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) — prepared by perhaps Mr. McNelly, I don't know — read in opening second reading debate late this afternoon, made no reference as to how the assessment commissioner is to "reduce assessments on properties where it can be shown that disparities exist." In the absence of full-value assessment and a basic formula for taxing various classes of property, that job, Mr. Speaker, will require a task force all on its own.

I have to point out, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, in case he isn't aware of it, that it's vital to recognize that there are approximately 800,000 individual pieces of property in British Columbia — roughly one-third in the provincially administered area, or unorganized area, as they're called. Another third is in metropolitan Vancouver, metropolitan Victoria, and the balance is in the smaller cities, districts, municipalities and towns throughout B.C.

Now, Mr. Speaker, assume for just a moment that only 5 per cent of the total number of properties or folios were dealt with inequitably in the 1974 assessment year. Assume it was just 5 per cent. Well, that represents a staggering total of 40,000 separate cases to be reviewed during 1975.

Now I thought the Minister of Finance might say: "Oh, that's an unreasonably high figure." Am I unfairly high in that 5 per cent estimate? Okay, Mr. Speaker, then we cut it in half. That's 2.5 per cent of the total properties in the province coming under this inequity, injustice, hardship category. That's still 20,000 individual cases to be reviewed in a single taxation year, each one requiring reference to the assessment commissioner for his office's review, and then, I would think, in most cases a definite on-site reappraisal.

The assessor or the appraiser could not sit in his office and say: "No, I stand by what I said earlier."

He would have to make the trip, whether it's a matter of a few blocks or a few miles, to determine if the valuation should stand or be revised.

These cannot be handled by classes of property. Bill 170 prohibits that particular approach. These will come from the least expected and strangest angles and will bear little similarity one to the other. As a result it will be necessary to review them on a one-by-one-by-one basis — 20,000 individual cases to review, if I'm low in my estimates — apart from all the other day-to-day work of the assessment commissioner, the authority and the appraisers in the field.

Mr. Speaker, you will realize that that amounts to 80 specific investigations required all over B.C. for every single working day of the calendar year, and that says nothing about the regular work that must go on — the reappraisal, the checking of new construction, rezoning, whatever it may be. That's 80 individual cases, if I am low in my estimate. It may well be 160.

So that little paragraph in the press release issued by the Minister of Finance really doesn't solve the problem, and I hope that not too many property owners in British Columbia are soothed by it.

It's also accurate at this point, Mr. Speaker, to say that there is an overall shortage of appraisers in the province today, at least among those who are engaged in the public sector by the assessment authority. One figure that I've heard indicates that the staff shortage could be as high as 50 per cent of its total requirements. These are the individuals to whom the assessment commissioner will have to turn when he is reviewing the many "obvious inequities" to which the Minister referred in his press release which accompanied Bill 170.

So not only are there going to be 80, 100, 120 individual cases to be referred to the appraisers, but they are going to be referred to an organization which is admittedly short-staffed as it is.

Once again we have a simple phrase used by the government to ease the fears of those who are unhappy about their present property tax situation, but with no realistic understanding of the size, the magnitude of the task involved.

Mr. Speaker, I fear that the assessment commissioner is destined to meet the same kind of fate as the rentalsman, God rest his soul. As a totally unrealistic reference to him to investigate hardship cases, does the government fully appreciate the chaos which could arise from this whole problem? How many phone lines will he have jammed in his office — the assessment commissioner — 20, 40, 80? What will be his terms of reference? They haven't been spelled out. At what point will he become involved in reviewing individual cases — early, before they go to court of revision or the appeal board, or afterwards? It simply isn't spelled out. I suppose it will be the

[ Page 4654 ]

subject of some Band-aid legislation in the spring.

Will the assessment commissioner, Mr. Wright, be known as the "assessments man" and are we headed for the same confusion and trouble that has arisen in the landlord-tenant relationship'?

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to try to get the point across to the Minister of Finance, if that is possible, with respect to the 1974 roll which you've now decided to extend into 1975. I checked with the assessment department in Saanich on the question of appeals to the court of revision during the past three years. I don't know that Saanich would be any worse or any better than a similar district municipality of 65,000 to 70,000.

Here is what happened in Saanich, Mr. Speaker, and you will realize that there are two school districts involved in this particular district municipality. In 1972 there were 133 appeals to the court of revision. Now many of those did not go on to the assessment appeal board. Nonetheless, in 1972 there were 133 individual appeals. In 1973 the figure dropped drastically to 55, and in 1974, 429. This is the assessment base which we're staying with for 1975. That's an increase of eight times, roughly, in the number of appeals at court of revision in the Municipality of Saanich for 1974, when compared with 1973, because of a lousy roll.

It has been stated in the committee hearings that it is "a lousy assessment roll," Mr. Speaker. No reference to the dining-room here.

Interjections.

Mr. Curtis: Well, I guess you wondered. The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), who also served on this taxation committee — that is the municipal affairs committee of the Legislature — presented some excellent thoughts to the committee when it was deliberating its final report.

I'm not going to intrude into the many points covered in his summary, with one exception. Would you like me to read them all? It was an excellent report. It's too bad that it wasn't adopted. The quote is:

"It was obvious to the committee that the increases in the assessed values of properties taxed pursuant to the Taxation Act in 1974 resulted in many large and unwarranted increases in tax. Repetition of this cannot be justified."

What the government proposes by way of Bill 170 is to do just that — to permit many large and unwarranted increases in property tax to continue next year. That fact is to be regretted, in our view, as it most certainly will leave many properties, Mr. Speaker, in the same difficult circumstances which were experienced this year. The quotations are there for everyone to read in the Hansard report of our committee hearings.

In a clumsy effort to fully and effectively tax wealthy landowners, corporations, speculators and holding companies, this government has snared thousands of individual owners, the kind of people I read about in the letters which taxed your patience. The majority of these people cannot by any stretch of the imagination be classified as speculators or foreign absentee profiteers or holding company investors. In fact, the 1974 assessment mess — and it is that — resulting in significantly higher taxes on vacant land, even adjoining lots, is forcing these very British Columbians, Mr. Speaker, these people who have held land for a long time in small parcels, it's forcing them into the arms of the wealthy, the waiting arms of the holding companies, the speculators, those who can afford to ride out the storm.

It has happened with other legislation in the past two years. Those whom you want to help, Mr. Premier and Minister of Finance, are hurt as a result of your actions.

There is another aspect of the whole question which I find puzzling, and it is an annoyance, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps when they participate in this debate the chairman of the committee, the Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), and the secretary, the Hon. Member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), will explain to the House why at some point apparently they were the only members of the committee to meet with the members of the assessment authority. This occurred about three to three-and-a-half weeks ago.

Now this is apparently the case, and I emphasize that point. But the assessment authority thought that they were en route to Victoria to meet with the full committee, or at least a broad representation of the committee, but rather they ended up meeting with the chairman and the secretary. At least two members of the authority came to the meeting with the expectation that they might be able to assist all members of the committee in discussing this question.

This sudden about-face, I think it has to be realized, has put the assessment authority in a very difficult position, because they were very active following their appointments in the spring, after the legislation was introduced. They were putting things in motion for full-value assessment. They were enthusiastic, and their enthusiasm was transmitted to appraisers and assessors around the province.

The legislation, Bill 151, section 24(l) said: "Land and improvements shall be assessed at their actual value." That was the legislation until this session, and the assessors, Mr. Speaker, responded to that new law. Many of them went around B.C. In a special effort, including hours of overtime at public expense through July, August, September and October, to

[ Page 4655 ]

achieve full valuation on their individual assessment rolls. And now with about six working weeks — being generous about it, six to seven working weeks left in the year — they are told that the government has changed its mind. The government and government members of the committee obviously did not see the wisdom in proceeding with full valuation for 1975.

If there was to be a problem we could have had a factoring downward of these rolls for taxation purposes. It could have been very easily achieved. In other words, Mr. Speaker, print up all the property at 100 per cent valuation, full valuation, as has been the law and as the appraisers and assessors were actively doing, and then apply 25 or 30 or 35 per cent of that full, equalized assessment for 1975.

Mr. Speaker, this 1974 assessment roll has been identified by more than one person as one of the worst in the history of the province, and it is to be repeated in 1975. It need not have been retained.

Mr. Speaker: May I just intervene to say that for quite some time the Hon. Member has been reading from very copious notes. I'm just wondering how near the bottom of the pile he has reached.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I'll tell you what's going on. It's against the rules of this House to read speeches in the House.

Mr. Phillips: He's not reading a speech. He's referring to his notes.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows perfectly well that you are not entitled to read your speeches. I've been very tolerant with the Hon. Member who is on his feet.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker rises.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order, please. Either you leave this chamber or be silent when I'm on my feet.

The rule of the House is that you don't read speeches. I've been very tolerant with the Hon. Member because I realize that it is a complicated matter, but he has read evidence and letters since 8 o'clock until 9:30. He's been reading his speech, as is obvious to me. I've been observing, and I really want to say that if he is going on much longer….

Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.

Mr. R. H. McClelland: (Langley): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Speaker might chastise the Premier and Finance Minister (Hon. Mr. Barrett) for reading to this House just before supper break verbatim a press release dated November 4, 1974. The Premier read it word for word, Mr. Speaker, and you never said a word to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order! Order, please.

In this House, Ministers usually read a short statement. This has been the practice for years. But if anyone objects to it, and it's a long statement, naturally it should not be read. What has happened here is that he has been reading for an hour and a half, and I ask him to restrain his use of copious notes.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order! That is not correct, and you know it yourself. It's not really a question of reading speeches in the House at all, but doing it almost interminably.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Hon. Member proceed?

Mr. Curtis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It perhaps is rather difficult but, as you observed, it is a very complex subject, a very complicated one, and much of the material I read was in the form of letters received from individuals by members of the committee, which required quoting. But I have a few more notes. I would like to continue discussion of this particular bill.

I think it is unfortunate that the committee, in preparing its report and again in this very compressed time, Mr. Speaker, did not have an opportunity to touch on a number of points which were of concern through our hearings and which I believe are of concern to various administrative people that we have serving not only in the assessment authority but in the surveyor of taxes' office, in various municipalities and so on. One is that the court of revision and the appeal process is foreign territory to most citizens, to most property owners. The term "court of revision" sounds pretty grand and, I think, frightens a number of people. We need simpler language on the assessment notice, on the taxation notice, and also in explaining to the individual property owner how he or she can appeal his or her particular assessment.

The other problem is that there is a feeling that courts of revision…. Rightly or wrongly, the feeling exists that they are stacked against the appellant — that is, the individual who appeals. The assessor is

[ Page 4656 ]

there. He's very familiar with the terms; he knows his job; he's a professional. And here is the individual trying to make a case. The court of revision members may, in many instances, appear to be rather gruff, and they are going through a lot of cases in the course of a morning or afternoon sitting.

I think we need an assessment court of revision ombudsman. We've had many suggestions made in the past with respect to a general ombudsman in British Columbia, but we need someone not to assist companies who would usually turn to a solicitor for assistance, but someone who could be assigned to each and every court of revision to assist the individual in stating the case and making the appeal against the assessment.

There is this impression of the fact that the court is not necessarily biased against the individual, but it is, as I said earlier, foreign territory.

There should also, Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Finance, be a much longer period of appeal for assessment. In the case of the provincial assessment notices which are mailed out just at year end, it says very clearly, and I have to quote, Mr. Speaker:

"Take notice that this statement sets out the assessed values upon which the property tax will be based. If you deem the property to be improperly assessed, notify the provincial assessor immediately. If you intend to appeal to the court of revision, you must file your appeal with the provincial assessor within 14 days from the mailing date."

That can be found on the tax notices which were received this year. Fourteen days is not a sufficient time at any time of year but certainly not at year-end with one or two holidays. And it is 14 days from date of mailing which is stated here. This could be cut down to 10 or 11 days by the time the property owner has actually received the notice and realized that time is running out on him.

I submit also, Mr. Speaker, that in an effort to assist property owners in the unorganized or provincially administered territory, during this year when this particular bill continues or is carried on and, therefore, the assessments remain unchanged over 1974, the province should give very serious consideration to setting back its due date on taxes. The property tax, in terms of revenue to British Columbia, excluding municipalities, is approximately $20 million. With a total budget of over $2 billion, this is a very insignificant amount. But it is not insignificant to those individuals who have to pay it, July 2 is the due date and I think the government might very well consider setting that back to the beginning of August or, indeed, to sometime after Labour Day as the final date for payment of those taxes without penalty.

In spite of a surprisingly large number of comments during the hearings, the government Members of the committee in their report to this House did not touch upon the fact that the $29 tax rebate was extremely unpopular. We heard this repeatedly as we moved around the province. Now, it can be argued that the school tax removal and resources grant is a commendable grant, but I submit that it should not move to a point where a property owner is paid a total of $29 to live on his or her parcel, and that was the case. Cheques for $29 were coming in by the hundreds, I believe, in the province this year as the result of the introduction of that particular rebate. The question was put, not by members of the committee but by those appearing before the committee: "Why should anyone be paid to live in his or her home?"

There is, I think, some uncertainty as to whether $1 is sufficient tax for anyone to pay. But to actually make money as the result of living there was felt to be most unfair and inequitable. In many cases it was received by those who admitted that they did not need it.

The committee report was silent on the prospect of genuine and open joint budgeting between the province and its municipalities. Revenue sharing. I think this was a great opportunity for the committee to comment on that and, unfortunately, it chose to ignore the point.

But most disappointing of all, the government Members of the committee — therefore the committee report which was filed with this House — did not recognize that this should have been an interim report endorsing the concept of purity of assessment for 1975, or full-value assessment for 1975, with a request to this House to immediately continue an intensive study of the property-tax situation.

As the formula has been presented to us, the formula could have been worked on through November, part of December, starting again in January and, if necessary, into February and presented to this House in the form of a committee recommendation with ample time left for the necessary amending legislation to have been introduced and approved by this House before the tax notices went out in 1975.

The committee, instead of "biting the bullet," as one of its members said, chose to swallow it.

It's to be regretted so much that after identifying this as again a major problem for the year 1974, referring it to a special committee in the spring session and getting it to the House in April, having a motion passed by the House in early June, the committee was not authorized to start and did not in fact start until September 17.

The committee made good progress, and, as you so painfully observed earlier, Mr. Speaker, heard from many individuals. But I assure you that this is just

[ Page 4657 ]

scratching the surface; this is just part of the total picture that was presented to the committee. I think it is most unfortunate that we've turned our back on them at this time.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Hon. Premier has already spoken in the debate.

Interjection.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to take my place in this debate in support of the bill. I'm a little surprised at the presentation made by the earlier speaker; it seems that the level of contribution deteriorates quickly when you move into that group that lives in the Dark Ages. He did better when he sat down here.

He knows and I know and we all know the problems that would have been associated with the kind of recommendation that he's been making.

We had to go back a piece, though, if we want to really look at this thing. First of all, when you say that the committee was set up in April and didn't begin its hearings until September, that's total misrepresentation of what happened, and you know it. That committee was in the House here with the rest of the Members of this House until June 20. Then that committee met in July, and on the 13th of July agreed to the schedule of hearings that were to take place in September, the date of advertising and everything else. I think that's not really making the case properly; it's not dealing with the dates properly. You know very well that the House was in session until June 20. To suggest that the committee could have started work on April 5 is utterly fantastic.

Interjection.

Mr. Liden: I was at the meeting in the Queen Charlottes on July 13. Everyone was there and everyone agreed to the schedule that we carried out, including the Member who just spoke.

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

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

Mr. Liden: Well, that's what I referred to earlier. When the Member made his move from this group to that group, his level of contribution deteriorated badly. That is so evident in the contribution he made here tonight.

Interjections.

Mr. Liden: If you remember the assessment committee that we had last spring, you'll recall that the assessment commissioner (Mr. Wright) presented a brief at that time in February in which he spoke about the perfect assessment years, 1962 to 1966. He pointed out that the government provided assessment shambles by statutes beginning in 1966. That's the kind of mess we inherited and that's the sort of thing we had to deal with.

There were a number of other things that he said at that time and there are a number of other things that we dealt with. What we had to look at, really, is what might have happened to the people of British Columbia if we had taken the kind of course recommended by that group, although they were very, very reluctant in making any sort of course at all.

The whole study we went into was like unwinding a cabbage: you're looking for the core and you never get to it because every time you look at something new you just get further into the matter. You find that you have more things lying around and a bigger mess to clean up. Any sort of immediate move as they suggest would have created a real problem. They know it, and that's why they were going along that line.

When you read letters and look at all of the things that were said to the committee, we should also look at the fact that some of the people who made presentations to that committee shed some other kind of light on it as well.

For instance, there was the fellow who spoke of his 99 acres of beachfront that he owns in the Queen Charlotte Islands and the fact that he pays $12 an acre. The Member who just spoke was very critical of that presentation on the basis that he really wasn't paying enough.

There were many of those situations. There's a real classic here about a fellow in Vancouver who owns two acres of land in Princeton. His taxes went up some 2,200 per cent. You know how much money he paid? He paid $4.38 in taxes. It went up to $98. I think you've got a responsibility to look into what the taxes really are and what the story really is.

There are some hardship cases. We're well aware of those and we've made recommendations in the report, I hope, to deal with some of those matters.

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt the Hon. Member to say that I hope he does not also go into a long canvass of reading of letters but try to address himself to the principle of the bill.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Liden: I just want to point out some of the things that were missed by the letter reader (Mr.

[ Page 4658 ]

Curtis) who just sat down.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I can't possibly allow him the same latitude because he has only 40 minutes.

Mr. Liden: I want to point out to the House here that recommendations were made to the committee from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture, recommending that they would rather go with the 1974 roll in 1975 than to proceed into the 100 per cent roll without time for adequate study, without time to really make the changes that had to be made.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): What did they say about the 1973 roll'?

Mr. Liden: They prefer to go the 1974 roll. To go the 1973 roll was dealt with earlier by the Minister of Finance, in which you want to take the taxes off industry and put them back onto the residential. That's precisely what you're recommending.

What about the recommendation from the B.C. Federation of Agriculture? You weren't interested in that, not one iota. What about the representation from the Council of Forest Industries? They said the same thing. They didn't want to go ahead into the 100 per cent assessment in the current year without proper study and proper handling of all the problems that come out of that.

What about the Union of B.C. Municipalities, an organization of which the former speaker is a former president — a past president of the UBCM? You'd never guess with….

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

Mr. Liden: That's obvious. But, look, the Union of B.C. Municipalities represents every municipality in the province that has to deal with this very problem. What did they say? They say: "A number of difficult problems have already shown themselves, and we have no doubt that others will also emerge."' They say: "We can see no solutions to these problems until they are precisely defined by the examination of a complete and full actual-values roll."

The committee now has the dilemma of devising legislation within the matter of the next few weeks to correct problems which we have not yet fully determined and which, indeed, cannot be determined until all aspects of the assessment system can be examined.

What about their recommendation? That wasn't dealt with at all by the Member who just spoke.

There's no question, from the hearings in the spring or the hearings this summer and fall, that the people of British Columbia want to establish a pure and positive 100 per cent assessment roll. But they want to do it with proper study and they want to do it in a way that will solve the problems for the people and not create more problems.

There's a great deal said in the UBCM report. There's a great deal said in other representations as well. I'm not going to go through the kind of thing that the earlier speaker did. We should take note, though, when you're talking about the assessors and the problem that's created by courts of revision and whether or not the assessor is on the side of the court of revision, and the kind of feeling that exists for the ordinary taxpayer, the ordinary homeowner, property owner that's appealing assessment — the former speaker mentioned this — that there was great deal of representation made to the committee on this whole matter. But the greatest representation was made by the person from Saanich, when he referred to a report of 1966.

I don't know who was the mayor of Saanich at that time. I've heard that it was the person who just spoke before me, at which time there were all sorts of accusations made about the system there. They called upon the mayor to make some corrections and some adjustments, which were never carried out. Nevertheless, I don't want to create the feeling that assessors are unfair and that assessors are working with municipal councils or authorities to create an unfair situation for the ordinary homeowner. But I think that you've got to look at the thing totally.

It was also pointed out to the committee — and everyone's made well aware by professors and so on — that the study in Ontario took three years and that they set aside moving quickly into the whole question of the actual-value assessments. Mr. Wright made that point in his brief of February 28 to the assessment hearings, that the move into the 100 per cent assessment in Ontario had been delayed. That's the sort of thing we have to consider in looking at the whole thing.

You will recall the charts that were presented to the committee when we asked for some details, in which it was shown that in Saanich, for instance, there would be some people, even in the residential class, that would see a reduction in their taxes, and others that would see an increase. The difference was from an increase of 9 per cent to a reduction of 16 per cent. That's a fairly healthy shift. That was looking at Saanich. When we asked for more of them, in Dawson Creek we saw the difference between a 14 per cent increase to a 9 per cent decrease. Those kinds of shifts occur without any proper examination — just a sketchy look at some 21 assessments in each place.

The City of Trail showed an increase of 11 per cent for one homeowner and a decrease of 15 per cent for another. Is that the kind of thing that you're recommending with your 100 per cent? Is that the kind of thing that you think will satisfy the people of

[ Page 4659 ]

British Columbia? I don't think so, and it's all the way through. In Creston it was plus 20, minus 29 — that kind of a shift within the residential class of property.

Campbell River is the worst; one property owner has a decrease of 19 per cent and another one an increase of 85 per cent. Now there are some bad assessments that we have to start with, apparently, but there's just no way that your recommendation of going to the 100 per cent can solve that problem.

Certainly there are inequities in the present assessment system, and there have been for some time. This government has shown that we want to move to correct that. We want to move to correct it in a way that will be beneficial to the people.

You know and we all know, particularly the people on the committee, that if we'd gone to the 100 per cent assessment this year without proper study, you would have had a shift in taxation toward the residential properties, off industry towards the residence. That's what you're recommending: higher taxes for the residential people of this province. That's what you're recommending, and there would be those serious shifts even within the residential categories. You're well aware of those.

There are so many things associated with this change. The Union of B.C. Municipalities makes recommendation; I spoke to some of their executive on the weekend. They endorsed the move we've made. They appreciated the direction the government has taken in presenting this bill and say that it's the only way you can approach it. Yet at the same time we have mayors coming before the committee with differing views on the problems as they see them. Without proper study and without proper time there is just no way that you would improve the situation by going to 100 percent now.

I want to say too that it's hard to sort of analyse the position taken by that group, because that group, while they're recommending the 100 per cent, a few days after we left our hearings in Prince George, had their organizers out on the streets, knocking on doors and telling the people there that the government was going to go to 100 per cent and that this was going to make a terrible mess of their taxation — that it was going to increase their taxes and so on, and that they were taking the position to hold it down.

Now how do you instruct your organizers? I got it from more than one family in Prince George that had them call at their door. It's kind of a strange politics that you're playing over there — a very strange game. But then I don't know how you can analyse the politics that you people play when you look at the ….

There's something that I saw in the paper not very long ago about a seagull. Hungry seagulls are eating kittens and birds and all that sort of thing. They've become vultures. Then I see a blue paper that comes out that has a seagull on every page, and I wonder at the similarity. I wonder just what they're up to.

You know, it seems to me that if you want to make some sense out of what we're doing in this whole bill, you've got to support the move that is being made in Bill 170. That's the direction we've got to go. You cannot go the route that you want to go of the 100 percent.

It seems, Mr. Speaker, that the government has made the right kind of move. It has recognized the complications that are associated with trying to clean up, but we're going to do it properly. That's why I'm in support of Bill 170.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Chairman, the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) is getting closer and closer to the door. I can only assume that that's an indication of some wisdom on the part of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, if I'm correct, I assume that we're debating a bill that deals with assessments.

Mr. Speaker: I want to thank the Hon. Member for that.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'm moving all these papers out of the road, Mr. Speaker, so that you won't be confused by the fact that I'll be reading my remarks.

We've had a lot of discussion this evening about real property tax and the work of the committee on municipal affairs, and I think that it should be recognized that that committee recently was dealing with the problem of proposed real property tax change in this province, which has something to do with assessment, but not very much. I do not therefore propose to read any letters, although I've got them all too; any number of the committee got them, and the chairman was very efficient in using the Xerox machine.

But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I saw enough letters to be convinced that in his opening remarks the Premier has rather missed the point of the whole exercise. It is not the large corporation who is being most seriously affected by changes in assessment legislation in this province or, indeed, with the lack of change in real property tax legislation; it is the individual land owner.

I'm not surprised either that the Premier in his opening remarks read a press release of November 4, 1974, because that's becoming typical of this government, and of this legislation. We're just sort of recycling something that we've had before. We must clearly understand that what we're doing with this amendment is that we are recycling the mistakes of the former government of this province. And let there be no doubt. The Member for Saanich (Mr. Curtis),

[ Page 4660 ]

from where he now sits, wasn't making the kind of speech that I've heard him make when he sat elsewhere in this House.

The problem we face in real property assessment in the Province of British Columbia today is the direct legacy of the programmes, and of the policies, and of the attitudes of Social Credit over 20 years. It really disheartens me to find that, at this particular juncture, the government of the day is going back to what we had prior to the passage of the new assessment legislation at the earlier session this year.

That legislation, I think, should be very carefully considered, Mr. Speaker, because it was the result of, first of all, some very careful and lengthy deliberations by a committee of this House who made some very significant recommendations, and then of debate joined in by all sides of this House, and eventual passage. And why, Mr. Speaker, we now come to amendments to that legislation which will reverse the positive step forward that was made in the spring of this year, I will never understand.

The Hon. Member for Delta (Mr. Liden), who just took his place, made reference to information which was before the committee studying real property tax as to the consequences of the 100 per cent of actual value assessments in some of the regions of this province. Yes, it is true that in some areas, some people — if there were no change in municipal revenue budgeting — some people would enjoy a 9 per cent decrease in tax; some people would enjoy a 16 per cent increase; some people would enjoy a 4 per cent decrease; some people would enjoy a very much higher increase in tax.

Mr. Speaker, those statistics only go to prove the inequities that exist in the real property tax rolls in this province — inequities which will be continued by this legislation, not corrected by it; inequities which can only be removed when the assessment authority of this province is left free to assess all properties in the province of British Columbia at 100 per cent of actual value. All we are doing in this legislation is delaying the day when we will have, as between property taxpayers in a particular class, and as between property taxpayers in differing classes — residential, farm, industrial, commercial — some real equality. And when it is recognized that assessment is only the measuring stick by which a real property taxpayer is measured when it comes his time to contribute to his share of the tax burden cast upon him - either by the Minister of Finance, or by a municipality, town, city, or whatever the case may be — when that is recognized, we will understand clearly, I think, that so long as we have inequality in assessment, we will have inequality in the sharing of the tax responsibility as between real property owners

Yes, there is no question that if we apply to 100 per cent of actual value in 1975, and if there were no change in the tax laws in this province, there could be a shift in the burden of tax as between classes of property owners. Yes, it is true that at 100 per cent of actual value, with no change in the tax laws of this province, there would be a shift in the burden of tax from the industrial-commercial class to the residential class — the direct opposite of what happened last year when there was a shift from residential to commercial-industrial.

But, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter of real property tax legislative change. I would have hoped that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), in introducing this legislation here tonight, would have indicated to this House that before this meeting of this Legislature is at an end, we will have from him changes in the real property tax legislation, because even with this amendment, we will have as a consequence of the inequalities of assessment already existing, as restated by this amendment, continuing inequalities in the burden of tax which can only be cured if we have changes in tax legislation. But we are dealing with the assessment in this province.

For years we had equality of assessment; then a period of time when in order to protect, I suspect, certain individuals or groups of individuals in this province, we had a fiddle with the assessment procedure so that inequality resulted, which brought us to where we are today. That can be cured by the legislation which is presently on our books, This legislation is therefore a retrograde step; a step which we must face dither this year or next year. And it disheartens me to find that at a time when the government should be moving to tax legislative change, they are instead retreating to the old assessment practices of a bygone era.

It disheartens me because I know from representations made to the committee from the assessment commissioner and members of his staff, that to retreat, as we are with this bill, to a modified 1974 assessment roll, is going to leave us with assessments in the Province of British Columbia of significantly poorer quality than would have been the case if we had proceeded with 100 per cent of actual value assessments as provided for in the assessment Act: significantly poorer quality. That is the result of the bill that is before us today. With that poorer quality comes tax inequity — tax inequity which is going to be felt most severely by individuals who are least able to pay.

The Premier mentioned some large corporate organizations who, under Bill 71, were obliged to pay a greater share of real property tax than had been the case previously. That's easy. They pass on that burden to the people who consume the products that those corporations produce. But equally, Bill 71 and this legislation, this bill before us, will cast upon individuals owning their own parcels of land for their

[ Page 4661 ]

own private use, increasing amounts of tax which they cannot pass on to anyone. That is their obligation. It is their obligation because the Minister of Finance has failed to recognize that the consequences of Bill 71, and of this bill, will be to preserve high levels of assessment for those individuals, and without change in real property tax legislation they will pay on the fixed mill rates under the taxation Act significantly higher real property tax. It's easy to correct that problem, and the Minister of Finance could do so if he had brought in as a companion with this legislation changes in the taxation Act. But that would have only changed the situation as it affected those areas lying outside of cities, towns, and district municipalities. Within those municipalities, the consequences would continue to cast unfair burdens on certain individuals within the community.

Assessment, as we have it in the law today, provided a way out. This legislation shuts the door. As a matter of fact, it occurs to me that this legislation is much like the bill that we debated and voted upon at 10 minutes to six this afternoon: interim changes in the Landlord and Tenant Act which do not solve the problem, only intensify it. This Bill 170 does not solve the problem. It only serves to intensify it for a limited number of our citizens.

The opportunity was present to the government and the government has turned away from that opportunity, all in the name of…what, no one knows. Certainly the Premier in his opening remarks on this motion did not clearly indicate the purpose for which we are dealing with Bill 170.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, already we know that with Bill 170 we have omitted some of the consequences of retrogressive steps. The City of Vancouver has pointed out to the Premier that under this legislation, where we go back to a modified 1974 roll, one major corporate organization in the City of Vancouver serves to gain through saving some estimated $500,000 to $750,000 in tax.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's a question of wording.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Yes, well, I've read the Act very carefully as to what the wording is, and so on. The City of Vancouver has theirs, and they recognize the problem; and Marathon Realty has theirs.

But, Mr. Speaker, the Premier fails to recognize that under the assessment Act as it presently is the law that problem would have been resolved beyond doubt. There is no question what the consequences to Marathon Realty would be under the new legislation.

Equally, there is no question that under the assessment law as we presently have it any individual, who by reason of poor quality of assessment felt that he was being badly done by, had the right of access to improved courts of revision which the assessment Act, passed in this House this spring, provided for — a vastly improved situation over what was previously the law. That facility was available in the event that there should have been any shortcomings in the 100 per cent of actual value concept.

This we are now casting to one side and delaying until next year the true advantages of equalized assessment.

I wonder, when I consider the representations made to the committee, and when I consider the reaction of the committee to those recommendations, whether next year we won't be faced with a postponement again, because there was a clear recognition on the part of the committee as to what the problem was and a sidestepping of the solution.

The solution does not lie in changing the assessment laws; the solution lies in changing the tax laws of the province. It is to that that we should be addressing ourselves at this time.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We need time to do that.

Mr. L.A. Williams: The Hon. Premier says there isn't time. Well, there is time. There is time to deal with it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We need time. They don't even have a policy.

Mr. L.A. Williams: The report of the special committee on assessment which was tabled in this House earlier this year clearly indicated to the government the nature of the changes which it would be obliged to make with the new assessment legislation which that same report recommended.

We've passed the assessment legislation and the government has sat on its hands and done nothing. Indeed, having done nothing with the real property tax field, it is significant that when we're dealing with amendments to the assessment Act, the government has very carefully ignored one of the key recommendations of the committee on assessments, which recommended that immediate consideration be given to clarifying the question of farmland classification, residential use of property, the intended residential use of property and the separation of industrial from commercial uses on a single parcel of land.

None of those matters, which were placed before this House and the government on April 5, 1974, are included in the amendments to the assessment Act at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the subject is a vast one, but it can be canvassed very shortly. As I said earlier, this is a retrograde step. The government has failed to seize the opportunity which it was given this spring.

[ Page 4662 ]

Interjection.

Mr. L. A. Williams: Well, perhaps the Hon. Member doesn't like the suggestion that the government was given the opportunity this spring.

The Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett) introduced the legislation. It was debated and passed in this House and the government was given the authority then to proceed. Now, less than six months later, the government is coming back and saying: "We take it all back; let's go back to 1974."

Now the Hon. Premier was talking about the Union of B.C. Municipalities. Yes, the Union of B.C. Municipalities recommended caution. They recommended caution in changes in real property tax laws. But we are not debating changes in real property tax laws. We're debating the change the government is proposing to make in the assessment legislation, not real property tax laws. If the government has brought before us changes in real property tax laws, then it might be worthwhile considering the concerns expressed by UBCM.

Let me suggest, Mr. Speaker, that by changing the assessment legislation and ignoring the required changes in real property tax laws, the Minister of Finance and the Union of B.C. Municipalities themselves face a most serious challenge, and that is that in budgeting for revenues from real property taxation in 1975 they must exercise the greatest caution and restraint, because the consequences of reverting to the modified 1974 roll, with its inequities in assessment and therefore the direct consequences of inequities in tax, will be multiplied if the Minister of Finance as a revenue gatherer and the municipalities as revenue gatherers do not take care with regard to the budgets of the expenditures they propose to make.

They must show caution. They must show restraint, since they have been unwilling to accept the assessment law as it presently stands and the government has been unwilling to bring before this House the required and companion changes in real property tax.

Mr. H.D. Dent (Skeena): Since the debate is to continue, Mr. Speaker, I would like to just offer a few comments, since I was a member of the committee. Like most of the other Members of the House — I'm sure they've had the same experience I've had — I've had a great number of people bring their problems to me, or comment on their problems with regard to assessment and property taxation. Starting as an amateur and having to work my way through all of these problems, certain things registered in my mind.

I was very surprised at the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) for some of his comments. It seems that he's talked to different people than I have, or he's run into different kinds of problems in some ways than I have. I am surprised, since he sat on the committee that had hearings and heard briefs over a period of time.

First of all, I want to begin by saying that I can't overemphasize the mess created by the action taken by the previous government in 1966. You know, to listen to them talk over there, they think we caused the problems last year. That's nonsense. The problem was created by the 10 per cent limitation applied across the board in 1966. It's just incredible the problems that that thing has caused.

I just want to give one as an example. Passing through the centre of Terrace is the Canadian National Railway. I believe that it can be said that the Canadian National Railway in Terrace is probably the biggest landowner, without a doubt. They were somewhat jolted when they received their assessment notice this past year and discovered that there was a substantial increase in their assessment. Evidently they phoned the assessor long-distance, screaming very loudly about this thing. But it turned out that their property had been assessed at only one-fifth of the market value. Naturally, when the bill was passed last year, this meant a very substantial increase in their assessment.

I repeat: the CNR is the biggest land holder in Terrace, I believe, without a doubt, and they were paying much less than their proper share of the property taxes. Terrace cannot afford that loss in tax revenue, and they have lost it over the past number of years. In fact, the total assessment for Terrace went up by 50 per cent in one year, and a large part of it was companies like the CNR, some of the larger logging companies — Can-Cel was one — and so on.

But I can't, again, overemphasize that this whole problem was the result of that action of the previous government in 1966. I just want to give one quick illustration of how that worked.

If the property increased very rapidly in value, people who were lucky enough to hold that kind of property found themselves paying a much smaller proportion of the taxes in relation to the value of their property as the years went by. I don't need to repeat that; everyone is familiar with that, I'm sure. But I just want to give a quick example.

Suppose two pieces of property were equally worth $10,000 in 1966. If one went up very rapidly in value and one went up very slowly in value, it meant, with a 10 per cent limitation, that one person had a capital gain on their property, a very substantial capital gain, but was paying a relatively small amount of taxes for that capital gain in relation to the other on the property.

The District of Terrace, in their wisdom, took the opportunity last year to increase their budget substantially — I think by over approximately 55 to 60 per cent. There was an overall mill-rate increase on general taxation of approximately 2 mills or so.

[ Page 4663 ]

Now, what should have happened, in my judgment, had Terrace been a prosperous community and had a bigger tax base to begin with, is that there should have been a tax break for those people who had been paying a disproportionate share of the taxes since 1966. If there had been a mill rate reduction, many of those people would have enjoyed a benefit; they would have had a tax reduction, as they should have had.

Maybe this happened in some other municipalities. In fact, it did happen in some other municipalities. In fact, it did happen in Smithers on a very modest basis — residential property owners mainly. Those people whose property had increased relatively slowly in value should have had a tax break, but they didn't. Terrace was in a very desperate financial situation because of the fact that their assessment base was low and still is low compared to other centres such as Prince George and Kitimat and Prince Rupert.

So in order to keep their head above water, they were very fortunate that that bill came in because it increased the tax base. By a very modest increase in the mill rate they were able to begin to pay for some of the services or have some of the services they should have been having long before. I don't blame the District of Terrace for what they did. But just the same, had there been justice, those people who had been paying a larger share than they should have, should have had a reduction, but they didn't.

I wonder how many other municipalities did the same thing. They had an overall increase instead of giving a break to those people who had been paying too much over the years.

Now, there were implications of that change in Bill 71, and we have had the chance to examine them, to talk and think about them here, and read letters on them and so on. There are many of them. But I believe and I would think there would be many more implications to going into 100 per cent assessment — many more implications. And I for one — and I know the people that I represent — would like to have another opportunity to have some idea what those implications are going to be before we jump into it.

Interjection.

Mr. Dent: Because of the representations made by people in my constituency to me, I find it necessary to support this legislation even though I personally would like to see us go to 100 per cent assessment at this time. I think it is a move in the right direction but I think it is going to require considerably more preparation than we have had so far, considerably more preparation.

Therefore, I support this bill, and I support it for a third reason. I think the District of Terrace acted honourably in what they did, but they did take advantage of an opportunity presented by Bill 71 to increase their budget substantially and which resulted in an overall tax increase for the District of Terrace. And I've no doubt, if we brought in 100 per cent assessment now, again the municipalities who might be having some problems might take advantage of the opportunity to further increase their budgets. I think this would be a blow to the taxpayer and I think the taxpayers have had enough of a blow for the last year or two.

There should be a period where they get to understand what this whole direction is going to mean: the fact that it will bring a greater degree of equity, that they can be prepared for the kind of results that are going to take place, and so on.

Finally, there is a relationship obviously between capital gain on land or property and tax increases. There has to be. I would just put forward this as a suggestion because that report which the Hon. Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) read from the ratepayers' association of Terrace was one which I discussed with them at the time that they were putting these ideas together. The total improvements within a municipality that are paid for collectively by the taxpayers give a capital gain to each piece of property within that tax area. Therefore, everybody should pay on an equitable basis toward that total capital increase for the net value of all of the property, including their own.

But it is also true that individuals put money out of their own pockets in order to make capital gains to their own property. Unfortunately, they get penalized in the same way or they have to pay in the same way as if this was the net result of a municipal action or all of the people within the municipality.

So I would make a suggestion that could be considered by the committee or by those who prepare legislation. They should try to make a distinction between capital gain or increased assessment that is the result of the action collectively of everybody in the municipality and that which is the result of the individual's own efforts and their own willingness, you might say, to paint up and clean up. People can in some way be rewarded for their own efforts to beautify their own property and to improve their own property.

This would be an incentive, if you like, or an encouragement to people to beautify their places and make improvements to their property which would have the net effect of increasing everybody's assessed value, not only from a financial point of view but in terms of the quality of life.

So this is just one suggestion that could be thrown out. That's why I'm very pleased that they haven't jumped suddenly into a massive change to 100 per cent assessment before we have had a chance to examine every possible thing that could take place or could be done to improve property taxation generally.

[ Page 4664 ]

Mr. Chabot: Are you going to support the tunnel? Will you support the tunnel'?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: There is an old saying that….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: There is an old saying that goes something like this: not only must justice be done but justice must also appear to be done. And justice, Mr. Speaker, is not being done by this bill which is before this Legislature this evening. This bill will perpetuate the injustices of taxation that were with us in the taxation year, 1974. It shows once more the inability of this government to come to grips with the problems which they themselves have created. Make no mistake about that, Mr. Speaker: the problems which they themselves have created.

The homeowners in this province, Mr. Speaker, have over the past year paid approximately 40 per cent of the taxes in British Columbia….

The homeowners in this province have over the past year paid approximately 40 per cent of the taxes in British Columbia. The remainder, or 60 per cent of the taxes, have been paid by commercial and industrial lands and others. The taxpayers who own homes in British Columbia have in the past paid less taxes in the Province of British Columbia than in any other province in Canada. And yet some of the opposition speakers would lead you to believe that there were great inequities.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I had the honour of serving on the municipal….

Mr. Speaker: May I interrupt for a minute? I wish the Hon. Members would not suggest that any other Member in the House is lying.

Would the Hon. Member please withdraw?

Mr. Phillips: I just consider where it comes from. It's typical of the Member.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member continue? I think that the Hon. Member made the remark, "saliva test," and I think he withdrew the remark.

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: The Hon. Member for Columbia River on a point of order.

Mr. Chabot: Order, Mr. Speaker, prior to your taking the chair as Deputy Speaker, the Speaker was in the process of asking the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) to withdraw the word "liar" which he uttered just before you took the chair. It hasn't been withdrawn, as far as I know. I was wondering whether you were going to pursue the matter raised by the Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: On the point of order, I understand the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver- Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) withdrew the remark. Would the Hon. Member rise in his place and withdraw the remark once again so he may be heard'?

Mr. R.T. Cummings (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I withdraw "saliva test."

Deputy Speaker: Order, please! I believe the word ascribed to the Hon. Member which he quoted was "saliva test." He said that he withdrew this remark. The Hon. Member…. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Chabot: Very distinctly the Speaker suggested that he had uttered the word "liar," and he was in the process of asking him to withdraw it. I don't know who is confused about who said what, but the Speaker suggested that the Second Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain suggested that the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was a liar. He was in the process of asking that Member to withdraw that statement. Now, I'm sure the Speaker wouldn't put words in the mouth of the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain and I'm sure the Speaker wouldn't assume having heard this word if it wasn't true.

Deputy Speaker: On the point of order, I would just make the point that the Speaker was of the opinion that he had used this word. However, the Second Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain (Mr. Cummings) corrected him and said that the words he used were "saliva test" and he withdrew those words.

[ Page 4665 ]

Mr. Chabot: I don't think the Speaker has a right to jump to conclusions. I think the Speaker must be able to clearly and distinctly hear what is said in this chamber and not jump to conclusions as to what a Member says in this house and ask him to withdraw on the basis of his assumptions in this House.

Deputy Minister: A correction was made. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue, please?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Evidently the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain doesn't wish to hear the true facts. But I wanted to say, and as I was saying before I was so rudely interrupted by that Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, that I had the opportunity and the privilege of serving with the municipal matters committee whose responsibility it was to bring into this chamber recommendations for changes in taxation law in order that the assessment Act passed in the spring Legislature would not work hardships on the taxpayers of this province. Not once during the weeks that I travelled with this committee did I hear anybody appear before that committee who complained of inequities in taxation or hardships in taxation that existed before Bill 71 was introduced by the Minister of Finance in this Legislature.

I was thinking, Mr. Speaker, as the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) was referring during debate on Bill 169, the Landlord and Tenant Act, to the people in Sweden. She said the people in Sweden had a sense of security because of rent controls and that they could budget. I was thinking, as she uttered those words, of how much security the homeowners in British Columbia have since this government took power in August of 1972. How much security do they have?

How much security do the people employed by the forest industry have in this province, or people who are employed by the British Columbia Railway, or people who are employed in many industries in this province? The insurance agents. How much security do they have? And if you're a homeowner or the owner of property outside a municipality, how much security do you have?

Legislation was introduced into this House by the Minister of Finance, the result of which is to tax these people off their land. And the result of the legislation that we have before us tonight is to perpetuate that very situation that existed in the tax year 1974.

I wonder how much faith those people are going to have in this government a year from now. As surely as if the Minister of Finance went out with a gun to force these people off their properties, that is what he's going to do by this legislation.

It's unfortunate that this government is so incompetent that they seem to be tripping over their own mistakes. It's unfortunate that we have this type of legislation introduced time and time again in the last week since we have been in this Legislature.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister Of Health): Neither you nor Curtis make any sense.

Mr. Phillips: Well, the Minister of Health says I don't make any sense. Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the people out there who are in danger of losing their property don't feel that this government makes any sense.

But I think we've got to separate two types of property and two types of taxation. One of them lies within organized areas or municipalities and the other lies outside. And that is where the provincial government is bringing in their taxation. This is the area where people really are insecure tonight.

The taxes collected outside of the organized territories on land owned by people that is taxed by the provincial government brings revenue to this province of approximately $20 million. It's not a lot of money. And yet, when we asked the Premier to appear before the committee to outline his policies of taxation, he refused to come. He refused to appear before the committee.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Was there a motion passed in committee inviting me to come?

Mr. Phillips: No, Mr. Speaker, no.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: When the original motion was introduced in the committee, it was then out of order.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: And when I introduced it, the chairman said that I was using cheap political tricks. But then the chairman consulted with the Minister of Finance and asked him if he would appear before that very same committee. The Minister of Finance said to the chairman of the committee: "No, the motion isn't out of order but you've got a majority on the committee. Vote down the resolution."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why didn't you phone me up?

Mr. Phillips: Yes, phone you up. Well, the Minister was certainly phoning you up.

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address the chair and would other

[ Page 4666 ]

Members not interrupt the person on the floor, please?

Mr. Phillips: This Minister of Finance and this government were warned of the problems that would be created when Bill 71 passed through this Legislature. But, like always, they did not choose to heed the warning. Instead they chose to go on their merry way, because there is an intent behind the passing of Bill 71, and maybe that is why they wish to perpetuate it this year.

In order to realize the intent and why this bill is brought in tonight, we have to go back into history, Mr. Speaker, and I'll try to stick to the principle of the bill as I do.

First of all, there was a freeze on farmland. The bill in its original state was complete dictatorship, but then the government backed up. They did, in that instance, see the error of their ways, and they brought in amendments.

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Phillips: Members of this Legislature said that it was not in the best interests of the state to have private ownership of land. They had to back off on Bill 42, so what do they do? They bring in Bill 71 to take the lid off assessments on that rural property. And what happened, Mr. Speaker? Assessments skyrocketed last year, with the resultant increase of taxes, in some instances as much as 1,000 per cent.

I felt sorry, Mr. Speaker, for the government members on that committee who realized the problems that their Minister of Finance had created to many property owners in this province — not isolated cases, but hundreds and hundreds of them, as outlined very well by the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) this evening. But this was only a very small percentage of those people who suffered increased taxation almost to the breaking point last year.

In the spring session of this Legislature I have seen the stacks of letters feet high. Thousands of them poured in to the Members, not only on this side of the House but on that side of the House, complaining of the hardships they were suffering because of the effects of Bill 71.

So it wasn't only the people who took the time to appear before this committee. I also have to think of the thousands and thousands of other people in this province who did not take the time, and I have to take the attitude: have they given up? Do they take the attitude that there is no hope for them in this province, that they are going to have to give up their land, some of them who have owned land that has been in the family for generations?

An Hon. Member: Thousands of complaints in my riding.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You only won by 25 votes.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Twenty-one.

Mr. Phillips: Well, the Premier says there are 25 votes.

So the committee got underway, and the committee honestly and sincerely tried to tackle the problem. The committee chairman, Mr. Speaker, had a great deal of faith in a person who is supposed to be setting the trend for economic development in this province and be adviser to the government. This man was sent a letter on July 9, 1974, by the committee chairman. As this is very relevant to this particular committee, I would like to read the letter:

"Would it be possible for you to arrange a seminar for the committee lasting a day or perhaps a day and a half at which informed persons in this field could make presentations to the committee and discuss possible new directions in real property taxation with our members? As director of the Institute of the Economic Policy Analysis of British Columbia" — which, by the way, is funded by the taxpayers of this province by $5 million, 25 per cent of the total taxes, or the same amount as the total taxes collected in the unorganized areas — "you would be in a position to bring to this seminar individuals from across Canada and the United States whose contributions may prove beneficial to the committee's work. Dates are flexible et cetera.

So, after the committee had attended the UBCM convention in Vernon, we proceeded to Victoria to hear from the gentleman who is in charge of the economic policy analysis for British Columbia.

I said before we appeared here, after meeting in Vernon, that the government already has its legislation written, and I was criticized by the chairman. But I knew that it was impossible for this committee to come up with recommendations in the time allotted to it. The chairman should have been able to foresee this and the Minister of Finance should have been able to foresee it.

So we came with great expectations to listen to the specialists, to listen to the man who was referred to, when the legislation was passed through this House, as the expert. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), whose bill this is, referred to this gentleman as an expert. He said: "It is time we had some experts."

Mr. Chabot: Mason Gaffney.

[ Page 4667 ]

Mr. Phillips: So we appeared, and we listened to this great expert, funded by $5 million of the taxpayers' funds in this province. And what happened? This great expert brought with him a professor from the University of Wisconsin, and he brought an economic adviser in taxation from that man — what's his name? Nader. He also brought another university professor from the University of Simon Fraser.

For three days, Mr. Speaker, this committee listened to proposals by these experts which travelled to Victoria at great cost to the taxpayers, and we listened to these experts who tried to sell the committee on site taxation.

Nader's adviser said, "I don't know much about taxation in British Columbia. As a matter of fact," he said, "I think I can learn more here in British Columbia about taxation. I think you've got more to offer than we have in the States."

Mr. P.C. Rolston (Dewdney): Is this in the bill, Don?

Mr. Phillips: The second expert, Mr. Speaker, the man from the University of Wisconsin, who travelled here…. This is all involved in the principle of the bill, and you had better believe it. He said during his debate: "Why don't you go out there and use your farmland to expand your cities?" That man admitted also, Mr. Speaker, that he didn't know anything about taxation in British Columbia.

Deputy Speaker: Would the Hon. Member please address himself to the principle of the bill more directly? I would ask the other Members on both sides of the House not to interrupt the person who has the floor, please.

Mr. Phillips: The principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is taxation, and it was the duty of this committee to bring in these recommendations. Evidently it was the duty of the Economic Policy Analysis Corporation, or think-tank — call it what you may — to advise the committee, as referred to in the letter, asking him to appear before the committee.

What I am pointing out to you, Mr. Speaker, is that of the two professors…. Even the one from the University of Simon Fraser said that he had no experience with regard to taxation in the Province of British Columbia. What I want the Members of this House and the taxpayers of British Columbia to realize is that this man was hired — the bill was passed through this Legislature — to advise the government on their economic policies, of which taxation is one. If this is the type of advice this government is going to get from this $5 million committee, I would say that we're going to be witnessing this type of legislation compounded.

Well, we heard from these people. It was a waste of three days, because even the government Members on that committee were embarrassed by the presentation made by this expert.

An Hon. Member: That so-called expert.

Mr. Phillips: Then we went out, Mr. Speaker, and we started our hearings on September 25, 1974. We knew that we had got no advice whatsoever from the expert, the friend of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, who was supposed to solve all the problems in British Columbia, who was supposed to advise…. I don't know, he must be advising the sub-Premier, because I'm sure that the Premier won't take his advice.

I said still that the committee or the government has already got their legislation written. But I soon found out the error of my ways, with horror, that this government really didn't know what they were going to do. The Minister of Finance didn't know. He was stuck in his own glue.

On October 8, only 13 days after this committee, in all conscience, set out to do the task allotted to it by this Legislature, the Premier pulls the rug out from the committee and he said, "Hold it, there will be no changes. "

Would you accept a motion for adjournment?

Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10: 5 7 p.m.