[ Page 669 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Oakland Industries closure. Mr. Barber — 669

Discussion of Pearse report by Forest Service staff, Mr. Gibson — 670

Cost overrun on BCR Fort Nelson extension. Mr. Wallace — 670

Quasar Petroleum obligations. Mr. Macdonald — 671

Government House guest list. Mrs. Dailly — 671

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 79.

Hon. Mr. Phillips — 672

Mr. Lauk — 674

Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 6) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 677

Mr. Stupich — 678

Mr. Gibson — 679

Mr. Wallace — 681

Mr. Cocke — 683

Ms. Sanford — 684

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 686

Committee stage.

On section 1.

Mr. Gibson — 686

Mr. Wallace — 686

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 686

On section 2.

Mr. Gibson — 687

On section 3.

Mr. Gibson — 687

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 687

Division on section 3 — 687

On section 4.

Mr. Cocke — 688

Mr. Gibson — 688

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 691

Division on section 4 — 692

On section 6.

Mr. Nicolson — 692

On the amendment to section 6.

Mr. Nicolson — 692

Hon. Mr. Wolfe — 692

Mr. Stupich — 692

Ms. Sanford — 693

Report and third reading — 693

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Economic Development estimates.

On vote 79.

Mr. Levi — 693

Assessment Amendment Act, 1977 (Bill 6) Royal assent — 697

Tabling documents

Oyster River foreshore development social impact assessment report. Hon. Mr.
Nielsen — 697

Correspondence re M.E.L. Paving case. Hon. Mr. Gardom — 697

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it's with sadness I bring to the attention of this House the passing of a former member of this assembly, John McRae "Rae" Eddie. Mr. Eddie was a strong trade unionist and was first elected to this Legislature as a member for the CCF party in June, 1952, defeating the then Premier of the province of British Columbia.

Rae Eddie served with distinction for 17 years, retiring from active politics prior to the election in August, 1969. I'd like to, on behalf of the government, the people of the province and this assembly, express our condolences to his family and friends at this time.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, it's been with a great deal of pride that I've served as Rae Eddie's successor in New Westminster from 1969 on. He was a person to whom no problem was too small and no obligation too great to do all that he could to resolve either the problem or the direction. So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I also want to extend our sympathy to the family of Rae Eddie. Certainly some of us will be attending his funeral.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, perhaps, as Mr. Eddie was a servant of the Legislature, a letter of sympathy could go forward from the Speaker's office to the Eddie family on behalf of all of the members of the Legislature.

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today are many people from Oakland Industries. I would like to mention in particular a few with whom I have had many discussions over the weekend, and again at a meeting with the hon. Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) at 1 o'clock today: Gladys Aske, who works at Oakland Industries and represents those people inside; John Irwin; and four fishermen — Willie Duncan, Larry White, Al Meadows and John Anderson. Also in the gallery are Mr. Harry Steele and Mr. Kirkwood, who are financiers for Oakland Industries. I would like the House to bid all these people welcome, please.

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, last July I had the pleasure, with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), to establish the commission on vocational, technical and trades training in this province. The members of that commission included Dean Goard, Ms. Betsy McDonald, Arthur Blakeney, Mr. E.H. McCaffery, Mr. Cy Stairs and Mr. Wyman Trineer. It is with great pleasure that I inform the House today that Dean Goard, Ms. McDonald and Mr. Blakeney are in the gallery. I ask the House to welcome them.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy tabled the report of the Commission on Vocational, Technical and Trades Training in British Columbia.

Oral questions.

OAKLAND INDUSTRIES CLOSURE

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): I, too, join with my colleague, the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl), in welcoming today to the galleries those persons who, as the result of the closure of Oakland Industries, are now out of a job, among them my sister's father-in-law, who's a fisherman who trades out of there.

My first question is to the Minister of Economic Development. As the minister is well aware — and I congratulate him for having agreed to meet today, as he met earlier in January with representatives of Oakland Industries — Oakland Industries has closed as a fish-processing plant after some 18 consecutive years in operation in Victoria, which has put out of direct employment today some 100 persons. An additional 180 persons — different persons — would have been hired for the herring season. My first question is: what action has the minister taken? What intervention has he personally been willing to make in regard to this matter? Has he given instructions to BCDC, and does he have any announcements to make at this time?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I share the concerns of the members representing this area, both in and out of government.

About three weeks ago I had the first meeting in my office with the principals of Oakland Industries. At that time it just so happened that the president of the Development Corporation was in Victoria and they outlined some of their problems and set up an ongoing dialogue to see what the Development Corporation could do to assist the financially troubled corporation. I had no further word from either the principals of the company or the Development Corporation until I was informed last evening about 9 o'clock of the action that had taken place on Friday morning. I met this noon with the principals of the corporation, and I had a meeting with representatives of the fishing industry and the employers' union, and there were also representatives there from the Federal Development Bank and the Bank of British Columbia.

[ Page 670 ]

As a result of that meeting, I am trying to call together in my office tomorrow morning a meeting that will include representatives from the Federal Development Bank, the Bank of British Columbia, representatives from the Mitsubishi Corp., the British Columbia Development Corporation, and principals from Oakland Industries. At that meeting we will explore all possible avenues of action that can be taken by those financial institutions concerned to see if there's any possible way to get the corporation functioning again so that the welfare of the families and those employed by this particular industry, both directly and indirectly, can be saved.

MR. BARBER: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, as fiscal agent through the superannuation commission and its holding of shares in the Bank of British Columbia. I would first, though, if I may, like to thank the Minister of Economic Development for his answer. I appreciate his interest. We look forward to further comments.

As the fiscal agent for those shares held by the people of British Columbia in the Bank of British Columbia, could the minister advise the House whether or not he has given instructions, advice, or made any representation whatever, through those shares and the province's ownership of them, to the board of directors of the Bank of British Columbia, which is, as you know, one of the principals in the present concern with Oakland Industries.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as the member would know, the government represents the superannuation fund as fiscal agent insofar as their ownership of shares in the company is concerned. As such, we don't participate in the directorship or management level of the company.

MR. BARBER: As a supplementary, my third and final question on the same topic is to the Minister of Labour. Would the Minister of Labour undertake today to give a commitment to this House that in the event that Oakland Industries fails, through his personal, intervention and cooperation with Canada Manpower the retraining programmes and opportunities which will be required for the hundreds of our citizens who will be thrown out of work will be made available immediately and effectively to those people?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there is an arrangement which exists between the provincial government and the federal government for providing specific assistance by agreement in cases where there are failures of this nature. I can assure the House that if the Minister of Economic Development and others are not successful in ensuring the continuing operation of Oakland Industries, the full facilities of the manpower division of the Department of Labour and Canada Manpower will be made available to assist in the relocation and retraining of those individuals who may unfortunately lose their jobs.

DISCUSSION OF PEARSE REPORT
BY FOREST SERVICE STAFF

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Forests. My question regards the edict which the minister recently issued to members of the B.C. Forest Service ordering them not to participate in any public discussion of the Pearse report. Ruling out policy matters and any attempts to sway public reaction to the Pearse report, does the minister not agree that members of the Forest — Service could effectively act as resource people and catalysts in these discussions?

HON. T.M. WATERLAND (Minister of Forests): The edict which the member for North Vancouver–Capilano refers to, Mr. Speaker, is probably a memo which I sent to Mr. Ralph Robbins, who at the time was acting chief forester in the absence of the chief forester, as the result of an invitation to several senior members in the Forest Service to take part in a panel discussion on the Pearse report. My memo stated that I do not want senior people in the Forest Service to take part in such panel discussions. I am in no way preventing people in the Forest Service from stating their personal thoughts on the Forest Service as they wish. However, the senior people in the Forest Service are involved on an ongoing basis with the forest policy advisory committee. As such, relating to the discussions that are going on, I do not want the public to interpret any remarks they may make in a panel discussion as being forest policy. It's for this reason that I've asked them not to take part in that type of panel discussion.

MR. GIBSON: On a supplementary: Mr. Don Munro, who's a forestry professor at UBC, referred to this, and I think properly, as muzzling. I would ask the minister — who I remind you, Mr. Speaker, in his capacity as a public servant spoke out publicly for months against the mineral royalties legislation — if he doesn't think this is a bit of "do as I say and not as I do."

COST OVERRUN ON BCR
FORT NELSON EXTENSION

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the minister of Economic Development, as director of the B.C. Railway, about Regan Construction, which incurred an overrun of $1.4 million on the

[ Page 671 ]

Fort Nelson extension. Can the minister tell the House if he met, in August, 1976, in Dawson Creek, with the creditors involved in this Regan Construction overrun?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, it was a public meeting.

MR. WALLACE: Some information has been printed in the press recently, Mr. Speaker, to the effect that Regan Construction creditors have received settlement. Can the minister confirm when that settlement was reached?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question, no, I'd have to get that exact date from the management of the railway.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I didn't mean that the question had to give me the specific date. Perhaps I should rephrase it as saying: has the settlement been reached, and is it correct to state that preferred creditors have received 100 per cent of their dollar and ordinary creditors have received 50 cents on the dollar?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, again, I'll have to get that information from the management of the railway. I presume that when my estimates are up I'll have management here and maybe I can either provide you the answer, or re-ask it again during my estimates when I have management here and I'll be quite happy to get you the details.

MR. GIBSON: A further supplementary: could the minister say whether, pursuant to his meeting with the creditors, he had any individual meetings with the principals of Regan Construction or their representatives, and did he indicate his view to the railroad as to whether a settlement ought to be made, and in what way?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, there are really two questions there, Mr. Speaker. The answer to the first question is no. The answer to the second question is no, as well. The settlement was arranged, as I understand it, through the lawyers for the creditors and the lawyers for the railway, with the management t of the railway participating in the overall situation.

QUASAR PETROLEUM OBLIGATIONS

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier, in view of the fact that Quasar Petroleum had committed its gas in an exclusive contract to Alberta and Southern, when the Premier made the announcement on  December 10, if he knew whether or not Quasar Petroleum had secured a release from those obligations. Does he know whether or not there has been a release from those obligations up to the present time?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the information I had was that all gas was available for the pipeline. But I would be quite willing to take your question as further notice, because it is a two-part question, to give you very specific information that you may wish. But the information that was given to me at that time was that all gas was available for a B.C. line.

MR. MACDONALD: I have another supplementary for the Premier. You know, I don't think it is available, Mr. Premier, but I'll ask you another question: at the time you made your announcement on December 10, had the letter from the B.C. Petroleum Corporation to Westcoast Transmission been sent to authorize the construction of the line, and would the Premier table that letter?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the question might more properly be asked of the minister whose responsibility is the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, but in answer to the member for Vancouver East — first, second or third; whatever he is this week — I will be pleased to take it as notice and discuss it with that minister and get the information for the House.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker; I'll ask the Minister of Transport and Communications that question. Has the letter gone out? That's the official letter that enables Westcoast Transmission to build the Grizzly pipeline and include it in the costs of its rate base. What was the date of the letter?

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I don't know. I will make enquiries and get an answer for the hon. member.

GOVERNMENT HOUSE GUEST LIST

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Provincial Secretary: could you ell us who prepared the invitation list for the Government House tea on opening day?

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): That would have been prepared by Government House, Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with my Deputy Provincial Secretary.

MRS. DAILLY: A supplementary. I would gather from that that the Provincial Secretary and her department did have something to do with the list.

[ Page 672 ]

My second supplementary then is: were those who were invited selected from a list of public servants?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In response to the hon. member for Burnaby North, I believe public servants were invited — certainly deputy ministers would always be on a list like that. Members of this House would be on that list. I couldn't give you details, but I could certainly make the list available if she'd like it.

MRS. DAILLY: Yes, I think we would appreciate the list. Before we receive the list, I'd like to also ask, as a further supplementary, if included in that list would be a list of former or present Social Credit campaign workers. Also, could you tell us from which of those lists — the public service list or the Social Credit campaign workers — Mr. Klause Ohlemann was selected? He was at the tea?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, as far as specifics are concerned I'll be very pleased to ask the Lieutenant-Governor as to what areas are invited. I know that people who are in the public service, such as deputy ministers, are usually invited. I would be pleased to get as much information as I can. As far as people being invited that are of one political stripe or another, I'm sure that all political parties were well represented at the tea that afternoon.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

On vote 79: minister's office, $141,324.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Before the vote is passed, I might take this opportunity to just make a few brief comments on the very buoyant economy that British Columbia is about to experience. The economy of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, may be described in terms of its five principal characteristics. It has a narrow, export-oriented resource base and substantial ongoing and rising capital requirements. It has a population that consistently outstrips the population growth of the rest of the nation, and this population growth remains heavily concentrated in the lower mainland area of the province. The economy of the province has comparatively high wage rates in all major sectors.

Finally, it is a fact of life that the narrow resource industries are subject to major fluctuations in the world markets. These major fluctuations bring with them fluctuations in family income and disruptions to family and corporate welfare as well as a drain on the tax revenues of the provincial treasury.

In cognizance of these facts and with the cooperation of other ministries in this government, the Ministry of Economic Development has formulated a general development strategy, the main aims of which include: diversification of the industrial base; increased opportunities for productive employment; stability in employment, income and prices; balanced regional development; and real growth in the gross provincial product.

This strategy recognizes that the traditional pump-priming methods of job creation during economic downturns treat only the symptoms and frequently aggravate the disease. The ministry also recognizes that treatment of the disease itself requires more than short-term, one-shot injections. Rather, it must involve long-term, ongoing, consistent economic programmes aimed at industrial diversification and regional balance, broader market penetration both domestically and abroad, and substantially improved labour-management relations.

I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the opposition has every right to ask — and, indeed, they would be remiss if they did not ask — what the ministry is doing to cure the economic ills of this province and to help her regain her international stature in the economy of this province.

First, you will note from my estimates that we are expanding the highly successful trade mission and technical assistance activities. In the current fiscal year of 1976-77, the people of British Columbia invested $552,000 in these activities. Partial returns for this year's activities indicate that new business orders from foreign markets, in excess of $15 million, are adequate to sustain an estimated 500 jobs here in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, many firms had never considered exporting their products before they were invited to join an economic development trade mission. In the coming fiscal year, I have proposed a budget of $601,000 to maintain these highly productive activities.

My ministry continues to be jointly engaged with the federal Ministry of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Council of Forest Industries in a cooperative overseas market development programme. This is the second year of a renewed five-year programme to develop new markets for British Columbia lumber and plywood products. Mr. Chairman, this activity has the potential to sustain more than 40,000 direct and indirect jobs related to the forest industry.

Because British Columbia is so heavily export-oriented, international tariff and non-tariff trade barriers have a very important long-term impact on the B.C., economy. Existing Canadian tariff protection has fostered the development and survival of the Canadian manufacturing sector. However,

[ Page 673 ]

British Columbia's share of these benefits has been disproportionately small. To improve our bargaining position with Ottawa on matters of trade barriers I have instructed my deputy to establish a study team whose responsibility it will be to provide the government with an informed position of all issues concerning tariffs and trade.

My ministry will undertake an active and aggressive role in all matters relating to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to ensure that British Columbia's interests are fully reflected and protected in all the negotiations and agreements entered into by Ottawa on behalf of Canada. We intend, in this way, to keep Ottawa fully apprised of the impact of proposed tariff and trade concessions on British Columbia's economy, in order to minimize, if not prevent, the adverse impact of concessions and to improve the accessibility of foreign markets for British Columbia exports.

Fundamental to clear-sighted economic formulation is the development of a comprehensive statistical and forecasting capability. To this end, Mr. Chairman, I will be tabling a new Statistics Act in the Legislature this year which, while filling the preceding requirements, will also serve to streamline and co-ordinate the data-gathering activities of this government.

Women's economic rights, Mr. Chairman, will continue to be an integral element in this ministry's programme in the coming year. This year the women's economic rights branch has been heavily engaged in manpower studies in northeast coal development and in the conduct of business workshops for women throughout the province. These activities will continue in the coming year.

Finally, as you know the Ministry of Economic Development is very active in matters related to coal. Throughout the current fiscal year the ministry has been extensively and intensively engaged in planning the orderly development of this province's vast and virtually untapped coal resource. In late November last, I led a very successful mission to Japan and received substantial market commitments for metallurgical coal. Over the course of the past year the private sector has also made a very substantial commitment to coal developments in British Columbia.

We are convinced that the market for British Columbia coal is indeed a fact. The federal government has conducted independent coal market studies and they are convinced that the markets are there. The private companies which are putting up millions of dollars in private investment are also convinced that the markets are there.

We believe that by 1985, the year predicted by some as the year of doom and gloom for the Canadian economy, we can more than triple our production with an additional five million tons coining from the southeast and approximately an additional 10 million tons from the northeast section of the province. These markets will not be realized, thousands of jobs will not be created and millions of dollars in fixed capital formation will not occur in the absence of aggressive, dynamic, long-range policies designed to encourage development of this vast coal resource.

It is not a question of giving away vital stocks of carbon fuel, Mr. Chairman; it is a question of trading resource surpluses for our most exaggerated needs in the long term for thousands of permanent jobs, income stability, regional balance and sustained economic prosperity in the province of British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON: Will you table the task force report?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: It is also a question of aggressive marketing in the international marketplace. Mr. Chairman, we must be aggressive! From its very conception in pre-colonial days, the economy of British Columbia has been rooted in export markets. Our domestic markets are not large enough, and distances are too great and are not related to the markets of eastern Canada. The world is our marketplace: the United States of America, Japan and the European Common Market, to name a few. Their people and their industries are also our competition. Unfortunately, they are not ours alone, and that competition is getting stiffer every day that goes by. To win new markets and to hold on to our existing ones, we must develop an aggressive, imaginative, forward-looking marketing attitude.

I must stress, Mr. Chairman, that we have done the planning. We know the costs involved and we recognize the interplay of forces which must occur if this province is to survive as a healthy economic unit.

MR. GIBSON: When will you let us know the costs involved?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You have heard my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), describe an economic recovery during the budget speech on January 24. Real growth in gross provincial product for 1977 is expected to exceed the 5.1 per cent achieved in 1976.

Housing starts were up 15 per cent in 1976, while the value of manufactured shipments rose 19 per cent. Gains of 43 per cent in the value of wood product shipments, 21 per cent in pulp and paper, and 50 per cent in fish products underscore our critical reliance on foreign markets.

All of the news was not good, however, as the growth in the labour force offset employment gains to sustain the unemployment rate above 8 per cent.

[ Page 674 ]

In 1977, I anticipate a real growth in the gross provincial product approaching 6 per cent and a further moderation in inflation to about 7 per cent. While I also anticipate a healthy gain in employment of about 3.5 per cent, I would be remiss if I did not point out that growth in the labour force is once again expected to offset any potential reduction in the unemployment rate.

Mr. Chairman, the world recession of 1974-1975 brought about a reappraisal of long-term economic prospects. There is now a widening consensus that the high rates of growth in the past will not be easily duplicated. Weaker growth in British Columbia's traditional export markets means stiffer competition for available sales. While much of that competition in the natural resource markets will come from long-standing trade rivals, the resource-rich Third World is rapidly emerging as a low-cost source of products and will also be our competition. As a result, British Columbia producers will be under increasing pressure to meet world prices and to reverse the erosion of our international cost-competitiveness. B.C. exports are expected to constitute 57 per cent of the value of output from the goods-producing industries in this province.

Mr. Chairman, the message is crystal-clear. We simply cannot afford, to squander our international markets. Management and labour in all sections must collectively take the responsibility to ensure that British Columbia regains her competitive position in the marketplace. Our service sectors can no longer reasonably expect to set the trend for wages and benefits in the primary sectors which constitute the mainstream of this economy. If British Columbia is to forge ahead and if British Columbia is to retain its reputation as a competitive, reliable supplier and an attractive investment market, the time has come to forgo the short-term illusory gains and to pursue the longer-term, enduring rewards of rising real incomes, employment stability for all, and stable self-sustaining economic growth. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I vote aye to this vote.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I would like to....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I beg your pardon? Mr. Chairman, did you hear the hon. Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Chabot's) racist slur across the floor?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry, I did not hear what the hon. member had to say. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I want to thank the deputy minister, Mr. Peel, for that excellent opening address on the part of the minister. It's one I gave two years in a row — word for word.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody paid any attention to it then either.

MR. LAUK: That's right! I can sympathize with the minister and I share his frustration that gratuitous remarks — I suppose because they're so obvious — go unnoticed in this chamber.

Before proceeding on to the minister's remarks and some other aspects of his portfolio, I want to compliment the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), who acquitted himself favourably on "Cross-Country Check-Up." I was very impressed with the Minister of Finance. I was not in agreement with many of the things he had to say, but he said them without the usual cut-and-thrust that one finds in this chamber. Perhaps we can at least take some comfort on this side of the House that the minister has style, if not substance.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Economic Development is, as we've stated before — and I only need to remind the committee — impaired in office. He's impaired in his capacity to instil confidence in the investment community.

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw!

MR. LAUK: No, I wouldn't suggest that the impairment lies in any other area, Mr. Chairman. His impairment lies in the fact that he fails because of the scandal-riddled portfolio and his role as the minister. He has, therefore, failed to instil. confidence in the investment community and, indeed, in all aspects of the economy of this province. Both the working families and the business community in this province are shattered by the recent events surrounding this minister.

I won't belabour those points. We have no fewer than four inquiries into the activities of two ministers of this House, two of which directly affect this minister and one of which is a judicial inquiry that's to commence on the 21st of this month.

The hon. minister suggests that there is a tremendous growth pressure on the labour force. This is not borne out. The population is being stemmed in British Columbia, and there may be a net out-migration next year. The point is this: although there is always a small increase in the amount of the labour force, in 1975 and 1976 it's been less than it's been in some many years. In spite of that fact, the nerve centre of this government, the Department of Economic Development, has failed to keep abreast of growing unemployment.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've got a lot of nerve!

MR. LAUK: He had a tremendous opportunity in

[ Page 675 ]

the past 14 months to bring about the kinds of imaginative programmes that he talked about for three and a half years on this side of the House. He called upon the nerve centre of this government to produce. I can do no less, Mr. Chairman.

He had a tremendous opportunity during the period of the NDP administration. There was tremendous — 3.5 to 4 per cent — growth in the population with a fantastic growth in the labour force available in this province. We kept abreast through most of that period of time. Now that he has the opportunity, when there is a stern in the population growth and a relief on the pressure of labour available, unemployment has remained at all-time highs and will exceed — perhaps break — records this month and the next. This is a drastic thing. So I cannot conceal my disappoint ment, Mr. Chairman, when the minister stands up and repeats a speech that I gave two years ago in this House which was then announcing new programmes. All we've heard from this minister is a canvassing of those programmes.

I am disappointed that the trade mission programme hasn't been doubled. I'm very disappointed. We just started with the trade mission programme when we were in office. You've had 14 months to develop a new budget — $601,000 is disgraceful. What is the major thrust of the Social Credit government in this province? What was it supposed to be? Certainly it was economic development; certainly it was free enterprise — instilling confidence in the business community, both foreign and domestic, to bring in those capital requirements that we so desperately need. And what do I see in the trade mission programme? I see $601,000 — an infinitesimal amount of money compared with that programme. We piloted that programme and it was remarkably successful. It was about the only thing that that hon. member, when he was a member of the opposition, complimented my department on in those days. You would think that he would have that clout — being the nerve centre of the government — to get more money for that trade mission programme.

But let's go on to something even more critical to the economy, and that is the overseas marketing programme for plywood and other lumber products. It was of great frustration to me that there was a kind of bush-league attitude, Mr. Chairman — and I'm sure the minister is finding the same thing — on the part of our forest industry, and let's be frank about this. If you want to be critical of the trade union management in this province, that's one thing. But let's be perfectly candid about the bush-league attitudes of the chief executive officers and the boards of directors of the major forest firms in this province. Since the war they've had a free ride. Since the war they've had an almost sure market for their products. Now we see something even more sinister.

The great MacMillan Bloedel corporation that we've always thought of as being purely British Columbian, with some sort of patriotism involved in all of that, that had built a fantastic wealth out of the raw materials, the resources, of this province, has established — which is their right — throughout the world alternative sources of production which are taking up the traditional British Columbia market for our lumber products in the United States.

MR. GIBSON: They started that when you were in government, Gary.

MR. LAUK: Those corporate decisions were made when we were government, and we have to have a response, Mr. Member. We must have a response. It is not enough to give an unimaginative, rehashing speech, such as the minister gave today.

You must have an imaginative approach, Mr. Chairman, if we're going to solve the problem of markets. The minister must go into the field. He must talk to those chief executive officers on a regular basis. He must encourage them and direct them if he can into becoming efficient, more productive, and assist readily in their foreign-market penetration. He must, on the other hand, constantly meet with the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), and develop a pattern of utilization of our forest industry. We cannot let major multinational corporations leave our forest reserve quiet for many years while they're picking up the slack, at great profits to the multinational corporation, through their Third World production and selling to our traditional markets.

They do not have the citizenship commitment to this province that all of us in this room should have. And this government — or our government — should not acquiesce in this kind of multinational neglect of the forest resource in this province. The COMPD is an avenue and the beginning, but it's being underutilized and, I fear, at times not taken seriously by both government and the industry.

In addition to that, there must be the pressure upon these multinational corporations to sell our products abroad. It's not enough to try and get contracts and to compete with people in these Third World areas who are making 20 per cent of the wages that we make here. I'm sure the minister would not in any way suggest that there be drastic cuts in the standards of living for the majority of the people in British Columbia, simply to compete with MacMillan Bloedel and their Third World operations in our traditional markets in the United States. If he's suggesting that — and I'm sure he isn't — that would be tantamount to treason. And I'm sure he wouldn't suggest it, not for a moment.

But what is he going to do about it? What is the Minister of Economic Development together with the Minister of Forests going to do about it? Surely you

[ Page 676 ]

can develop some programme, on the one hand taking seriously the Pearse commission report and making sure that our forest reserve is used to its maximum, and on the other taking a very active public government presence in export sales of our forest products. This ministry is not the nerve centre. It's the salesman for this entire province. It's this ministry that has entirely — and should have entirely — the interests of the public commonwealth in this province at heart, not the interests of multinational corporations that have production plants in foreign jurisdictions. It's our people and our work force that we have to protect here and now.

I am somewhat concerned that the minister has announced yet another study team into tariffs. I announced a study team, and we had a full-fledged departmental team on gas, in negotiations in the Tokyo round some time ago. We don't need a study team. We know what the problems are. There is a transfer payment every year from the Province of British Columbia to central Canada of somewhere in the neighbourhood of between $500 million and $800 million, because of unfair, totally discriminatory tariffs. This gives rise to the kind of unfortunate western separatist talk that we're all so desperately trying to avoid.

This is the thrust that I was hoping to hear from the Premier when he, from time to time, talked about the new role of this province in Confederation. Deal with specifics, and not with generalities. There is no need for a study team. It's been there and it's got the information. We know we're being unjustly treated. We need a stronger voice in Ottawa, not in Tokyo or Geneva. That's where the action is in negotiating these tariffs. And it's about time that we stood up at this critical period of time in Confederation and made our presence known. Nothing of significance was said in that respect by the hon. minister this afternoon.

He did mention the Statistics Act. I would ask him a question: is this Statistics Act going to compulsorily force companies and individuals to report to a department that leaks from the bottom, the middle and the top? Is he going to expect people in private industry to fill out questionnaires on a confidential basis to a minister who hasn't the judgment to hire staff and responsible people who know what "confidential" means? Methinks the Statistics Act should be tabled for a year or two, or that the minister should step down and allow a minister who has that kind of judgment to take his portfolio and re-instil the kind of confidence that is needed, not only for the Statistics Act, as I said earlier, but for the investment climate and the commonwealth of the province of British Columbia.

I'm gratified that the women's economic rights branch has not totally escaped the minister's attention. I do believe that the minister's women's economic rights branch is being moonlighted, and it's a women's economic rights branch in name only.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: We commenced studies into women's economic rights. Those studies should be tabled starting this session; the information should be available now. What is the minister doing? I'll tell you what the minister is doing: he is slowly, by attrition, getting rid of the women's economic rights branch. He does not take it seriously; he's using it as window dressing.

MS. BROWN: Hear, hear!

MR. LAUK: I'm suggesting to the minister that there are a great many people of all political stripes in this province — and not necessarily all women — who are very interested in the successes of that branch. Women throughout the entire province have been considered in industry and in the economy as second-class citizens. They are very capable, productive managers in the economy. It was our hope by establishing that branch that it would be an avenue and a tool to have them go through a few red lights in industry and economy and to establish them in rightful positions of decision-making in management. I think that's important, yet the minister was very cursory in his remarks on that branch.

I find it even more disappointing that the minister did not elaborate on further aspects of coal development, particularly in the northeast, which, by the way, includes the minister's constituency. I am told that the minister's trip to Japan did not succeed in establishing further market commitments. I am indeed gratified to hear that that was not the case.

I would certainly like to hear more from the minister about what specific market commitments he did get when he visited Japan. I'm instructed by certain individuals in the industry in Japan that no new market commitments were made and that, as a matter of fact, there was some suggestion that there were efforts to get out of some existing commitments. Perhaps the minister can elaborate on the information I received in that respect. I hope it's wrong; I really do.

He says that everybody's convinced markets are there, particularly for our metallurgical coal. There is some convincing evidence that our thermal coal has a market, particularly in eastern Canada and some parts of the United States. Perhaps the minister would like to elaborate on those markets. With respect to coal, if he's hoping that 10 million tons per annum can be delivered from the northeast sector, I must ask him if he really expects that the present consortium announcing its interest in that area can raise over $1.2 billion to reach that deliverability of 10 million tons

[ Page 677 ]

per annum. The industry states $1.2 billion. Is there any evidence — and he should have it; he's the minister, after all — that that money is going to be available? If so, where will it be available from?

Secondly, there will be at least another $700 million in infrastructural costs to develop the coal resource in the northeast sector. It could approach another $1 billion. Does the minister suggest that for very few jobs, in relative terms, an already overtaxed budget be further taxed to the extent of providing that $1 billion in infrastructural costs — infrastructure being transportation, schools, electrification, roads and so on — by shipping a natural resource out of this province at a very low coal royalty of $1.50 a ton? Can the minister comment on that? There is no evidence that the federal government either has the inclination to provide those funds, or has the funds; there is no indication of that whatsoever.

The minister announced a $2 million or $3 million contribution by the federal government, which I negotiated with Mr. Jamieson some two years ago. What has progressed since? We did that over a 20-minute lunch. What's happened with that coal resource? What's happened with the federal government participation? Can the minister comment on that?

Now the minister makes a few throwaway lines about competition, new markets and holding on to existing markets. I ask him to refer again to the very serious problem of multinational corporations that no longer rely on their holdings of timber licences and other benefits in our timber reserve here in British Columbia because of their Third World and other North American production centres. He said the message is crystal clear. Let me make a message crystal clear: if you're serious about maintaining markets and getting new markets, you're going to have to elaborate, because your statement so far, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, is unconvincing.

Secondly, I would ask the minister to consider seriously the problems of the image of his ministry in relation to the various serious and important projects that I hope will get underway. He must emphasize and concentrate on that problem. Does he not feel, as we do, that his image is so impaired that he should step down as Minister of Economic Development, either until such time as his image can be repaired or entirely, for a new minister to take over the reins and salvage the ministerial office?

A word about the Development Corporation — I'll just touch on it very briefly.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Yes, maybe we can deal with the BCDC later.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Second reading of Bill 6, Assessment Amendment Act, Mr. Speaker.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

HON. MR. WOLFE: Bill 6 is the Assessment Amendment Act, 1977. Most members will be aware of the fact that a number of serious problems exist in the province's property-tax system at this time; many will recall that the property-tax dilemma has been a source of concern to this House for over a decade. These problems are not new, but the delay in finding a satisfactory solution has resulted in the development of many inequalities in assessment and has caused many disparities in amounts that taxpayers holding property of similar value have been taxed.

The present situation cannot be said to reflect the indifference of the government to act but was caused by inflation and compounded by efforts of former administrations to prevent property owners experiencing unusually large increases in assessments from year to year. In an attempt to prevent property owners receiving larger and larger tax increases each year as a result of the compounding effects of increased assessed values and increased costs of providing local services, legislation was enacted preventing increases in assessments from occurring. The legislation, while well-intended, has caused many unforeseen problems and has created a larger number of inequalities than the provisions were intended to cure.

The most recent attempt, Mr. Speaker, to find a solution to the province's property assessment and taxation problem produced the McMath report of the Commission of Inquiry on Property Assessment and Taxation in British Columbia. This report was tabled in the House on January 25, 1977. The McMath report is a lengthy document containing many recommendations related to a wide variety of complex matters and property-tax law.

Because of the complexity of many of the issues raised in the report and the sincere desire of the government not to precipitate any additional assessment and taxation problems through adoption of hastily considered recommendations, a decision was made not to introduce any basic property-tax policy reform without first carefully considering the issues and fully understanding the implications of planned corrective action.

Since the report was received, it has been under examination by a special committee of cabinet. The

[ Page 678 ]

members of this committee are the Minister of Finance as chairman; the Hon. Hugh Curtis, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Hon. Alex Fraser, Minister of Highways and Public Works; the Hon. Robert McClelland, Minister of Health; the Hon. Rafe Mair, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; and the Hon. Bill Vander Zalm, Minister of Human Resources.

This committee has been requested to bring forth recommendations for property assessment and taxation reform. Several meetings have been held since the report was first received. While much work lies ahead, the committee has been able to recommend that certain changes in the Assessment Act be introduced at this session of the Legislature, which will allow the province to commence on a programme which will produce equalized property assessments without causing Serious dislocations for property owners and taxing authorities alike.

While the government does not wish to delay the implementation of much-needed property tax reforms, it was evident that within the timeframe available no major changes could realistically be made for entering into the 1977 assessment roll, and that the basic changes should be delayed until 1978. It was therefore decided to continue with the frozen assessment roll for 1977, but to introduce legislation early in this session to eliminate a number of unsatisfactory and inequitable situations which have developed as a result of the assessment roll having been frozen for a number of years. Mr. Speaker, the additional time gained by this course of action will provide the House with an opportunity to fully consider an alternate method of attaining equalized assessments for both school and municipal purposes.

So this bill, the Assessment Amendment Act, 1977, contains a small number of changes required to immediately remove legal barriers adversely affecting taxpayers and assessors alike. The provisions are needed for purposes of the 1977 assessment rolls, which are already before the courts of revision during the month of February.

The amendments will free the courts of revision and the assessment appeal board to reduce assessments where appeals are received from property owners. Under present legislation, it is considered that while courts of revision and the Assessment Appeal Board are convinced that a reduction in assessment is justified, they have no authority to change an assessment appearing on the frozen 1974 assessment roll.

In addition, the amendments will allow assessors to enter in the assessment roll property inadvertently omitted in the preparation of the 1974 roll. It has been held that while the omission is evident, it cannot be added to a value presently appearing on the 1974 assessment roll. Only a small number of parcels having errors or omissions of substance are expected to be affected.

The corrections will not be retroactive in application, but will be made effective to the 1977 roll. The amendments also clarify that assessors are empowered to correct errors in the assessment roll through use of the supplementary assessments. No change in policy is involved.

The amendments also provide for changes to the frozen assessment roll where properties are incorporated within boundaries of municipalities or are removed from municipal boundaries and placed in rural areas. In such cases, different legislative provisions found in the Municipal Act and Taxation Act apply. These changes provide assessors with authority to correct statutory valuation and tax exemption procedures applicable to the jurisdiction in which the parcel is placed.

Mr. Speaker, because courts of revision are required by statute to commence and complete their hearing of appeals against 1977 assessments during the month of February, early enactment of these amendments is essential if property owners are to receive fair treatment before the courts. So I would urge that the cooperation of all members in expediting the passage of these amendments would be much appreciated.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, that if, in fact, we do proceed to committee on this bill today, I have asked Mr. Jack Moore, surveyor of taxes, to join us in the House to assist us with any detailed questions there may happen to be. I would urge all members to give consideration to the need for early passage of these amendments which affect the 1977 situation.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, the opposition can certainly agree with the minister about many of the problems that he discussed, the fact that problems do exist and the fact that the dilemma goes back.... Perhaps rather than "10 years" it should be "several decades" that there has been a delay in solution. This is the third administration, I suppose, that has given some attention to this concern, although it was left to the NDP administration to actually start doing something about the many inequalities when it commissioned the McMath report in the first place.

The minister says that the legislation before us, or the action or inaction of the government, cannot in any way reflect indifference. It does, certainly, reflect some delay at least, Mr. Speaker.

Although he is correct in saying that the report was tabled in the House on January 25, 1977, to the best of our knowledge the information available would indicate that he received the report in August, 1976 — certainly in time to have brought some legislation into even a short fall sitting of the

[ Page 679 ]

Legislature, when this kind of information and this kind of procedure could have been relayed to the taxpayers of the province much earlier and given them a much better opportunity to react to assessment notices than they have with legislation that is first being discussed on February 7, 1977.

The McMath commission was a very worthwhile commission. It was the first attempt — the only attempt, really — to come to grips with a situation, a very bad situation, in property tax. The McMath commission made many recommendations, some of which were made public in the fall, through some means or other — and maybe that is going to be inquired into too, I don't know. But I think that one of the concerns we have on this side of the House is that in spite of the fact that the government didn't seem to be in any rush to deal with what in the minister's own words is an anomalous situation and that many problems exist, in spite of the fact that there was this concern on the part of the government, concern on the part of the taxpayers, yet the McMath commission was asked to cut short its work to bring in a hastily completed, or incomplete, report.

The work that the minister now talks about having been done by a committee of cabinet ministers, presumably work that was started in August or September — I would hope that they didn't wait until January to start meeting — could have been done by the very commission that had the opportunity of travelling around the province, meeting people all over the province, listening to representations. I think the minister would agree that there were excellent people on that committee inquiring into this. It would seem that given a bit more time, they were the ones in the best position to have brought together their report in a more meaningful way — a report that would have been much more useful to government in bringing forth the kind of legislation that the minister indicates will be coming down later in the session.

We have no wish to hold up the legislation that is before us, which simply tinkers once again with a taxation system that has been tinkered with for many years. The minister mentions it will be retroactive to January, 1977. I am a bit curious as to why the bill says January 1, 1976, although I suppose there is some technical reason for that. I am not really upset about that.

But I think the fact that the bill is coming down now when there should have been legislation before us in a fall sitting is a criticism of the government, if not condemnation, in this whole question of property taxation. The very important recommendations in the McMath report apparently are still being sweated over by a cabinet committee rather than tabled early in the session so that the opposition could have an opportunity to comment on these recommendations in legislation, would have a chance to study them and make recommendations early in the scheme of things.

It is my hope that the government does not intend to delay the important bill, the one that will really be coming to grips with this question of taxation, so long that there isn't adequate opportunity for the people in this and other provinces who have some expertise and some knowledge to supply information. It is my hope that the government will not delay too long in bringing down the bill that we really should be discussing at this point, or, Mr. Speaker, should really have been discussing in a sitting last fall.

As I say, the official opposition does not intend to unduly hold up passage of this legislation. We will support the bill before us.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Nanaimo, I have no intention of attempting to hold up passage of this bill, but I certainly intend to draw attention to some of its very serious defects.

The minister says it's a minor bill, but I hope all of the backbenchers opposite will take a moment to listen to the effect increased taxes will have on thousands of farms and industrial establishments around this province.

First of all, I want to reply to the comment of the minister. I didn't take it down verbatim, but he said in essence that the government has a sincere desire not to complicate property-taxation procedures in this province by rushing into an unduly hasty reform and complete overhaul of the system. He notes that it has been under study by a cabinet committee for some months.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I certainly sympathize with him in this thought, but somewhere there has been a defect in the democratic procedure. If he is so concerned about a complete study before new legislation is brought in for the long-overdue reform of the property-taxation system in this province, why is it that the tabling of this report, or the making public of this report, was held up by some six months after the government received it? To me, that is absolutely scandalous, Mr. Speaker.

We had tabled in this House the other day — I think it was January 20 — the preliminary report of the Commission of Inquiry on Property Assessment and Taxation. I think it was as of August 14. Printed right on the cover of that report, Mr. Speaker, is "July 30, 1976." Now let's say the government received it a few days after that — even halfway into August when the commission bylaw was disbanded. I think it was as of August 14....

HON. MR. WOLFE: You were in Maui at the time. You wouldn't have read it.

MR. GIBSON: I was getting my mail, Mr. Minister, and was possibly being more productive than you at the time. In any event, this document was held back from the public for six months by this government.

[ Page 680 ]

Why? I say that's not good enough. I say that's contempt for the democratic process, because the people of this province paid for the costs of that commission and they were entitled to the results of it right away.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's absolute rubbish!

MR. GIBSON: What do you mean it's absolute rubbish? When did you receive that report?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It was tabled in the House when it was required to be tabled.

MR. GIBSON: Why wasn't it given to the public right after you got it?

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's rubbish!

MR. GIBSON: That's not rubbish, Mr. Minister, and you know it. You got that report some time in August and you sat on it for six months for your own convenience. I say that is no good at all.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Tell Ottawa!

MR. GIBSON: It's a disgrace — that's what it is.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Tell Pierre!

MR. GIBSON: I wonder why, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if there are some things in that report that would have been an embarrassment to the government if people had enough time to talk about them before we had this minor little bill before the House. I'm thinking about things like, for example, a recommendation that the province should move toward provincial payment of 75 per cent of the school burden in this province. Maybe that might have been a bit of an embarrassment to that government if you could contrast that with the budget the day it came out, eh? Maybe it would have been a bit of an embarrassment to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who used to wave his arms when he was on this side of the House and say exactly that should happen and who hasn't been able to do anything now he's over there.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): How about property taxes?

MR. GIBSON: Maybe they're worried about the recommendation of a special business tax on property. Maybe they're worried about the idea that assessment should be equalized at full market value. Maybe they're a little bit concerned about the finding in that report that the property tax we pay in British Columbia is the highest per capita of anywhere in Canada. It doesn't make the government look very good, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe they don't like the recommendation that provincial government agencies should pay full taxes on the property they're occupying, like the British Columbia Railway in my own constituency in North Vancouver–Capilano where they're getting away with at least $150,000 in taxes not paid — and they should be — because this legislation hasn't been reformed in a timely manner. You don't need complicated legislation to bring that kind of reform in, Mr. Speaker. That kind of reform is long overdue and should be included in this bill. Maybe they don't like the suggestion that where the provincial government levies taxes in unorganized areas there should be an abatement of those taxes when the property owners in those areas aren't getting reasonable services — and that's a pretty good recommendation, too.

Why was this approach to the reform of the property taxation system in British Columbia kept from the public for six months? This is another reason, Mr. Speaker, why we need a freedom-of-information Act in this province.

Now I think it's obvious we have to have a new Act this spring, and it has to be done in time to allow the assessors to look after the turning upside-down of their world, which will undoubtedly happen if we go to full-value, equalized assessment around this province. But how much better it could have been had there been time for public reaction! Look at the contrast between the way that minister has proceeded and the way the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has proceeded on the Pearse report. He made it public within a couple of weeks of receipt, no legislation for a year, and time for the public during that year to absorb it and consider what best ought to be done. Instead, this has been laboured over in cabinet-room secrecy and a bill is dropped in our laps within a few weeks and we're told we have to pass it right quick so the assessors can get on with their work.

Well, we have this bill in front of us which pretends to be housekeeping legislation, and I ask you if it really is. I don't think it is, Mr. Speaker. I think when you analyze the words, which at this stage I'm not going to do in detail — I will in committee stage if we proceed this afternoon — I think it gives a lot of backdoor powers with very little control.

Section 2 opens up the rolls to amendment at any time by amending section 11, section 3, which amends the old section 12 by adding 12 (3), opens up a complete back door — a complete barn door — for the commissioner to reassess in any way he may choose. Section 4, Mr. Speaker, by the simple deletion of the words, "on the same basis," and againI'm not going to get too far into detail right now, opens up hundreds and perhaps thousands of farm

[ Page 681 ]

properties in this province to reassessment on the basis of reclassification when, in fact, they are still being retained in farm use.

I will draw to the minister's attention the fact that there are many properties, particularly in Richmond and Delta, which have been assessed at a higher reclassified price because the value of the land around had gone up. These were appealed and they were able to make that appeal stick because of these four words that are being removed: "on the same basis." That defence of these legitimate farm operators is being removed. He has only to.study the actions of his own Assessment Appeal Board to know that that's the case.

Then section 4, which amends the main assessing section in the Act, opens things up for a complete reassessment of any industrial property in this province which has had any improvement of consequence since 1974, by amending section 24(6)(c), again removing those words, "on the same basis," and also removing some other words, and again we'll get the details later on. But I will cite to the minister a specific court case — a court case filed in the Vancouver court registry on January 19 of this year — which makes it abundantly clear that that amendment opens up all of the industrial properties of this province to reassessment. You can bet that the zealous assessors of the Assessment Authority are going to go after that because that's their job. I don't blame them for that. I blame a minister whose draftsmen have either snuck one by his nose or else there is the hope that this House will overlook it.

Then I look at section 6 which, in theory, permits all of this to reach back to the last taxation year of 1976. The minister may stand here and say: "No, it's just applicable in 1977." Well, in that case I say to him change 1976 to 1977 in the Act, because I do not trust any government to follow other than the straight letter of the law. I say if they say it's going to be different than what's written here, let's change what's written here.

Mr. Speaker, is this bill a little gnat or insect of some kind, as the minister suggests? In that case, let's ignore it. On the other hand, is it a monster of some kind? And the words exactly bother me in that direction. Then let it be so labelled and examined. I ask the minister: what is the dollar impact of this bill going to be in terms of taxes raised and lowered, going back and forth? He suggested this is a tax reduction bill. That's absolute nonsense. It's a tax increase bill. He says there's no authority to reduce at the moment. Don't tell me that when you look at 24(6)(b). When reductions have been made, for example, in the city of Prince Rupert this year leading to a decrease in taxes paid by Can-Cel of up to $750,000, don't tell me there's no provision for reduction of taxes in the present act!

I don't know if that minister has read the present Act, Mr. Speaker, let alone the amendments. I don't notice in this bill any help or relief to the city of Prince Rupert. My God, Mr. Speaker, what's the case to be? That city, has already been knocked on the head for several hundred jobs by Can-Cel closing down for a year as a result of orders from the Pollution Control Board to clean up its act there — which is proper — but now they are to be hit on the head to the token of another $750,000 because of the way our taxation statutes are drawn in this province.

I say that's not good enough. I think it is right and proper that when a property owner sees the value of his property, in effect, go down, property taxes should go down too. So I do not say that Can-Cel is improperly being allowed to get out of $750,000 worth of taxes. What I say is that when there is a catastrophic impact on any taxing authority or municipality around this province as a result of government action — and that was the case here — then the government should pick up that difference in between. The city of Prince Rupert should not be left holding the bag on this one.

As perhaps others will do, I might pay tribute in this regard to the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), who's been raising this issue consistently this session and, I believe, at this time of the debate, for unavoidable reasons, is absent. He would make the case more eloquently than could I.

Mr. Speaker, the minister says this is a minor bill. I say it is not a minor bill and I will go into chapter and verse in committee. But I ask him to tell this House what the dollar impact of this bill is on this province. Give us a dollar figure, and if it's a small dollar figure that's very interesting. If it's a large dollar figure, we should know more about this bill. I say to him: whatever that dollar figure is, if it goes over that, is he prepared to submit his resignation to this House? I don't think this bill is being properly represented. I think it is an important bill that may be drafted in a slick way, or it may be drafted poorly, depending on what motives one might wish to ascribe. But it is not, by any stretch of the imagination, Mr. Speaker, a minor bill.

I am a person with an open mind, I hope. I will listen carefully to the words of the minister in closing debate on second reading, but unless I hear something to convince me differently — and I have done a fair amount of research into this bill — then, Mr. Speaker, I say we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke, and unless the minister successfully strips away that poke and reveals to us an innocent little animal, then I shall vote against this bill which worries me very much.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I somewhat agree with the Liberal leader. I'm always a little sceptical when we're told that this is just a little housekeeping bill, and would we be good members of the

[ Page 682 ]

opposition in the House and cooperate in getting the bill passed by a certain time. I know that in the past there have been bills of this nature where we only really find out the true impact of the bill after it's implemented. I'm also puzzled that the government, I believe, asked the commission to wind up its activities, before it was ready to do so, and come in with a report. I would like the minister's comment on that when he winds up second reading, because in talking with certain members of the commission, I understand they were eager to pursue their studies further in the hope that they would come up with a more effective and timely and comprehensive report. At any rate, I gather the commission was asked to finalize its report before it was ready to do so. Then, when the government received the report, it was not made public for some considerable time. That kind of aura surrounding the bill makes me just a little sceptical as to whether the provisions in this bill are as simple as they're made out to be.

On the same theme, Mr. Speaker, I would say that I hope that when the minister introduces the more extensive review of the Assessment Act, it is not something that's done one week and we're expected to be able to debate it intelligently the next week. I would hope, since there is said to be a fair slate of new legislation this session, that something as far-reaching and important as a whole-scale review of the Assessment Act will be presented to this House in such a way that the opposition will have a very considerable amount of time in which to study and research the government's recommendations.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm a little more trusting on this bill perhaps than the Liberal leader, and I've looked at the explanations given by the minister in his memo to the opposition. Nevertheless, I'm a little concerned that it apparently extends authority to assessors to enter into the assessment roll what are described as "omissions," or where mistakes have been inadvertently made. I'm just a little concerned on that point. Who determines what is an obvious mistake? There's judgment involved here that, in relation to assessment, surely has to be looked at very carefully. I regret that I missed the minister's introductory remarks when he introduced second reading. He may have touched on that point. The fact that this gives assessors and courts of revision some new authority that they don't have at the present time leaves me wondering if the minister could give greater justification.

The other hesitation I have is that at the same time the minister is on record as saying that, really, very few such adjustments will have to be made. It's a little bit like the Act to abolish succession duties. We've been given a reason, but the reason has not been documented. I would say that in this whole area of assessment, if there are many omissions or corrections needed to justify this bill when we're going to have a much more extensive bill later on.... I wonder if the minister could give us some idea what numbers of cases would be involved in correcting these omissions or blatant mistakes, or the cases where rural areas have since become incorporated within municipal boundaries. These are three of the areas that the bill is reputed to deal with.

I would also like to ask the minister to give a clear answer to the question already raised by the Liberal leader in regard to section 24. I've had people in the industrial sector of our economy phone me. They're deeply concerned that the impact of that section is simply to open up all industrial properties to reassessment. I understand one particular company in British Columbia sent the minister a telegram pointing out their anxiety in regard to 24(6)(c). I also understand that the minister was not prepared to reconsider or amend his position on that particular section. The minister, I understand, has stated that this only relates to 1977 taxation. But some of the industries of this province tell me that there's nothing in the Act in regard to 1978, and that the door is wide open to whole-scale reassessment and change of policy in relation to taxation on industrial property.

I, too, have followed the comments that have been made regarding the situation in Prince Rupert. It seems very unfair in a community already struck by economic problems that some provision in the Assessment Act can, in fact, relieve an industry of providing such a substantial amount of municipal revenue.

While I realize that this is not strictly relevant to this bill, the whole question of assessment in the minds of British Columbians is such a confusing one at any time. When the minister brings in what is reputed to be a small bill and asks for hurried acceptance by the opposition, I think that at the very least he must answer some of these questions which have been raised by members such as the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and other people who have either sent telegrams or written to the minister.

I have another letter here from Mr. D.J. Thomas, who signs himself as the former chairman of the 1976 court of revision. He makes the point, for example, that some of the proposed amendments that we are now debating can, in fact, give extended powers to the commissioner which the minister has not acknowledged. Perhaps in committee stage we can go into the sections which are involved. He expresses the point of view that one of the amendments will, in fact, nullify the effect of section 40, which is not mentioned in this bill at all.

The minister is obviously being coached at the moment. I just wonder if I could be sure that this final question that I want to ask will be answered when he winds up second reading, and that is to the effect that section 40 deals with the authentication of

[ Page 683 ]

an assessment roll by a court of revision. According to Mr. Thomas, that really is a provision which is nullified by the amendment to section 12 (3). All these questions are being raised by people who are very close to the assessment scene, people who have filled this kind of function — chairmen of courts of revision. I think that if they are asking those kinds of questions, which very seriously pose the possibility that some of the sections of the bill which are being left as is are, in fact, being nullified by the amendments....

I wonder if the minister could tell us his answer to these two queries in particular: the one from the industrial world regarding reassessment of industrial property, and the points raised by Mr. Thomas. I would like to have some of these answers before I can decide whether to vote for or against the bill.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I share some real concern over this bill, in that it was introduced some days ago. We had no fall sitting when the bill could more rightly have been introduced. Certainly the government, if they had been reading their mail, must have known that they had a report, and that there are many things that must be done to improve the assessment situation in B.C. We've been sitting in the House now for three and a half weeks. Then we are told that the courts of revision are meeting as of now, or as of tomorrow, and on that basis they have to have something to go on. So therefore we have to pass this bill very quickly.

There's no question that the bill will be passed. There's an overwhelming majority of government members in this House who will see to it that it is passed. Whether the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) is right, wrong or indifferent, this bill will pass this Legislature in three days or less — likely today — because they are in a bind with the courts of revision. But I am wondering why it wasn't brought in and discussed at least earlier in this three and a half weeks that we've been here,

HON. MR. WOLFE: Because we were on the budget debate.

MR. COCKE: Well, what's wrong with interrupting the budget debate?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Don't you agree with the budget debate?

MR. COCKE: As a matter of fact, the budget was such a mess, Mr. Speaker.... If he wants some further discussion on that piece of paper, we'd be glad to go on discussing that, and we will be discussing aspects of that debate for successive weeks in this House.

There are problems, but I tell you that the minister can show us some good faith right now by amending this bill when he stands up to defend it in second reading. He can amend the bill to say that it has a specific time limit to end during this year. And he'll do it, I'm sure. I am sure he will, because that way he would be showing us good faith and showing the member for North Vancouver–Capilano that this is not to be for ever and a day. We're concerned, Mr. Minister, that you're taking on powers that are totally unnecessary and that you are....

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Awesome powers!

MR. COCKE: Yes, that's right, Mr. Leader — awesome powers! We hear all the pious statements from this government about seeing to it that things are rationalized, seeing to it that we are a businesslike province. Then we look at the things that happen factually.

We look at the assessment as it now refers to the school-tax situation. This provincial government will be picking up a shameful 42 per cent of the taxes for school purposes or paying 42 per cent of provincial school costs in this province.

Mr. Speaker, shamefully, because of this government, the local taxpayer will be picking up 58 per cent. It's just not good enough. What they say doesn't necessarily match what they do. So I suggest that one of the reasons that they held up the McMath report was because it would be embarrassing to bring down the McMath report last fall when they know perfectly well there would have been a real demand for a session at that point. So then they introduce the McMath report now and say: "Okay, here it is. Now let's get quickly on with some minor amendments." Minor amendments didn't sound too minor — when those amendments cannot even help Prince Rupert. Now I recognize the Prince Rupert case is before the Supreme Court of Canada. But you know, Mr. Speaker, I don't think there has ever been a case of a Supreme Court assessment appeal that's ever been overthrown by the Supreme Court of Canada. So the laws are there and the laws are wrong under those circumstances, as far as Prince Rupert is concerned.

I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that a government should think in terms of what is fair. Is it fair for Prince Rupert to be bilked out of $750,000 this year?

MR. LAUK: Is it because it's a Crown corporation?

MR. COCKE: It would seem to me that if it were not a Crown corporation, maybe something different would have occurred. But, Mr. Speaker, the city of Prince Rupert cannot stand to be bilked like they have been. I suggest that the minister take Prince Rupert under his wing at the present time. At least, if

[ Page 684 ]

they can't do anything else, give them a grant to take care of that $750,000. Give them and any other community in British Columbia that's seriously affected a grant. If they're afraid that they can't change their rules now because it might have too far-reaching effects, then give them a grant — an ex gratia payment of some sort to look after Prince Rupert in their needs.

So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the minister, show us some good faith. Amend the bill so that it won't last very long, and we'll have a complete new Assessment Act before the Legislature where we can really get our teeth into the whole question of assessment.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): When the minister was introducing second reading of this bill, I think I heard him say that some inequities existed in the current system. I think that has to be the understatement of the year, because I think the minister recognizes that assessments in this province are in a total mess. It does stem from the various adjustments that have been made starting way back in 1967 or so. I fail to understand why, at that time, the initial move was made to change the limitations and put a limitation on assessments. Surely the Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time, as well as the Minister of Finance at the time, must have known the kinds of inequities that would result from that. However, that's past history and I guess we shouldn't dwell on it.

There are very serious inequities that do exist. As a result of those inequities, the previous government asked the standing committee on municipal affairs to travel the province and to gain information about assessments and the resulting taxation that should accompany those assessments. That committee, Mr. Speaker, worked many, many hours. I was fortunate enough to be part of that municipal affairs committee at the time and we heard excellent briefs from regional districts, municipalities and the general public on the whole question of taxation and assessments. We also gleaned excellent information from people as knowledgeable as Jack Moore, the surveyor of taxes, who is here with us today, as well as other expert people in the field.

Mr. Speaker, when we had finished all of those public hearings and had talked to people who were experts in the field of assessment and taxation, we agonized as to what kind of recommendations we could make to the then government with respect to changes in taxation that would accompany the 100 per cent assessment. We worked for hours. We put things through the computer. We got information from here, there and everywhere, and we were unable to come up with recommendations because the whole field is such a very complex one.

It was that committee, Mr. Speaker, that suggested that a commission be set up in order to do the kind of detailed work that would be necessary to come up with recommendations to the government. The McMath commission then was set up. It is regrettable that they were asked to report quickly, that their time was cut off and they felt that they did not have sufficient time in order to do the in-depth work that they wanted to do in this very complex field.

It is certainly inexcusable that the government should sit on that report for six months. I fail to understand why that would be the case unless, as suggested by a previous speaker on this, they were afraid that if they released the report in August or whenever they received it, there would have been a public outcry demanding a fall session in order to deal with legislation on the McMath report.

Now the minister tells us we have a cabinet committee that is looking at the report. Presumably that cabinet committee will come up with recommendations for the legislation that we're going to see later this session. I would like to know from the minister when the cabinet committee was appointed, how long it has been sitting and how often it has been meeting. I would also like to know why the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), who took a very active role in the initial all-party committee that was established under the previous government, is not included on that committee. He seemed to take a great interest at that time. I'm really sorry that cabinet ministers who were not involved at all in the initial studies that were done on this by the standing committee on municipal affairs are on the committee but others who did travel with us, who heard all of the briefs, have somehow been left off. I think the same applies to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). As I recall, he was on our committee at the time. I particularly remember the interest that was shown by the Minister of Labour, and yet he has been omitted.

The other point that I would like to make, Mr. Speaker, before I take my seat, is that while this bill doesn't allow assessment increases, it will allow tax increases. If the assessment rolls as a whole are reduced as a result of this bill, then, obviously, the taxes will have to go up because the same amount of money has to be raised. I wonder if the minister will comment on that as well.

HON. MR. WOLFE: A number of interesting questions have been raised regarding this legislation, which is not surprising because we're dealing here with a very complex matter affecting all of the citizens of British Columbia. I would like to say that once again the main thrust of what is proposed here is basically two things to clarify the matter insofar as the present Act is concerned, so that errors or omissions on the 1974 roll can be, in fact, corrected.

Now I understand that the numbers of these which might be involved — I'm talking about matters of

[ Page 685 ]

errors of fact where an item like a building or some improvement is inadvertently not on the 1974 roll and therefore there is no facility at present to correct it — could vary from 100 to possibly 1,000 maximum. It's difficult to give you an exact answer to that question. Any increased revenue, you might say, generated for omissions or errors in the roll would be more than offset, in our opinion, by the facility for appeal which has been ruled to be denied under the present Act.

Last year in the appeal system, the courts of revision instituted a number of reductions — a sizeable number — which were later ruled on the appeal board as being inappropriate under the present wording of the Act. So we are simply, in the second instance, trying to clarify the wording of the Act so that future reductions of assessments put through the courts of revision will in fact succeed. Those are the primary two matters of thrust in this legislation.

Now to deal with just a few of the questions that were raised, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was asking why the delay in the legislation since we've had the report since late last summer.

Well, Mr. Member, it's one thing to prepare legislation but quite another thing to be prepared for the implications of it. What we must be very careful of is that we really should be interested in the interest of the taxpayer in this instance, as compared to municipalities and the other problems that exist. It's the taxpayer who we must be careful doesn't bear the brunt of whatever we do.

I would like to say that we must be sure that the assessment rolls are in the best quality and prepared for changes that we might envision for after the year 1977. We could prepare legislation very quickly, but we must know that the rolls and the implementation of it are prepared.

I think the member also referred to the fact that we are simply tinkering with the legislation; another comment was the fact that it is a minor bill. I don't think that I have ever referred in my remarks to this as a minor bill or as housekeeping. This is not a minor bill. It has very important implications on the taxpayer who wants to appeal. So I don't think you could fairly say that we are tinkering with the present legislation.

MR. STUPICH: Tinkering!

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Member, I wouldn't call it tinkering when we are providing access for people to appeal and reduce their assessments. Do you disagree with that?

A reference was made to the fact that the legislation is retroactive, Mr. Speaker, to January 1, 1976. This simply has to do with the need to apply that date to the supplementary assessments made in 1976. So the purpose of having the bill retroactive in application was to ensure that the supplementary assessments made in 1976 could properly be confirmed and authenticated by the 1977 court. Was that your question?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, you inferred that you couldn't understand why it should be retroactive to 1976.

MR. GIBSON: Well, you said it didn't apply to 1977; now you say it applies to 1976.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Insofar as it affects the course of revision for 1977.

Now you also made reference to the Can-Cel situation. and the fact that here we have a case where an assessment was, in fact, reduced under the present Act. This happens to be one of the things under the present Act that can be reduced. It is not so in the case of the balance of your normal assessments. So it is not necessary to amend the Act insofar as providing the power for that type of assessment to be reduced.

A lot of comments were made about the report — that we caused them to wind up early, that they couldn't complete their job. The facts are these, Mr. Speaker: we gave them nearly three months' notice to complete the report. We felt they had spent an adequate time doing their research. The total time spent by the committee, which the government appreciates, ran from April, 1975, to August, 1976. I think anyone would agree that this is an adequate time to do a sound job of research on this subject. They were given notice on May 26, 1976, and they turned in their report in the middle of August.

There was concern expressed over the clause about omissions and errors. How can anybody judge what is an omission or an error? As I tried to explain earlier, it is a matter of fact whether an item has been omitted from the 1974 roll, as opposed to an inaccuracy in assessment. We are not referring here to the nature of an assessment where the amount is being questioned or anything. It is just that an item has been left off the roll through an omission or an error. So this would clarify that, in fact, those can be replaced.

I referred earlier to the fact that in 1976 there were quite a number of appeals in the courts of revision which were later ruled to be inappropriate under the present wording of the Act, as far as the ability to appeal is concerned.

A reference was made to section 144(6)(c) and the industrial plant. I know that there has been concern expressed over the fact that this would re-open this matter. The facts are, Mr. Speaker, that these types of assessments for 1977 have already been received and they are not changed. These industrial assessments

[ Page 686 ]

have already been sent out; they are the same as they were last year. So although there may be concern in this direction, they have not been changed for 1977. This is a simple fact. As a matter of fact, it is people in industry who are the very people who have been complaining that the Act is unclear. This proposal is, in a way, intended to make this matter more clear.

Mr. Thomas was referred to for his concern over the authority to amend and make changes in the rolls. I am aware that this has been the main basis of his concern in the past. I think that he should probably be well satisfied with the amendment in Bill 6 which clarifies that, in fact, an assessor can make this change.

Reference was made to the Can-Cel case and Prince Rupert, and the fact that the government should become involved in this, that we should pass some amendment to the Act to somehow remedy the situation in Prince Rupert. As a matter of fact, what has happened in Prince Rupert is that through an order of the Pollution Control Board, a major part of their sulphite plant was required to be changed it was ruled by the Assessment Appeal Board that this was a recent development which should have implications on the assessment for these people. There is nothing in the Act.... What I think some of the members are proposing is that we propose an amendment which would deny the taxpayer an appeal. There is just no way that we can interfere in that procedure.

In a second instance, I did hear a comment that the government should provide the funds to support a municipality where such a reduction has been made. Through you, Mr. Speaker, would you advocate that this money be provided for any ruling of the Pollution Control Board, whether it was a private company or a Crown corporation?

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's a very important implication you're giving: that any order of the Pollution Control Board then, and its implications on a local municipality, should be absorbed by the government. I'd ask you to reconsider that proposal.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You're asking us to make fish nor fowl between a Crown-owned corporation or any other corporation.

MR. LAUK: You're starving the municipalities.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) made reference to the fact that he didn't think that the supreme court has reversed any decisions of the Assessment Appeal Board. My information, Mr. Speaker, is the reverse, that the supreme court has reversed many decisions of the Assessment Appeal Board.

So, Mr. Speaker, when one realizes the importance of this bill insofar as 1977 appeals, and the fact that the main thrust of it is to provide taxpayers an opportunity to reduce their assessments — that has previously been denied as a technicality of the reading of the Act — I think it's important that this bill do move forward. I appreciate the comments made by members and the fact that they are concerned. With that, Mr. Speaker, I would move that the bill now be read a second time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer Bill 6 to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Bill 6, Assessment Amendment Act, 1977, read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

On section 1.

MR. GIBSON: On section 1, I wonder if the minister could explain this section to the House, please.

Well, Mr. Chairman, the minister just sat there. The inference is that he doesn't know how to explain this section to the House. I'd like to hear from him. He said this was a complex Act. I think this House has a right to hear from him on every single word of this complex Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the same comment on section 1. Since the whole essence of assessment is everybody wants to be sure that their assessment's correct, the question arises: is the authority that's being vested here in the decision to make changes, in relation to what the minister described as omissions and errors of fact and...? We're still concerned that it leaves a great deal of jurisdiction and judgment to the commissioner.

I take it the minister isn't concerned about that.

HON. MR. WOLFE: This section is primarily to

[ Page 687 ]

move one section of the Act to another, to put it in better sequence. It's already in the Act in another section.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want it noted for the record that what this amendment does is remove any possibility of a challenge, that a revised assessment roll wouldn't be as legally binding as one that hadn't previously been raised.

Section 2 approved.

On section 3.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, this is the real barn door section. section 3 here amends section 12 of the existing Act. section 12 of the existing Act deals with supplementary rolls. Now it's relatively unrestrained at the moment. But when you add the new subsection 3 that will become section 12(3), we have this new language:

"Notwithstanding sections 10, 11 and 40, and in addition to the supplementary assessments under subsections 1 and 2"

and I might say parenthetically that those are reasonably well regulated

"the commissioner may, at any time before December 31 of the year following the return of the completed assessment roll under section 7, on his own initiative or where requested by an assessor, correct errors and supply omissions in a completed assessment roll, and an assessor, where instructed by a commissioner, shall correct errors and supply omissions in the completed assessment roll by means of entries in a supplementary assessment roll."

Mr. Chairman, this is very broad language. "Correct errors and supply omissions." What's an error? An error is what the commissioner says is an error, subject, of course, to an appeal to the court. And so is an omission. And where does all this go? It goes into the supplementary assessment roll. Under the authority of section 6 of this Act that we're currently debating, the minister said in closing debate on second reading that supplementary assessment rolls for the tax year 1976 are under the authority of this statute subject to being re-opened. In other words, through the combination of section 3 of the instant Act and section 6, we have a situation where retroactivity, or the power to act retroactively, is given in respect of the tax burden of the previous year.

When you couple that with the extraordinarily wide power given to the commissioner under this subsection 3 of section 3, then surely you have a case where this House is delegating entirely too much authority. And when a bill that the minister characterizes as a tax reduction bill is, in fact, a vehicle for considerable increasing of taxes, which may be required from time to time, surely the clear and specific authority of the House should be given for that rather than simple and enabling legislation, which is what this language amounts to.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important to realize that this is really to provide a clearer avenue of appeal than a case of supplementary assessment for the taxpayer. Any correction made by the commissioner, as is referred to in the section, made by way of a supplementary assessment, provides the taxpayer affected with the right of appeal that he doesn't presently have. This is one of the primary matters, incidentally, raised by Mr. Thomas in the various presentations he has made.

MR. GIBSON: Very well and good, Mr. Chairman, but it seems to me that the taxpayer only has the right of appeal here on an assessment that's given pursuant to a new power. In other words, what he can appeal is a new assessment by the commissioner, but that assessment didn't exist in the first place. You can bet your bottom dollar that most of those assessments aren't going to be downwards. In other words, what we're giving the taxpayer under this section is the right to appeal a new assessment which he wouldn't even have had to face at all before. I don't call that good enough.

Section 3 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 45

NAYS — 2

[ Page 688 ]

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

On section 4.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I heard the Minister of Finance say that an ex gratia payment to Prince Rupert, would open the doors to all sorts of terrible things happening. But we are dealing here with a door with two handles, and the government controls both those handles. They control the Assessment Act of this province, and they control Can-Cel, a Crown corporation, It strikes me that this is the kind of situation where a government can justify making the kind of ex gratia payment I'm asking for.

Why do I ask? Is it fair that a community the size of Prince Rupert should be burdened with an intolerable expense as a result of this $750,000 fiasco? I suggest to you that it is not fair. It's not fair at all.

I think that that government can very well stand up right now and say: "We're not going to leave a community in the lurch." They've been so used to leaving communities in the lurch, Mr. Chairman. They're doing it fairly generally now. The only community they really appreciate is the community that that little minister represents — the one who's yapping about Ginter at the present time. He represents the mining community. They're in love with the mining community as long as they can keep those ads going on television.

But, Mr. Chairman, the fact is the community of Prince Rupert is badly in need of some equity in this situation. The Minister of Finance can stand in his place today and say: "We're not going to leave them with this intolerable situation. We're going to help them." Prince Rupert, is one of the many destitute areas in the province by virtue of this government's lack of concern over the needs of people. Unemployment is at an all-time high virtually, and they're expected to live with that. They're expected to live with the present Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), whose only attribute to date has been a smile. They're expected to live with the depressed situation and try to raise $750,000 extra.

Mr. Chairman, let the Minister of Finance jump up and say that he's going to do the right thing — for a change.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be getting on to a different subject, so if the minister would like to answer the member for New Westminster now I'll gladly defer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member, on section 4.

MR. GIBSON: This is the section, Mr. Chairman, which, briefly put — and I will elaborate — opens up the taxation of hundreds and perhaps thousands of farms in British Columbia, and which has a good chance of opening up the revised valuation, for property tax purposes, of a major percentage of the industrial plants of British Columbia. Now section 4(b) provides that in subsections 24(6)(a) and 24(6)(b) of the existing Act the words "and on the same basis" shall be struck out. The existing Act, and I'm reading now from 24(6)(a), says: "Except as provided in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d), and sections 25 and 27, land and improvements shall be assessed at the same value and on the same basis at which the land and improvements were assessed for the calendar year 1974." That is the core of the issue, Mr. Chairman.

The farmland of British Columbia is assessed as provided for in that section. Now it is the case — as the minister should know if he has discussed this kind of thing with his officials — that last year there were numerous assessments, particularly in the areas of Delta and Richmond, where farms were reassessed by the Assessment Authority as if they were urban property, which meant, naturally, that their assessments increased tremendously. That reassessment was presumably taken under 24(6)(b)(iii). I presume the authority existed for that. In any event, the assessments were made. Nevertheless, with the protection of the language of subsection (b), which we are now being asked to remove, the owners and operators of bona fide farms were able to go before the Assessment Appeal Board and have those increased assessments, and therefore increased taxes, reversed. In so doing, they had some precise language to rely on. That precise language, more particularly, was these words, "and on the same basis," which we are now being asked to remove from this Act.

We are being asked to remove from this Act the protection on which those small farmers — bona fide farmers — were able to rely before the tribunal of the Assessment Appeal Board. As I said, Mr. Chairman, last year there were hundreds of such cases, not all of which went to the Assessment Appeal Board. When the effect is applied to the whole province, I am very concerned to, think of the impact that might be on the owners of small farm properties who are still operating within areas where the land values surrounding them, because of spreading urbanization, have substantially increased. The probability is that their taxes will be escalated because of the reclassification of land, as is permitted under this Act, unless they have that protection. They will, therefore, have to pay higher taxes and will not have the protection of the Assessment Appeal Board because we're removing it today. That's the first comment in respect to farmland.

[ Page 689 ]

Now I would draw to your attention, Mr. Chairman, that there is another section of this particular amendment which will throw open the whole question of the valuation of industrial land in the province of British Columbia. That is well and good, you might say — but only as part of a rational package where we are reforming the property-taxation structure of this province, not incidentally, in passing, without any acknowledgement by the government of what it is doing and if, indeed, it knows what it is doing.

But let's look at what this amendment proposes to do. It proposes to strike out of the existing section 24(6)(c) by striking out the words "subject to paragraph (b)" and then "and on the same basis."

Next, with those words in mind, I would draw the minister's attention to a judgment delivered by the Hon. Mr. Justice Craig and registered in the Vancouver Registry on January 19, 1977. The title of the case was "In the matter of the Assessment Act, Statutes of British Columbia 1974, Chapter 6 and amendments thereto, and in the matter of the appeal of Weldwood of Canada Ltd. to the Assessment Appeal Board duly appointed under and by virtue of the provisions of the said Act, from the decision of the Court of Revision for the City of Port Moody, whereby the assessments appealed from were sustained."

Now, Mr. Chairman, the assessments that had been appealed were sustained were as follows: The general assessment went from $667,000 to $1,161,000; the school and hospital assessment went from $949,000 to $2,840,000. Consequential increases, Mr. Chairman. I submit to you, sir, that the increases would have been a good deal higher had not the words "and on the same basis" been in this Act. In justifying that, let me read to you to some extent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Craig. I might say, in passing, that I think we all have to appreciate the difficulties under which judges act in hearing these kinds of cases and, for the benefit of the minister in drafting the new Act, I want to put on the record a statement made by Mr. Justice Craig as to his difficulties, and I'm quoting here from the judgment: He says:

"The hearing of this appeal ended late in the afternoon of January 13. By statute I must give my decision before Friday, the 21st of January. From Monday, January 17, I will be involved in a two-to-three-week trial on Vancouver Island which appears to have many complications. Because of the time limit, I must give this case priority over other cases, notwithstanding the fact that these other cases may have priority in time or importance.

"Judges have constantly inveighed against the provisions of this Act which require a decision within 30 days of the filing of the stated case because, often, the issues of fact and law are very complex and require time for study and reflection. This case is a prime example of that concern. I'm rendering a decision in accordance with the requirements of the statutes, but I'm not satisfied that I've had ample time to reflect properly on the issues which this case poses."

What a serious statement that is, Mr. Chairman, when a learned judge of this province has to record to the public that, because of the way our law is drawn, he might not have had time to give the matter proper reflection but had no choice. I ask the minister in redrafting this statute — as it must be redrafted — that he will bear that in account.

Now let me describe a little bit about the case of Weldwood and what they call their Flavelle Cedar Mill. I think all of us in this chamber will recognize that Weldwood is a very large company and that they can probably look after themselves. But this is a precedent that affects all industrial property in this province.

Mr. Justice Craig, in his reasons for judgment, describes the way that the 1976 assessment was arrived at and, again, I quote:

"The 1976 assessment appealed against was determined on the current replacement cost as of 1972 as so computed. In arriving at the current replacement cost, however, the assessor did not use the historic values used from 1972 to 1975, but rather used a current replacement cost as of — September, 1975, determined from the appraisal done by Universal (which is an appraisal company) as set out in paragraph 11. For, as described by the area assessor, the basis of the 1976 assessment derives from the inventory and actual valuation of the plant completed in September, 1975, by Universal Appraisal Company Ltd. See the letter of December 17, 1975, to appellant from the area assessor with enclosures.

"To this inventory, in actual valuation, the assessor has applied certain factors to reduce this inventory in actual valuation to actual value for 1972 base year. The 1972 value as so determined was then reduced by 50 per cent to determine assessed value."

Mr. Chairman, what that is is a long-handed way of saying that the 1976 assessment was arrived at by completely different means than was the 1975 assessment. What happened for the 1975 assessment was that the 1972 figure was taken and, as the learned justice says, "factored up" to produce a particular result. For 1976, the assessor chose, as a result of certain improvements that had been made since 1974, to take a current value and factor back. He did that on the basis of the improvements and as a result of language in the Act that let him do that.

[ Page 690 ]

Mr. Veitch in the chair.

While the judgment of His Honour is not clear on this, I would suggest that the value would have been a good deal higher had the words "on that basis" not been in the existing Act. Those are the words we are proposing to remove. I'll quote again from the judgment to buttress that argument. He says here on page 10:

"In my opinion, the word 'basis' in this context means the particular method which the assessor uses in making an assessment and the criteria which he uses. With regard to the pre-1974 assessment of improvements used for industrial purposes, the assessor used the historical method outlined in paragraph 7 of the stated case."

Then he goes on to consider the meanings of "basis" and then he says what he thinks it means:

"Therefore I think that the phrase means, simply, that in assessing property to which improvements for industrial purposes have been made after the preparation of the 1974 roll, the assessor shall assess the improvements as if those changes in value have occurred and had been taken into account in a preparation of the assessment roll for the calendar year 1974."

This to me, in turn, means with the protection of the historical basis.

Now we come to his conclusion on the case. He says, and I am quoting from page 12:

"Theoretically, the method of arriving at the 1972 replacement value by making the replacement costs new prior to 1972 and factoring up or by taking the 1975 replacement cost and factoring down should produce the same result. In this case it did not."

I might say, Mr. Chairman, in the opinion I have received from competent professionals, in a great many cases of industrial property around this province the factoring-up and factoring-down methods would not lead to the same results.

Therefore when you are opening that up, you are in effect ending the freeze. You're ending the freeze on a discriminatory basis. You are removing the historic protection of that portion of the assets of any firm which were in place prior to 1974. By taking into account the new improvements since 1974, you will, from the time you remove the words "on this basis" from the Act, cause the entirety of the plant and equipment to be assessed on the present value factored-down method rather than the historic pre-1974 portion of the plant retaining the freeze protection or the provision of '72-plus factoring-up method. That to me is a significant change in this Act.

Listen again to Mr. Justice Craig:

"My present view of the effect of section 24(6)(c)" — now that's of the existing statute — "is that the assessor must use the historical method in assessing those improvements which were in use before the compilation of the 1974 assessment roll, coupled with the factoring-down method for those improvements which were subsequent to that time, and that in making the assessment he may alter the previous assessment to ensure that the new assessment is on the same value level at which improvements used for industrial purposes were assessed for the calendar year 1974."

Let me emphasize the first part of that sentence. "My present view of the effect of section 24(6)(c) is that the assessor must use the historical method in assessing those improvements which were in use before the compilation of the 1974 assessment roll...." I would suggest the reason he says that he must use the historical method for that portion is because of the words "and on the same basis" — those words which the minister is proposing to remove from the Act today.

So, Mr. Chairman, whether by sloppy draftsmanship or whatever, by removing these words "and on the same basis" from section 24(6)(a), (b) and (c), the minister will effectively, by the time his Assessment Authority gets finished with doing their job to get the greatest taxes out they can and by the time the Assessment Appeal Board and the courts get finished with it, be opening up for substantial reassessment every piece of industrial property in the province that has had substantial improvement to plant and equipment since 1974.

As I say, it's long overdue that this be done, but it should be done in co-ordination with the reassessment of all of the property in British Columbia and not singled out and certainly not done incidentally in an Act which purports to do nothing of the sort.

To me, Mr. Chairman, this is a very wrong section. When you couple it with the section we just passed which makes it possible for the commissioner, through additions to the supplementary rolls, to add at any time of the year those increases he sees fit, then it's very clear that what an assessor can do on any piece of farm or industrial property that suits his purpose is to call in an assessor, get a current value, factor down, have a look at whether that exceeds the 1974 value, and, if it is, that's the new assessment. It's added to the supplementary rolls. The tax is increased not just for this year but in theory is recaptured for the past year, because the minister said in his remarks on closing second reading that the supplementary rolls for 1976 would be affected by this legislation,

So to me this section is thoroughly pernicious legislation. I believe that this House should reject it out of hand.

[ Page 691 ]

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with section 4, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano, who just took his seat, is quite concerned about the use of the words "and on the same basis," and the removal of those words from various parts of section 24. He made reference, in fact, to the decision of the judge in the Weldwood case. In my view, he made the recommendation in his report that we must use the historical method to arrive at valuation on new improvements or additions since 1974. The removal of these words is, in fact, to clarify that very point.

This has been a matter of indecision and inappropriate wording, insofar as how it is applied, because the commissioner and the assessors view the term "and on the same basis" as throwing ambiguity on whether they should factor back or factor forward from 1974. So I would disagree with the contention that this is reopening the possibility of a different type of appraisal as applied to new improvements on industrial equipment.

Any new development is now covered under section 24(b), to which I would refer the member. He is suggesting that we'll treat new improvements on a different basis. I disagree with this. They are to be handled in exactly the same way they are now. The removal of these words is only to clarify the present method being used, the frozen assessment of 1974, and applying the historical method of valuing improvements or additions since that point in time.

By way of explanation, I would also comment once again on the Prince Rupert and Can-Cel appeal. The largest part of this reduction is concerned with machinery and equipment, and a smaller part of it has to do with structures. So the machinery and equipment part of the reduction really only bears on the school tax section of that district. The other would bear on the general revenue side of their tax structure.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, having followed the minister's words carefully, I can't believe that he has read the decision of the learned judge. Perhaps since it was only filed on January 19 he hasn't had time, He said that the purpose of removing those words was to remove any ambiguity and thereby....

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That's what you said; that's what the minister said.

He said that the purpose of removing these words was to remove an ambiguity and to protect the historic method. But, Mr. Chairman, the historic method relies on those words "and on the same basis," because "the same basis" is the basis of factoring up from 1972. That's the way the other 1974 assessments were made. If you're going to say "and on the same basis," you protect the historic method. On the other hand, if you go to these other ambiguous words, "value level...."

The learned judge quotes at length in his decision on the meaning of the words "value level." He finds that that offers no protection whatsoever. He finds value level, in fact, more contemporaneous than a historic concept. So what the minister is doing by removing the words "and on the same basis" is removing the historic protection and leaving in the contemporaneous assessment.

You know, he says the words were removed to protect the historic method. But how can he say that when, in this particular case, even with the protection of the historic method, the way that the assessment was introduced raised the value of that particular property from $667,000 on general to $1,161,000, and from $949,000 on school to $2,840,000? Even at the moment, there is precious little protection. But at east there's protection on that portion of the plant which was in place in 1974 and previously.

So, Mr. Chairman, I absolutely can't agree with them. As he says, the wording of this statute is terribly complex. But it appears clear to me that by removing the words "and on the same basis," he is removing an historic protection.

I noticed that in his reply he did not mention the way that the words "and on the same basis" have been used by the Assessment Appeal Board to protect the assessment of farms which are still used as bona fide farms and which have been reassessed by the Assessment Authority as if they were urban land. This happens frequently in the area of Richmond and Delta in particular.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: But they have been reassessed, Mr. Minister, under the authority of section 24(b)(iii), namely: "a change in the zoning or reclassification of land and improvements."

So what has the Assessment Authority done? They've reclassified certain of these farm parcels as being in an urban taxable category, when, in fact, they are still farms. That's fine. The owners of those farms made appeal in the last year to the Assessment Appeal Board. My goodness, the minister ought to know this! It's his business. The Assessment Appeal Board rolled back those assessments. Why did they roll back those assessments? They rolled back those assessments because of these words we are being asked to remove — these words "and on the same basis." That was the protection for those bona fide farms which are still being operated as such. I have no quarrel where they are no longer genuine farms, but where they are still being operated as such, the Assessment Appeal Board protected them on the basis of these words. You are asking us to remove that. I have to fight that.

[ Page 692 ]

Section 4 approved on the following division:

YEAS — 44

NAYS — 2

Mr. Gibson requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, I wish to submit the following amendment: that section 6, line 2 be amended by deleting the period at the end of section 6 and adding the words, "and remain in effect until December 31, 1977."

It's in order; I've had it checked out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment appears to be in order.

On the amendment to section 6.

MR. NICOLSON: I think this is a good amendment. I think the minister has demonstrated and made it clear, for instance, in the explanatory notes where he says: "Although the freeze on assessments continues in respect of the 1977 roll, the purpose of the Act is to enable anomalies created by the freeze to be corrected and to facilitate preparation of the 1977 roll." It's quite obvious, then, Mr. Chairman, that this is intended to be in effect during this year.

There has been a great deal of input into the tremendous inequity that exists in property-tax assessment in British Columbia brought about by changes that were initiated and freezes that were brought in many, many years ago. To this end, the Legislature enabled the committee on municipal affairs to hear assessments. The all-party committee travelled all over the province, and we heard submissions from the length and breadth of this province. I remember very well being in the city of Vernon and hearing such submissions.

Following that, it was found that the matter was so complex that the report, which has now come to be called the McMath report, was commissioned. It had input from many sources.1 think other members of that commission should also be noted — people like Ross Marks, the past-chairman of UBCM. So it's been duly deliberated; the government is in a position to act. Certainly this has to be looked at as a stop-gap measure. That's why the official opposition has been supporting this bill throughout. It isn't that we see this as being totally satisfactory.

The government is perhaps caucusing and considering acceptance of this amendment, because I know that they intend to do something about inequitable tax assessment and that's not going to be solved merely by the action of this bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The amendment, as I understand it, is to delete the section 6 conclusion and add to it that this will remain in effect until December 31, 1977.

MR. NICOLSON: No, no — to delete the period at the end....

HON. MR. BENNETT: And adding the words remain in effect until December 31, 1977."

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's agreeable.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, now that we're in such a mood of being so agreeable on this legislation, there is one point I would like to raise.

The hon. member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) raised the question of bona fide farmers and some problems they have. There are a lot of other people who, this year in particular, seem to be running into trouble with assessments in that the basis has been changing. It is questionable as to whether they were really bona fide farmers.

Now I've had a lot of correspondence, not just from my own riding but from other areas. I'm sure that members on the government side of the House must have had a lot of complaints from people who find that for the first time they no longer are considered to be bona fide farmers and their classification has been changing. It's obvious that the government, in accepting this amendment, is further committing itself to, bring in new legislation this session. I just feel that from the point of view of those who are being upset by having their

[ Page 693 ]

classification changed this year.... Since we are bringing in the new legislation and we will be debating legislation that will change everything completely, could we not ask the assessors to change their mind with respect to going after there...?

Many of them are old folks; many of them are pensioners. One who came to my office just a couple of days ago was a single pensioner, a widow, who is "farming." I have to put that word in quotation marks. She has some cattle, she is running a flock of geese. She's had farm classification for a couple of decades in this community, but this year, the year we know is the last year under the present taxation system, for the first time that widow with her flock of geese and her few head of livestock is finding that she is going to be faced with being taxed as improved land rather than as farmland. I wonder whether the minister could advise the authority not to press ahead with its policy of insisting that these people be taxed this year as improved land rather than as farmland.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to add to the member for Nanaimo's (Mr. Stupich's) appeal, because within my own riding there are dozens of farmers who have been affected by reclassification as well. They are most concerned about having to pay at the improved rate rather than at the farm rate they have been paying over the years. I do hope that the minister will agree to the suggestion made by the member for Nanaimo, because if we are bringing in a comprehensive piece of legislation on this, it seems to me that it would be just and proper that this be done away with for this particular year.

The other thing is, Mr. Chairman, that I don't believe the minister had a chance to answer the questions I raised earlier during second reading. I'm wondering if he may have forgotten, or if he's prepared to answer them.

Amendment approved.

Section 6 as amended approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 6, Assessment Amendment Act, 1977, reported complete with amendments.

Leave granted for divisions to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be considered as reported?

HON. MR. WOLFE: With leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, now.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?

HON. MR. WOLFE: With leave of the House, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

Bill 6, Assessment Amendment Act, 1977, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Veitch in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY
OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 79; minister's office, $141,324 continued.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Well, Mr. Chairman, what a difference a year makes. Last year we had the Minister of Economic Development, the loud, raucous, up-country noisemaker. He was here and he was giving out about what he would do. Today we have a much more chastened man than we had last year — much more chastened.

MS. BROWN: He's growing up.

MR. LEVI: No, he's growing down, not growing up, unfortunately. I can appreciate to some extent, as many people on this side can appreciate, his position. He's under attack and he's feeling very lonely, and that's a very lonely position to be in when you're a cabinet minister. You know, I suppose that part of his problem is that he's been torpedoed a little bit by the Minister of Finance. I'm amazed that in his discussion this afternoon he said he was very concerned about the export trade and yet he was only able to add some $60,000 to the expanded trade mission budget — just $60,000. Well, that's one of the torpedoes he fired at the minister, Mr. Chairman, and that's all he was able to get. It's a most serious area, as he said himself in his statement. It's very unusual for that minister to read a prepared statement, albeit by his deputy. It's the first time I've known him in

[ Page 694 ]

this House ever to prepare anything, and here he was reading a prepared, canned speech on economic development. The only thing that was missing, Mr. Chairman, is that there was no development, and there was very little economics. He hasn't really told us anything, other than the fact that he can't deliver. He simply is not able to deliver on the job.

It reminds me that they used to have previously in this House, Mr. Chairman, another Economic Development minister, a former member for Victoria, Waldo Skillings, who was not a very great Economic Development minister. He used to come into the House and tell us about things he had in mind, but nothing about what he had done, and that's what we've heard from this minister. He hasn't really told us anything about what he has in mind. Now I can appreciate, too, that he's under stress and he has not been able to give the kind of leadership to the department that needs to be given to the department. He really is, I think, a real liability to the government, and the quicker the Premier makes the decision to replace him the better off we're going to be in the province, because we're not going to get any kind of performance at all from this minister.

One of the things that I'd expected the minister to tell us, Mr. Chairman, in his remarks was about his trip to Japan, because that was a much heralded trip when he went over there. He was going to go over there and he was going to sell them on the idea of taking more coal, and then he came back and he was not quite so effusive. About the time he went over, we had in this province a visit, as the rest of Canada did, from a group of Japanese businessmen who came through British Columbia. They were in here at the beginning of November and they started their 10-day tour, and they met with a number of officials. The head of that delegation, Mr. Mikita, said that he was concerned generally about the political stability in Canada, and he said there was a lack of co-ordination between the federal and provincial governments which heightens investment risks.

Now we know on the federal level they don't have any investment or trade strategy as such. We've just witnessed one of the most incredible messes that anyone could get into with the federal government over the CIDA operation. Then we've had, of course, the atomic energy mess, so they're not in very good shape. But what about this government? What kind of leadership, what kind of strategy does that minister have, Mr. Chairman, in terms of investment, in terms of overseas development? How does he respond to the attitude of the Japanese who, when they were leaving, were not terribly inclined to say with any certitude that they could invest in the province? Now the minister has told us there are reasons for this. The reasons are — and he keeps going over and over the same argument — that our labour costs are too high, that the pay that workers get is too high. He says almost parenthetically, one would think, that they have to go down, although he's not actually saying that. We have to hold the line until everybody else catches up.

But he also mentioned in his remarks — and there is a very genuine concern, both on this side and on that side — overseas investment by corporations in this province. The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) gave the example of MacMillan Bloedel, who decided to go overseas and put their money where things cost less and wages are lower.

So what is the answer to that? We have no indication from the minister about what they plan to do to stop that. How do they appeal to these captains of industry that the first important place to invest is in this province and in Canada and not overseas? Yet large amounts of capital go from here overseas — large amounts of it. We've had nothing from the minister in terms of that kind of strategy. Has there been a meeting between him — with perhaps the Premier and other cabinet members — and the leaders of industry in this province? Have they sat down in a room? Have they talked about the predicament that the province is in in terms of investment capital and their overseas trade? Have they talked about that? Have they agreed on a joint strategy about this? We're not aware — I think the public's not aware — that that has happened.

What we are aware of is a great deal of skepticism that keeps coming up from both the business sector and from the government. The government is concerned that it's got to convince the business sector that it can get re-elected, and the business sector is obviously not very impressed with the investment policies of the government. Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, what we have is really a replay of things that have gone on in this province for a number of years, in terms of massive investment related to one kind of option. That option right now — we're talking about coal — is a one-option thing. Ten years ago we had another kind of option. That was going to be hydro development. Everything goes into one kind of option. Oh, the minister said that we can't have short-term goals; we have to have long-range goals that give us lots of diversity. But he's just said it. He hasn't told us of any plans as to how he's going to deal with this kind of thing.

One has to be unimpressed with that minister's performance and with the government's performance in terms of the ability to attract investment in this province. On the other hand, the members of the public have got to be unimpressed with the way the government behaves in terms of their disposable income as consumers. Where does that help the government when last year they took out all of that money — more than $500 million? That had an effect on business.

We have found in the Vancouver area that people

[ Page 695 ]

are suffering and suffering very badly. This afternoon, before we came into the House, we had a meeting with the Automotive Retailers Association. They came — and they presumably saw the government caucus — and there they told us that in the past two years they've lost some 2,500 jobs. Since the abortive attempt by the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Davis) to bring in a bill last year to assist them — that was not forthcoming — there has been no mention by the Minister of Economic Development, who is supposed to be concerned about business big and small in this province, about what kind of protection those people are going to get. There has been no statement at all and no policy, just an endless number of jobs going down the tube.

In respect to business enterprise, we had the Premier saying about a week ago that, unlike us, his government is not in favour of doing anything about controlling energy or giving the right of controlling energy to the federal government. We know that. It's quite obvious. We know that what that government is in favour of is giving it all over to the multinational corporations. That's happening and it's happening in this province.

We have the Minister of Economic Development indicating — I don't know whether he's indicating government policy — that he's in favour of the Kitimat pipeline. Yet we haven't had too many specifics from the Minister of Energy. Now that's an interesting multinational, international kind of consortium. Well, most of that money will flow out of the province and not do us a great deal of good. The minister had very little to say about that. In general, he had very little to say about anything.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

But he talks about our competitiveness. For instance, has the minister considered meeting not only with the Employers Council — which I presume he does — and with the business people which I don't think he's done yet but should do but with the trade union movement? Has he considered doing that and getting their point of view about his observations about the labour costs? That story of labour costs is wearing pretty thin. It's wearing pretty thin to argue that we're pricing ourselves out of the market.

It's like the whole question in the mining industry. In terms of business in this province, it seems that the mining industry can only do well when there's some kind of civic internal catastrophe going on in some other country and they're not able to produce the kind of metal they normally produce. We know about the heyday of mining in 1972, 1973 and 1974 in this province, when copper shot up to $1.54. But that had nothing to do with the ingenuity of the mining industry or the economic development. It had to do with the fact that two of the major producers — in Chile and in Zaire — were in civil strife. So the price went up. Now is that what we have to expect in terms of the mining industry — and I address this to the minister, Mr. Chairman — in terms of how it's going to succeed, that again there has to be some form of civil strife before that situation will improve? Surely that large commitment of capital — last year almost $1.5 billion — into an industry that provides about 17,000 jobs.... Isn't it time that we might look at an alternative form of expenditure of this kind of money to get better and more consistent value from it in terms of employment?

I have not seen, Mr. Chairman, in terms of that business strategy that it is really a very appropriate way of spending money to ensure the kind of employment and development we need in this province. We have had no demonstration of that from the government at all.

Today we were told about the closure of a business. I was a little surprised when the minister said that he was not aware of it until last night. It is the same kind of thing that happened early in December when MacMillan Bloedel announced that they were going to close down early and have a longer shutdown over the Christmas period. Then we had a statement from the Premier three or four days later. Obviously he found out after the fact and tried to get something straightened out.

Now what kind of contract, what kind of involvement are they having with the decision-making in the industry? Does the minister know that goes on on a day-to-day basis about major boardroom decisions? Does he know about that? Has he got those kinds of contacts? With a precarious economy like we have, he should know about these kinds of things.

We would like to hear from the minister very specifically about what is actually happening in terms of the coal policy. Where are we at the moment? What kind of agreements do we have from the federal government? Is there anything specific? Some of the information we have is that it is not specific and it is not going to happen, and that the major commitments are not being made out here. Rather, the major commitments for expenditures will be made in the Atlantic provinces. I think the minister owes it to the House and to the province to tell people very specifically that the outlook can be much more optimistic than it is now. But we haven't had that kind of information.

Last year, the minister spoke in these estimates, Mr. Chairman, about the Grizzly Valley and about the amount of oil and gas that was found there and had been capped until such time as it was worthwhile in terms of an investment proposition for somebody to come along. We have had some debate in this House, but no specific information about the actual

[ Page 696 ]

reserves that exist in terms of those fields and whether we can have it actually justified in terms of investment. The Premier has indicated that he is going to table the information.

Recently there have been some statements appearing in reports and books about how that kind of estimate is arrived at. I know that in 1974, Donald Macdonald, when he was energy minister, said that they depend on the industry itself to provide them with the kind of information on how much oil and how much gas exists. I am sure the minister knows, because he is responsible for economic development, about the kind of catastrophe that led to.

In 1973, prior to that, we were told that we had something like 80 years of oil and some 50 years of gas in this country, and that we could rest easy. Then in 1974 we were told that we only have enough oil and gas to last us something like eight or nine years. All of this was dependent on the information from the industry.

I am hoping, Mr. Chairman, that when the minister or the Premier tables the information we will have some new mechanisms for arriving at the kind of estimates that led them to make the decision to give the Quasar people $2 million. That is important for us to know because we have to know what kind of mechanisms this government has to ensure the proper expenditure of the people's money and also whether this in fact is going to be a viable operation. We have to know that. It is important.

What has the minister said in terms of the business community? He has made no observations, for instance, in terms of the retail market in the province. He has made no observations or concern about the downturn in the retail economy that took place nearly all of last year as a result of the policies of his government. And yet he had said that the main thrust of the government would be to get things moving.

Then we have heard, from a number of major people in the retail industry, of the kind of havoc that they wreaked in the retail markets, the losses that took place there, and the unemployment that ensued. It is still happening. I have no doubt that the minister is extremely apprehensive about the kind of announcement that is going to be made on Wednesday or Thursday from Ottawa from Statistics Canada on the new employment rates.

Nothing that he has said today can give us any indication that the news that we are going to get is going to be other than bad. I would have thought that that minister would have been able to stand up and tell us, after all of the bombast and loud noise that he made last year, just how many jobs he has been responsible for creating. How many jobs? That we don't know.

So the important thing is that we have to have much more information from this minister. We have to have him back in the kind of style that we know, not reading from prepared speeches and being very careful about where he wanders in terms of the information that he wants to give.

If he's prepared to do that, then I think that we may look with some optimism at the plans of the government for development over the next year, and the long-range development which he's talked about and which he feels is so important. We still have to hope for that kind of thing.

The minister should also tell us, when he says that they're looking for diversity, if there is, in fact, any other area that they can move into besides the major coal area, which is one to which they are obviously committed. What other areas is he talking about and thinking about? Has he any ideas that he wants to share with the province? Or are they things that really just amount to a great deal of rhetoric and don't really matter in the final analysis because, when the House is over, he can go back to his business and nobody will really know what his plans are? So what plans do they have?

AN HON. MEMBER: They have no plans.

MR. LEVI: We have no plans in the budget, no plans in the throne speech and the weakest of weak speeches from the minister. That minister, Mr. Chairman, has been known in this House to speak for 14 hours at a go, and there he was this afternoon barely audible, reading from a prepared speech, a speech which the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) claims — and I think he's right — was a speech that he delivered some two years ago.

Yes, I'm sure that the coach is now giving him his instructions, Mr. Chairman. He sidled up to the minister and said to him: "You've got to be a little bit sharper than you were this afternoon, Don, because it doesn't come across too good."

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's waiting for heavies.

MR. LEVI: Well, you don't need any heavies with a speech like he made. We could get the page boys and girls to deliver an answer to that kind of speech, because it was a shocking speech coming from the minister who is responsible for economic development in this province, who screamed so loud when he was in opposition and screamed even louder....

You know, I keep reminding him, Mr. Chairman, that his classical statement was when he was first interviewed after he became minister. He was prophetically right when he said: "We're going to put this province on the rocks." Then he had to correct himself and say "on the road to recovery." Well, he was right the first time. That's where he's put us — on the rocks.

He hasn't been able to get up and speak out on

[ Page 697 ]

behalf of that crew of millionaires over there. They have all the answers. Somehow, there was some magic when they were in the opposition because they were small businessmen. Somehow they were going to become big cabinet ministers and make all the right decisions.

Well, isn't it wonderful what they've found out: there is no magic or magical knowledge in being a cabinet minister, other than knowing what it is that you believe in and making an attempt to go after it. It's not just a lot of nonsense about: "I have business experience, therefore I can run the province." Because if we put all of that business experience together and we weigh it against the mess you've made of this province in the first 14 months of government, then people have to be a little bit shocked about people who brag that because they had business experience they can run a government in an able fashion.

That's the most disabled government that we've had here for some time. We did not have, even under the previous Social Credit government, the kind of loud bravado about how they would run things, get things going and then the come-down to such a crashing, unsuccessful attempt at doing something. Businessmen! Well, if that's businessmen, I'm glad I was a social worker. If these people are businessmen, then I was in the right profession, because that's what you've relied on.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

The House took recess at 5:41 p.m.

The House resumed at 5:43 p.m.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1977

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to express the appreciation of the whole House to the Whips for the very good work they did today. It's much appreciated — the passage and the accommodation of the legislation in question.

HON. J.A. NIELSEN (Minister of Environment): In response to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), I would like to file the Oyster River foreshore development social impact assessment report.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House, I would like to file a correspondence of February 7 of this year, from the Deputy Attorney-General to myself, relating to the M.E.L. Paving case and B.C. Railway.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5: 50 p.m.