[ Page 613 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Property Tax Reform Act (No –– 1), 1983 (Bill 7). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Ritchie –– 613

Mr. Stupich –– 615

Mr. Blencoe –– 617

THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1983

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On behalf of the member for Cariboo (Hon. A. Fraser) I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Guy and Nettie Cawley from Williams Lake.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 7, Mr. Speaker.

PROPERTY TAX REFORM ACT (NO. 1), 1983

HON. MR. RITCHIE: It is my privilege to propose second reading of the Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983, but before talking about the contents of the bill, I want to talk about its background. Knowing what lies behind this bill will assist hon. members to appreciate the value and urgency of property tax reform.

The property tax is a major source of government revenue in this province. Last year aggregate property tax collections exceeded $1.7 billion. This represents a significant burden on all classes of taxpayers, and for residential taxpayers it is often their largest single annual bill. The sheer size of the property tax burden has been a problem in itself. The government has been addressing this issue through its restraint program, through maintenance of revenue-sharing unconditional grants, and through a variety of other measures. The naive and simple approach to all property tax problems would be to resort to the familiar slogan: "Eliminate property tax." Although our long-run aim is to reduce substantially our reliance on the property tax, short-run elimination is not the answer.

The property tax remains the largest and most practical source of local government revenue. It is important to municipalities for both fiscal and autonomy reasons. The property tax will be with us for some time to come; our job is to make it as tolerable as possible. By far, the greater problem has been growing instability in distribution of the property tax burden among classes of taxpayer. Instability is a dry, technical sounding word, but it has profound consequences for equity and economic recovery. An unstable property tax system is an unfair one, because it produces large, arbitrary shifts in tax burdens. Likewise, an unstable system inhibits economic recovery because it produces unpredictable tax changes that make business planning unreliable. The old property tax system which this bill is replacing was not fully able to solve the problem of instability. Under the old system a set of uniform assessment ratios was used to minimize property tax shifts among the nine classes of property at the provincial level. This approach relied on the assumption that real estate markets and price trends would behave exactly the same way in every part of British Columbia. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this assumption has proven to be inaccurate and has been especially unreliable in the volatile property markets that we have experienced here in the past several years. The result has been a random pattern of erratic tax shifts.

In some communities in some years the residential share of the total property tax pie has risen dramatically, while the non-residential share has fallen. In other communities precisely the opposite has happened. All of these shifts were primarily the result of inflationary market forces. Under the old system, both provincial and municipal officials were helpless to correct these local variations. So that, Mr. Speaker, is an outline of the background to this bill. The situation I have just summarized demanded vigorous action, and this bill is our response.

The Property Tax Reform Act is much more than a piece of paper. It is the product of a lengthy consultative process undertaken by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), and my predecessor, the Minister of Education. Their hard work and imagination deserve the gratitude of this House, Mr. Speaker.

I also wish to commend the many representatives of local government and taxpayer groups who participated in the 14 regional meetings leading up to the preparation of this legislation. Their contribution and the views of the general public played a major role in shaping this bill. Finally, I must mention the able support provided by senior staff from both ministries.

As its title suggests, the Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1), 1983, is part of a larger property tax package. Some companion legislation will be presented by my colleague the Minister of Finance. Taken together, the various legislative components of the package represent the biggest property tax reform ever undertaken in British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, the twinnings of the property tax reform package are fairness and simplicity. I have already demonstrated that our stability and predictability are essential to fairness. Our reform measures will also enhance fairness by increasing tax exemptions for the most heavily taxed groups in our society and by introducing the calculation of interest on tax overpayments. The reform package achieves greater simplicity in both the assessment and tax fields. The old, unstable system of assessed value derived from assessment ratios will totally disappear by 1984; so will the confusing notion of mill rates. In their place we will substitute a far simpler system of tax rates based on market value.

How does this bill fit into the total reform package? The Property Tax Reform Act (No. 1) is the keystone of the entire package. It introduces the fundamental concept of variable tax rates, which will eventually be extended into all property tax systems. It contains significant exemption increases for hard-pressed commercial and industrial taxpayers and presents some of the important assessment reforms without which the package would be incomplete.

Mr. Speaker, let me describe in a little more detail the principles underlying this bill. I will deal with the assessment taxation exemption on the interest measures in succession.

This bill establishes actual or market value as a basis for municipal property taxation, beginning this year. Gone is the old system under which different classes of property were assessed at different percentages of actual value according to assessment ratios set annually by the province. Also gone is the old system of municipal options (a), (b), (c) and (d). The whole confusing edifice is being dismantled and replaced by one simple principle: taxation based on actual value calculated at rates expressed in dollars per thousand dollars of actual value. Under the provisions of this bill the principle of taxation based on actual value has been confined for 1983 to the municipal system. That in fact is the sole reason for

[ Page 614 ]

retroactive clauses in this bill. Under companion legislation this principle will be extended into all other property tax systems this year.

Some hon. members may wonder why we changed the municipal system a year before other systems. I should indicate our three basic reasons for doing so. First, many municipal councils urged us to make the changes as soon as possible. Second, municipal officials claimed and subsequently proved that they had the capacity to cope with the changes in 1983. Finally, several municipalities had experienced a system somewhat akin to actual value, the old option (d). The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I am pleased to report to the House that the implementation of our 1983 municipal property tax reform measures was an outstanding success.

That leads me naturally to a discussion of the most important of those measures, the new variable tax rates system introduced in this bill. I have already alluded to the instability that plagued the old system. The new variable tax rate system will prevent erratic shifts in tax burdens among property classes. It will be responsive to local trends in real estate values. These two features distinguish it from its predecessor and make it vastly superior.

[10:15]

The concept of variable tax rates is basically simple. Under the new system each municipal council has the responsibility to set an individual property tax rate for each class of property within the community. There are presently nine classes of property, and they are as follows: residential, utilities, forestry, machinery and equipment, industrial, business and other, tree farm, resort-recreation fraternal and farmland. Even in a small community different classes of property can experience significantly different price trends. The differences among regions are well known. The flexibility of setting individual tax rates on a local basis for each property class is essential in a province as large and diverse as British Columbia.

I want to emphasize the complete autonomy that this bill gives municipal councils to set their municipal tax rates. We have forged a partnership in restraint with local government, and this is a further demonstration of our trust. This is a realistic position because we believe in responsibility of local government. Elected official councils know local circumstances. They are accessible and accountable to local voters and responsive to local needs. We are confident that municipal councils can manage their taxation better than our Victoria bureaucrats. Only flagrant abuse would sway us from this belief, and our monitoring has not disclosed any serious problems.

Mr. Speaker, the variable tax rate system also complements our restraint program.

I am pleased with the combined impact of expenditure restraint, stable revenue-sharing grants, and variable property tax rates on the overall property tax picture in British Columbia. What's more important, I am confident that the average taxpayer recognizes the cooperative work we have done to hold the line on property tax increases. From my perspective, that is the highest measure of success.

It looks like a large majority of municipalities have managed to deliver budgets at below the 5 percent level. Many are actually below the 1982 level. For instance, Kamloops, Victoria, Port Coquitlam, North Vancouver district, North Cowichan and Duncan were all projecting decreases from their 1982 budgets; in the case of Kamloops, by over 6 percent.

The favourable combination of stable municipal budgets and stable provincial grants has permitted most municipalities to hold the line on property taxation. The general level of municipal property taxation has not increased significantly but the pattern varies from place to place. Different municipal councils chose to use the new variable-rate system to accomplish different objectives. For instance, the city of Victoria was planning to hold residential and commercial property tax revenues at 1982 levels while providing a modest break for the industrial class. Several other municipalities, notably Surrey and Langley, are planning somewhat similar strategies. On the other hand, many communities, such as Saanich and North Cowichan, are using variable tax rates to reduce the burden on the residential class, or at least allowing residential taxpayers to enjoy the benefits of declining assessment. Admittedly, these are just samples of a much larger experience, but I believe they are fairly representative of the general picture of stable property taxes and responsible use of variable tax rates. As I said earlier, I am greatly encouraged by present trends and the future potential.

This bill also deals with the issues of mill rate limits, debt limits, requisition apportionment and tax-sharing agreements. Under the old system many arrangements operated under formulas expressed in terms of mills. I have to use the obsolete phrase for purposes of illustration. Now that actual value has replaced assessed value as the tax base, the old numbers are no longer valid. For instance, a one-mill limit under the old system might have represented $100,000 worth of revenue, but under the new system one mill might raise as much as $1 million. To prevent unintended tax shifts we must therefore have the power to open up these arrangements and substitute appropriate numbers suitable to the actual-value tax base. For instance, we might substitute a limit of one tenth of a mill, or its modern equivalent, ten cents per thousand dollars of actual value. This is a technical matter aimed at maintaining stability. For similar reasons we are changing the farm exemption from $5,000 in assessed value to its actual value equivalent of $50,000.

On the issue of exemption, I'm proud to confirm that this bill will be used to introduce higher property tax exemptions for industrial and commercial tax payers. As hon. members know, residential tax payers enjoy the benefits of a homeowner grant program worth a quarter of a billion dollars. Likewise the importance of our productive farming communities is recognized through property tax exemptions. Industrial and commercial properties have carried heavy tax loads, partly as a result of the old assessed-value system, which made a significantly greater percentage of their actual value taxable. It is therefore timely that during this period of economic recovery this bill authorizes the use of regulations to provide new industrial and commercial property tax exemptions. Through a companion regulation under the Education (Interim) Finance Act the contemplated level of exemption is $10,000. The government intends to raise the machinery and equipment exemption to $50,000, and these measures will take effect in 1984.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention this bill's provision for the payment of interest on property tax refunds. There is an important principle of fairness here. If an individual's property tax payment is too little or too late he faces penalties in interest; it is therefore only fair that if an individual's tax is reduced — say by a successful assessment appeal — he should receive interest on the excess refunded to him.

[ Page 615 ]

Mr. Speaker, the principles of this bill commend themselves to the House. They have already achieved success, and have been greeted enthusiastically by local officials and the general public. I therefore proudly move second reading of this bill, now.

MR. STUPICH: By bringing in this bill today the government is showing that it is still floundering from flounder to flounder. The government doesn't seem to have any idea at all why we were called together six weeks ago. Six weeks ago this House was called into order, and we listened to an opening speech read by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor.

MR. REID: And a good one.

MR. STUPICH: Someone says it was a good one. I think I'd like to remind that particular member of just a few of the words: "May I express the wish that your goals and aspirations and the needs of the people you represent will be met in the course of your service as individual members and as the Legislature." Then he wound up by saying: "I pray that in carrying out your duties you will reflect fully on the effect and example of your decisions on the people of our province and country."

We've just heard the minister open debate on Bill 7 with a six-, seven- or eight-page load of, essentially, garbage. There was some good material in there, but material that has not been available to the opposition. We had no idea at all what the minister was going to present in introducing second reading of this bill, and now the opposition is expected to give a detailed analysis of legislation that the minister himself knew so little about that he had to read word by word from a document that apparently he's never seen before. What are we doing here on the morning of Thursday, August 4? What does the government have in mind? Do they have any plans at all for the future of this Legislature for looking after the needs and aspirations of the people of this province?

We heard a budget. We discussed that budget for three days, We discussed Bill 3 at great length. What's happened to Bill 3? We discussed Bill 9 at length. The government backed away from that; apparently they don't know what to do with it. We discussed Bill 13. They don't know what to do with that so they've drawn that back. Now they're bringing in Bill 7. The minister talks about the urgency of dealing with this legislation that he tells us has been in effect for three months. The municipalities have all gone ahead and acted on this. To the member down there who has so much to say when he's sitting down — look at the commencement date: "Sections I to 5, 7 to 9, 11, 13 to 19 and 21 shall be deemed to have come into force on the earliest date necessary to give them retroactive effect for the 1983 taxation year." That date was in advance of the budget date, perhaps even in advance of the election date.

We don't need this legislation. Why aren't we talking about an $8.5 billion budget and getting some approval or disapproval, changes or amendments or something? This government has been floundering for two years trying to make up its mind and trying to get up the guts to go to the people with an election. They finally did that, and they won. They're proud of having won. Having won they have absolutely no idea what to do in the kitchen.

They brought in a throne speech, and we did get through that. They brought in a budget; we abandoned it. I don't know whether we'll ever see that budget again. The government did get approval to spend the money for nine months without any serious consideration of any of the details of that budget, then abandoned discussion of it completely and moved into legislation. We are now into the third bill. Bill after bill is discussed and considered. They listen to the opposition; they realize what a terrible mistake they have made. Now we're on the fourth of some 26 bills that were introduced with the budget. As they listen to the opposition in the House and to the growing opposition in the community, they realize that all of their well-made plans — plans that were not revealed during the election campaign, when they didn't tell what they were going to do to the people if they won the election.... As they listen to those well-made plans being torn apart — not just by the opposition, not just by people from every walk of life in British Columbia but also by people all over Canada and internationally, and by the World Council of Churches — they realize what a terrible mistake they have made, bill by bill. Now they've brought one more in and say: "Well, let's get this through, just to show that we can accomplish something because, after all, it’s in effect."

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: The minister of something-or-other is asking if I'm going to block that too. If I thought that minister and his cabinet and his government had any idea at all or any plan for action.... If they'd tell us that there is some game plan, not simply to call us here and waste a summer, and if they knew what they wanted to do, then perhaps we'd cooperate about passing some of the legislation. But bringing up legislation today, six weeks after this House was called into order, to rubber-stamp something that has been in effect for three months is an insult to the Legislature, to the people of the province and to your own back-benchers, but none of them will stand up and say that.

In some of the garbage that the minister read out, he started talking about the difference between actual value and assessed value. Look at the definition of assessed value in the old legislation; it was based on market value. What is market value? There's no such thing, is there? Market value can change from day to day. It's whatever happens between a willing buyer and a willing seller, and one of them is more willing and anxious than the other. What does market value mean? What does assessed value mean? Somebody has to come up with a figure if we're going to rely on property taxation to the extent that we have. The minister talks about what a great change this is going to be, to change the word and say that from now on instead of talking about assessed value we're going to be talking about actual value.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) is getting into the debate, and I hope he'll get up on his feet. I think what he's telling me is that I have absolutely no faith in his administration to administer this or any other legislation. That's certainly the truth.

There is no fundamental difference between actual and market value, except that you're using a different word and there are different letters in it. The minister talks about how proud....

[ Page 616 ]

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I can't see that that has anything particularly to do with this bill, but if you've got anything to say about this bill, I'd love to hear it. Mr. Speaker, would you tell him that if he's got anything to say he should get up on his feet and say it, in due course? He's saying it, yes, but he's got to get up on his feet to say it.

[10:30]

The minister is proud that in some cases property taxes have been kept down for some people, and he read from selected statistics to prove that. I could bring in some statistics to show him what has happened to the property value of people in my riding. Surveys are being taken in different parts of the riding to show what has happened to property taxes, and he's saying they're not happy, but this bill was....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He's not happy. Okay, they're not happy, and this bill was in effect, and this bill was supposed to cure all ills. This bill has failed the people of that community, and, I suspect, has failed the people in communities all over the province.

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: He'll have a chance in second reading. If he would say it louder, so I could respond, I wouldn't mind, but he's sort of grumbling in the background. He doesn't have any more notes. He's stuck. He can't say any more because he doesn't know anything about this legislation.

Interjections.

MR. STUPICH: What facts? I'm asked why I would bother with facts. "Where are the facts? Show me the facts." The minister has talked about how it has kept property taxes down, and I can produce evidence to show that it has not kept property taxes down. I can produce evidence to show that the budget itself.... Remember the one we were going to debate four weeks ago? Four and a half weeks ago we started, and we gave it up. The budget has apparently been withdrawn or abandoned or whatever. There was something in there about property taxation.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for Nanaimo has the floor, and he is entitled to continue without interruption. Other members will have an opportunity to debate when they have the floor.

MR. STUPICH: The government did bring in a budget. The government has accused us of holding up things, of filibustering, of not letting them get on with their business. Someone says: "Agreed." I don't know who it was — it doesn't matter.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You've been wasting the time of this House for weeks.

MR. STUPICH: The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs seems to be working very hard to make sure that he does not serve the consumers in any way at all. His attitude seems to be that if the consumers can't stand up and fight on their own behalf, they should not come to government and seek his assistance. That's his attitude as minister of that department. Okay, that's his attitude, and so be it.

Mr. Speaker, if I may get back to the budget and their concern that we are holding up the business of the House....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: I'm not going to remind you, because you know. Through you, Mr. Speaker, may I remind them that there is a set time to debate the budget, and if they'd bring that budget on they know that they can complete debate on that budget within a period of ten days. Why have they abandoned it? Are they afraid that some of their own backbenchers will have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and say this budget is bad for the people of British Columbia? If they want to do something for the people of the province, that government can — if they think that budget is going to be of any help. I think it will hurt. Maybe by now they think that it will hurt. Maybe they're redrafting the budget. Let's hope they are going to bring in a new budget. That would be the best news of all for the people of the province, if that's really what they have in mind.

What other excuse can they have for abandoning a budget and bringing in legislation — this is the worst insult of all — that has been in effect for three or four months and will accomplish nothing? The government is hoping they'll bring in something that we'll vote for and get it out of the way. Then they can say: "Well, we've accomplished something. We have one bill passed." If that's all they want, they've got the Supply Act passed. Let's go back to the budget and talk about the real problems in the province of British Columbia. Let's quit this nonsense about the difference between actual and assessed value. Let's quit this nonsense about moving from a mill rate to a cents-per-dollar rate. What's the difference? A mill is a tenth of a cent. Isn't this wonderful? We're moving away from mills to cents — ten to one. If that's all this bill is accomplishing, it certainly isn't worth postponing debate on Bill 9, Bill 13, Bill 3 and, above all, postponing debate on the budget.

We are not the ones who are holding up progress in this House. It's the government's own lack of intestinal fortitude and its own inability to plan beyond day-by-day, hoping to get something accomplished. It's the government's own fear of the budget and their concern about having the details of that budget talked about by the opposition and apparently the unwillingness of the back-bench members and the cabinet ministers on the government side to talk about the budget at all that is holding this up. It's their lack of intestinal fortitude in pulling back the budget that is holding up progress in this House.

If we could get back to dealing with the budget, then at least we would know the pattern for debate in the House. We'd have some idea of what the government planned to do. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it's a complete mystery to us. Why are they afraid of talking about that budget? Certainly I would be if I were the Minister of Finance. I wouldn't want it talked about. To give him some.... No, I won't, because it's not

[ Page 617 ]

his budget anyway. It was the Premier who actually drafted the terms of that budget, as far as I am concerned.

The opposition resents being asked to debate Bill 7 this morning. Six weeks after the House came into session we're being asked to deal with something that has been in effect for ten weeks. The municipalities have all been acting on it. It is supposed to have done so much for them, yet if I had had the opportunity this morning I could have brought actual figures in here to show how much property taxes have gone up for individuals. It has not helped them. Who has it helped? Some people have experienced reductions in taxes — some industries and some businesses, in particular. But is that really what we're trying to achieve?

If they don't want to talk about the budget, then I'll talk about it a little bit. They raised the rural taxation rate on property taxes. They're talking about keeping property taxes down, but they raised the rate of taxation. In addition to that they have unloaded further costs on the municipalities. It used to be that there was 75 percent sharing for certain approved municipal works. They have now said 25 percent. Mr. Speaker, how can they talk about having the municipalities pay three times their previous proportion of paying for capital works like that and still talk about how this bill is going to keep down property taxes? It doesn't wash. We need more explanation. We need to get through the budget before we know the effect of the budget upon property taxes.

I can't blame the Minister of Municipal Affairs for not having dealt with the budget, except that he is a member of cabinet, and although he didn't attend the cabinet meeting yesterday when plans were apparently were made to bring in Bill 7 today, someone must have. There are a few cabinet members in the House. Perhaps they would like to get up and discuss Bill 7 in the context of the budget and tell us why it is so important that on Thursday, six weeks after the House was called into session, we completely abandoned all discussion of the government's overall plans for the future of the province of British Columbia — within the next term and certainly within the next year — because we have to discuss Bill 7. It is a bill which the minister himself said isn't terribly important today, because it has been in effect for some eight weeks. People have acted on it. He even boasted about how much money it has saved certain property owners. So it's great.

I have to come back to my original question. On a sunny Thursday in August, if the government doesn't have any plans, doesn't know where it's going, what its direction is or what it wants us to accomplish in the House, then why don't they take a week off? Adjourn the House for a week, or a month. I don't know, perhaps it would take them a year; they apparently are very slow thinkers. Give them the time they need to prepare some plan so that when they bring us back they will know what they want to accomplish. Then they can tell us what they want to accomplish, and maybe this House will get down to doing some of the business that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor adjured us to do on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

What have we done for them? So far we have passed a supply act. We did have a throne speech debate — a very general debate about their plans, which gave some concern in the community. They didn't know the real concern until they saw the legislation dumped on budget day; that's when the concern really built up. People have a right to have an opportunity to know about the discussion of the budget. This kind of legislation can really only be considered in the context of the budget as a whole. It's not a case of opposing this or any of the other particular 26 bills. It's a case of opposing a government that is so rudderless that if the Premier is running the show as he said he was.... He doesn't need a deputy leader anymore. He certainly needs something, because apparently without the deputy leader he's lost all sense of direction. He has no idea what he wants to accomplish in the session. He can't tell his own crew, let alone the members of the opposition and the public in and outside British Columbia.

This government has no idea at all where it's going. It's bringing in bill after bill, listening, then abandoning them and moving on to the next one. It's not a case of voting against or for this bill. It's a case of voting right now against a government that doesn't have any idea at all what it wants to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Prior to recognizing the second member for Victoria, I would remind all members that in debate on second reading we discuss the principle of the bill. I think that members will agree, upon reflection, that some considerable latitude was taken in the last address. I would ask members, when discussing Bill 7, to remind themselves to discuss the principle of the bill.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, your comments about how we approach this bill are interesting. But I also think this bill reflects the total approach to financial management and fiscal responsibility in terms of what the provincial government wants to see happen in the province, particularly in municipalities. It's very important, therefore, that the discussion be given a wide perspective, because the tax system that is given to a municipality which allows them to collect revenue for their....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I'm talking about the tax system that is in place for a municipality to operate its functions, its infrastructure and its government facilities, which is indeed a very big issue. It's not just about variable mill rates or how you go about collecting the taxes.

The municipal level of civic government is the cornerstone of all governments in Canada, and in western democracy. What they do, how they operate, how they fund themselves, is a critical issue. Whether we talk about a variable mill rate and the implications of this particular bill, or whether we stick to just the particular clauses, is not the point. What we are talking about in this bill, and the issues surrounding it, is the whole financial structure of the most important — in my estimation — level of government in this country.

Municipal government is extremely accountable and accessible; consequently, the financial methods in place for collecting their revenue is one that is scrutinized heavily by the local taxpayer. It is one that you can very quickly and directly ask the local council to review and take into consideration. That's extremely difficult with other levels of government, particularly provincial and federal.

[10:45]

When we talk about this particular act, I think we have to talk about the full implications of the financial structure of municipalities. Indeed, that is the root of many of their problems. I won't go into the particular sections of the act at this time. What I would like to talk about initially are the

[ Page 618 ]

problems of generating revenue at the municipal level. Literally hundreds of studies and commissions, not only in British Columbia but also across this country and in other jurisdictions in North America, have tried to come to terms with the financial arrangements and financial problems that municipalities experience. For almost a hundred years experts in financial management have said that the ways of generating revenue through municipalities are archaic, antiquated, unfair and unjust. Indeed they are.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I would ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs to take a look at the report of the Ontario commission on tax reform. It's an extremely good document; in my estimation, it's one of the best documents done in this country in the last 50 years. They came to a number of conclusions, but the overall conclusion of the commission in that study was that in the long term the real estate tax and the inherent inequality in that system has to go.

Other studies done in British Columbia and in other jurisdictions in Canada and in the United States say, basically, that the real estate tax system, the method of generating revenue for civic functions, is unfair and unjust. It is based on a system that I call the unearned wealth syndrome. What happens is that a business person's taxes are based on what that particular piece of property or the building situated on it will bring in the real estate market. It's not particularly scientific. It's based on what's happening in the real estate market of the day. Thousands and thousands of British Columbians who want to live permanently in their homes, who have no intention of moving on or selling, are faced with taxes based upon what their homes or their businesses will bring in the real estate market.

We have seen incredible episodes, particularly in the last few years, in which speculation and property flipping created untold problems for homeowners. Someone will sell his home, making a profit as quickly as possible; the ripple effect on the other 99 percent who don't want to sell their home or leave that particular street is that they pay taxes on what that house brought. Two years ago profits of $20,000 to $30,000 were being made in a week or ten days on houses that were flipped — I know they certainly were in this city. Taxes that year were based on that speculation and flipping. It's not right, particularly for those on fixed incomes. The majority of people don't want to participate in the unearned wealth syndrome — flipping and causing taxes to go up. The only people who benefit are those involved in the flipping. All of us are involved in the cost of that kind of unearned wealth syndrome.

In my estimation, in the estimation of my party and in the estimation of many commissions over the years, that particular element is the root problem of the real estate tax system. It is not based in any form upon the ability to pay. It's based on what the computer says to the Assessment Authority and on a few sales in a few areas of the city. You think your house is worth maybe $60,000 or $70,000, the person down the street sells their house for $150,000 because somebody from Alberta has got the money to pay for it, and suddenly your taxes are based on a $150,000 house. Many people in this province and in this city, the one I know best, cannot afford those kinds of taxes. That is the thing we should be getting at: that our own wealth, the real estate system that generates money for municipalities, is not based upon the ability to pay or upon one's income on an annual basis.

As chairman of finance for the city of Victoria I had the — I wouldn't say privilege.... But I was certainly there at the time when this came in. They call this retroactive; it's now in place, as we all know. I was chairman of finance when we had to take a look at that particular piece of legislation. All municipalities have been forced to take a look at this legislation and how it can be utilized. The variable mill rate per se is not an evil or bad piece of legislation; on the contrary. But what I would say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to the Minister of Finance is that it is no panacea at all.

Basically all the province is doing is removing themselves from the responsibility of trying to ensure that the most efficient level of government has a tax system that is fair and equitable. They're removing themselves from the responsibility of trying to find a system that gets to the real root problems of the municipal revenue-generating system. The way they're doing that is by removing themselves from the responsibility of setting the levels of taxation for particular properties, and saying to local municipalities: "It's your problem now. You pick your own levels; you spread around the inadequacies of that tax system to the best of your ability. At the same time, we in the provincial government will continue to curtail and cut back on provincial revenue-sharing grants" — making it extremely difficult for the municipalities to balance their budgets and maintain their operations in a satisfactory manner. What the government is doing is removing themselves from the responsibility, with the UBCM and all municipalities, of saying to the province of British Columbia: "Yes, we admit that the real estate system is archaic. It's time that it should be totally revamped, and we look towards a system that's based upon the ability to pay, not what your home or property will bring in a speculation market or during an unearned wealth syndrome when it's in full fling." We saw it two years ago, and this government knows the results of that. They heard the whirlwind from taxpayers, all wanting some reduction as quickly as possible. What this government has done is to say: "Okay, we'll just allow you to shift it around and pick the levels for each category, but we won't.... This government does not have the guts or determination to say that what's required is an in-depth, articulate, intelligent, radical alteration of the municipal tax system.

This is a band-aid. All governments use band-aids; I have no particular problems with band-aids. But when it comes to how municipalities gain their revenue, may I remind my colleagues across the floor and everyone else in the House that municipal government is the most efficient, most accountable and the most accessible. I believe that it's all of our responsibility....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: You're right. I believe that. I think we all, on both sides of the House, should take it upon ourselves to admit.... Take out the politics and rhetoric that the variable tax rate is a great panacea and will solve all problems, and say that all we're really doing is tinkering. We're not really resolving the long-term problems.

I will remind my colleagues across the floor, when they introduce and talk about — and they have in this piece of legislation, and I will get to some of those sections either during this debate or during committee stage.... They are

[ Page 619 ]

continuing to control the local municipalities and their decision-making process and centralize to the provincial government various aspects of decision-making the local municipalities have traditionally had. We've seen this move to centralization in other areas. You might as well abandon school boards now.

MRS. JOHNSTON: Rubbish!

MR. BLENCOE: Oh, yes. You might as well abandon school boards, because what you're saying is that you're going to establish how much money they can have, and all they're going to do is shift around those dollars. That's all.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that when you move to centralization and you tell people exactly....

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: They are an elected group, as municipalities are. They are directly accountable to their taxpayers at election time, and that is a long-standing tradition in Canadian local government. School boards are elected, as municipal governments are, and....

MR. SEGARTY: Let them collect their own taxes.

MR. BLENCOE: Municipalities collect it for them.

They are accountable to people at election time. By your moving to take in and control more of their activities, you are eroding — I talked about it with Bill 9, and this minister has another piece of legislation that it continues to erode — independent decision-making of local school boards and municipalities. I don't know if people recognize that it's not just a variable mill rate that's being introduced. The Minister of Finance during the last few years has brought down edicts saying municipalities can only spend 5 percent more or less than their previous budget. He's tried to put it in terms of taxes, but he knows darn well that that's not what he....He was trying to give the impression that he was saying only taxes could go up 5 percent. We all know that wasn't possible. Now what the government is saying is legitimizing the very position they were trying to take that only taxes in local areas could go up a certain point.

[11:00]

There's nothing wrong with trying to keep down taxes. I think we all recognize that we're all involved in trying to end the recession and help where we can. But I would remind this government that elections go on every year or every two years at the school board and municipal levels. They are the ones who set their own budgets and priorities and collect the taxes and are accountable if those taxes indeed go up. That's the way it is. That's the way it should be. If it is the intention of this government to take over more and more of the role of local government, then they should be honest about that. They shouldn't couch it in terms of acts such as this, that it's a great panacea and that it's going to save people tax dollars, that they're going to pay less taxes for their property, because they won't. Cities and villages and towns still have to maintain their infrastructure. They still have to provide those support services in an efficient manner, and dollars have to be found from somewhere. In my six years in municipal government, the last two years of them as the chairman of finance, the limits on municipalities in terms of where they find revenue for their operations are incredible. They really are.

When you think about what the federal and provincial governments can do in terms of looking for new sources of revenue to maintain their operations, municipal governments, under the Municipal Act, are the children of the provincial government, and they're now going to become the infants of the provincial government, because more and more there is a step into their long-standing tradition of local autonomy and decision-making.

Municipalities are strapped for revenue. Their powers to generate additional revenues to ensure that the streets are maintained properly, that the underground services are maintained properly.... When I mention underground services, I would remind you that the minister has just announced a major shift in provincial funding for underground service maintenance. The provincial government traditionally has said that underground services is the responsibility of the provincial government, and it was on roughly a 75 to 25 cost-sharing basis. It's now gone the other way. I don't think the people of this province recognize the significance of that move. I was chairman of public works for a couple of years, and it was always very difficult to get people excited about sewers, drains and underground services. But in an urban municipality or regional district like Vancouver those kinds of services are critical to the orderly running of those municipalities — the health aspects and the safety aspects.

This bill may be, in the eyes of this government, a panacea for trying to do something about the real estate tax system, but what this government is doing in numerous other areas — and the example I use is the sewer and storm drain grant system — is removing a major source of funds from municipal operations. What worries me, Mr. Speaker — and I'm sure it worries many of my colleagues across the way who have been involved in municipal politics — is that municipalities, towns and villages will not be able to maintain those critical services properly. They haven't got the revenue base to do it. You and I know that the major source of revenue is property tax, but there's an ultimate amount of money you can put on the individual homeowner, and I think we're about there already. So what happens is that the municipality is forced to look for other areas to maintain essential services. But they don't have those options; the revenue is not there. So what do they do? They put off essential maintenance. They allow those underground services, those fundamental parts of the municipal infrastructure, to collapse and deteriorate beyond the point of repair.

I really want to emphasize this point, because we have incredible examples in the United States — and I know some of my colleagues across the way who have been involved in municipal politics have read and studied the results of municipalities' avoiding their responsibility in maintaining the infrastructure of cities, villages and towns. In the United States they now face the prospect of having to collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes to repair the basic infrastructures of cities and towns because the money has not been put there on an annual or biannual basis. Municipalities will be put into that position; I know it, Mr. Speaker. As the government removes itself from responsibility at the local level — and this act does part of that.... As the provincial government removes itself from responsibility in helping municipal operations, we are going to see an incredible breakdown, I believe, in those municipal services. I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs will think about that most seriously.

A little bit more about municipal financing, something that some of my colleagues may not be aware of. As I said

[ Page 620 ]

before, I believe municipalities are the most efficient level of government this country has. Everybody knows where those dollars go. They know exactly the kind of services they get for their dollars. They know that when they get their tax notice they can get it broken down into how much is going where, how much of the municipal pie is going to recreation or policing costs. This one important element in municipal financial operations, which unlike other levels of government, and particularly unlike this government, is that municipalities, by law, have to balance their books. They cannot run deficits. I'm not going to get into the intricacies of the pros and cons of deficit financing, but I would say that the incredible onus this government is putting on municipalities in terms of withdrawing further funds — revenue-sharing this year will be cut back, cutbacks in sewer and maintenance programs, millions of dollars into those essential services — is putting municipalities into tighter and tighter financial constraints, and yet by law they cannot run a deficit. So what happens is that they will not maintain those essential services; they will have to let them go; they will have to let them fall apart. They will not have the revenue to pay for them, because if they have a novel idea about how to collect new revenue.... I've seen it happen before: you talk about it, and the provincial government very quickly snaps it up and the municipal government is not allowed to utilize that revenue-generating system.

The strain that this government is putting on local municipalities by its decision to remove itself from the problem-solving process of the municipal tax system is not the answer. This particular Bill 7 is not the answer in terms of the long-term resolution of the real estate tax system.

What I would like to see is this government admit that in its term of office it's prepared to undergo or commission an in-depth study of the real estate municipal tax structure. I'm not talking about tinkering with the variable mill rate again, because that really doesn't do anything. What I'm talking about and asking this government to do is to have the guts and determination to try and find a new tax system for municipal governments.

It is patently unfair and unjust that the senior citizens living in their home for the last 50 years and trying to hold on to that home because it's their shelter and it's been their family home.... It's patently unfair that they should pay the same kind of taxes that the $40,000 or $50,000 or $60,000 executive down the street or over the block pays. It's crazy. It's ludicrous. I want to emphasize that. The executive, or a person making $40,000 or whatever, who is actively participating in the job market — and you have senior citizens on a fixed income who have contributed to the community and the country over the years.... How ridiculous that we should have a tax system that taxes them the same as the executive director down the street.

MR. SEGARTY: We don't.

MR. BLENCOE: We do.

MR. SEGARTY: We don't. We give them homeowner grants.

MR. BLENCOE: You see, there we are. There we have the answer. Instead of taking a look at the fundamental....

MR. REID: Give us something positive. How would you do it? Where would you get the money from?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I'll ask the hon. second member for Surrey (Mr. Reid) and the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) to come to order.

MR. BLENCOE: Before I was rudely interrupted I was....

MR. REID: You weren't rudely interrupted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. REID: Tell the truth. Where does the money come from?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you should name this gentlemen finally. He's been an embarrassment to this House for five weeks.

I was about to try and....

Interjections.

MR. BLENCOE: I imagine the people in the gallery must be totally amazed by this bizarre episode down here: a member of this House trying to speak to this bill in, I hope, an intelligent, rational and sane way, Mr. Speaker, and trying to give this government some of my experience — and there'll be others on this side with experience at the local level — and trying to enter into some kind of intelligent discussion about a particular act.... I hope that is still permissible, and that in this House, which is the senior government level in this province, we haven't come down to where this man wants to come down to: where we can't even talk about anything in a sane, rational and intelligent manner. It is time that certain members of the government recognize that there still can be an intelligent discussion of issues in this House and that we can propose alternatives that are reasonable and that should be taken up.

I was trying to say that what we have is a continuation of the band-aid on a tax system that basically won't work and is unfair, and I gave the example — and it's an honest one; it's the reality of the tax system — of the executive director on a $40,000 or $50,000 salary paying his or her taxes in the same system in which the senior citizens are paying theirs. We heard: "Well, we give them a homeowner grant." That's no answer to the problem; that's what I'm trying to get at. You take in one hand, and you take general taxes in the other hand to return to that senior citizen — their own taxes. You know darn well that the tax system is unfair. The very fact that you have to have a homeowner grant to alleviate the problems of the real estate taxes on senior citizens is the very reason you should take a look at how to build a tax system that's based upon the ability to pay — based upon what you're earning and not on what the XY Real Estate Company thinks they will get for your home. How stupid! How unscientific. Here we are in the most advanced time with incredible technology, scientists, financial analysts and economists. These are highly paid people who have brilliant minds and who have ideas. Yet somehow we don't seem to be able to come up with a tax system that removes the reason we have to help our

[ Page 621 ]

senior citizens through the back door through a homeowner grant on the real estate tax system.

[11:15]

The system is flawed. That's the answer to that member over here, and he knows it. You need a system that's fair, equitable, easily understood and based, to a high degree, on the actual income of the person who is paying those taxes. That's the challenge.

I would seriously ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Municipal Affairs to take up that challenge. Because....

MR. SEGARTY: Put some suggestions on the table. We're listening.

MR. BLENCOE: I've already suggested it. Devise a tax system for municipalities that's not based upon the real estate market but upon the person or the business utilizing those properties and that land — based upon their income or their ability to pay. That's a significant change from what we have now.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, they're saying that the income tax structure is inequitable. All tax systems have their problems.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to continue a little longer.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member indicating to the House that he's the designated speaker?

MR. BLENCOE: Correct, Mr. Speaker.

If we could do the proper business of this House.... Get back to the budget and get off these bills, whose effects have been in place for months, and do the business of this province in an orderly, rational and intelligent way. How ludicrous it is that we're talking about municipal affairs and tax structures at a time when this government has delivered a budget that has a record deficit and is going to cost the average British Columbian another $5,000 in debt servicing. We should be debating that budget in this House instead of bringing in piece after piece of legislation in a desperate attempt to try to get something through this House. They know that British Columbians do not support this budget or this government in terms of what they've been doing in the last few weeks. They're desperate to get something through, Mr. Speaker.

If they don't want to hear me talk about the implications of the planning act or the variable mill rate, Mr. Speaker, they have the course to follow. The course is to go back to the budget and have about seven more days of, I hope, fairly intelligent and rational discussion, and then proceed in an orderly fashion with Bill 1, Bill 2, Bill 3, Bill 4, Bill 5 and down the line to 26. Do you know what we're doing? We've done two or three days of budget debate; we've flipped back and forth. The other day we had the tobacco tax and now we have the variable mill rate. The NDP critic on finance matters was right on: this government doesn't know where it's going. It's rudderless. This bill talks about financial matters and how municipalities are going to collect dollars and cents, but this government believes that it manages the books well and the financial arrangements of this province well. It does. It delivers a budget and doesn't allow the opposition or the province of British Columbia to analyze or enter into a sequence of events that allows us to debate their particular budget.

Here we are on Bill 7, after six weeks. We'd love to get back to the budget debate. We'd love to take a look at why the budget is up 12 or 13 percent and yet we are having massive firings in the public sector.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are now straying quite a bit from Bill 7.

MR. BLENCOE: I know I am, Mr. Speaker, but there was a question from an hon. member about why I was spending time talking about, and having to be the designated speaker on, a piece of legislation that we shouldn't be debating at this time. We should be debating the overall budget, which is the point I was making, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SEGARTY: Now they want to determine the government's priorities.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, we'd love to participate in the government's priorities. We feel that the priorities are somewhat warped and that you have forgotten that you are a government for all British Columbians and not a select few. I think that's something this government has forgotten.

Let's get back to the particular bill at hand. There are some particular sections in here that I would like to address that are of concern not only to myself but to some municipalities: section 10, exemptions for industrial or business property. There's always been a belief, even with the archaic tax system that we have for municipal purposes, that nobody should be exempt or have special privileges under a tax system. This particular section, if you read it correctly, will give special privileges to industrial property holders of business land or businesses in particular municipalities: "In addition to the provisions of any other act, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make regulations prescribing exemptions from property tax levies under any act, in respect of prescribed (a) industrial land or industrial improvements or both or (b) business land or business improvements or both, and different exemptions may prescribe for each class of property."

Mr. Speaker, what this government is doing is deciding that industrialists and business people have some special privilege. Maybe the minister will clarify this, but what this says is that the cabinet, at its whim, can decide to reduce the level of taxation for the business and industrial sector. That's a fairly major shift in terms of trying to derive a fair and equitable tax system for all. I don't want to get into the politician's game of saying: "Maybe this could be subject to abuse." I don't want to talk about the potentials for abuse in this. I'm sure there have to be some very good reasons why this government, in section 10 of this act, would specially remove industrial business land and say that it could have some  special rules apply.

Mr. Speaker, that could create some problems. For instance, why is the average homeowner not given a special exemption here? Does the homeowner not have a big enough lobby, or are they not close enough to this government, in terms of being friends of this government, that they can have a

[ Page 622 ]

special section in the act like the one that allows cabinet to make exemptions or reductions in property taxes for industrial and business holders of property?

I think we need some clarification in that particular section if it is the intention of government, when a particular business or a friend says, "We can't handle our fair share of the municipal tax," to try to find ways of exempting them. If the exemptions are granted, that municipality is still faced with having to generate the revenue to operate that municipality, and the load will fall on the homeowner. There shouldn't be any special exemptions for industrial business property. The fact that you have to put that in there is again an indication to me that the property tax system basically doesn't work.

I know that industrial property holders in the city of Victoria went through some real problems. I worked with them, along with my colleagues on city council, to see if we could find some ways to relieve their tax burden. To give you some insights into what was happening and why those industrial property-holders were in trouble, and why this minister and this government aren't tackling the root problem, let me tell you what happened.

The majority of the property holders in the city of Victoria are related to water. I think there are 93 of them at the last count and going fast. They're adjacent to water egress. There are good reasons for that, obviously: traditional transportation networks, commodities, services and products coming in from the Inner Harbour. They are particularly around the Inner Harbour. I don't have exact figures in front of me, but some of those industrial property holders saw their assessments go up 50 to 100 percent last year. We tried to help them out a little bit. This is very complicated stuff. I'm trying to simplify it for the Minister of Municipal Affairs; I'm sure he doesn't understand all the implications of this act, or at least he didn't give me to understand that he did. Their assessments jumped astronomically. Everyone cried: "Help! We've got to do something about this." They came to city council and hammered on the door and said: "You are going to tax us out of existence. Reduce our taxes." It's always the local council that has to deal with the results of provincial legislation vis-à-vis a real estate tax system.

Not being one to panic when inundated by a very intense lobby, I and my staff decided to take a look at what was happening to the assessment system for industrial property holders in the Inner Harbour, of which there are, as I've said, about 93. What was happening is something that has to be rectified by an in-depth reappraisal, a relook at the tax system for municipalities. I wish I had a board so I could draw it. You have industrial property holders close to the water; behind and surrounding them is what is called upland property. What was happening is that certain interested developers and property holders were talking about major condominium developments and escalation of land prices. It was all fliers. Former alderman Bob Wright, who is a well-known Socred supporter, flew an idea that he was going to redevelop what's called the Rock Bay area into an exclusive, expensive condominium housing development. Because of that flier — again showing the unscientific tax system — values of the upland property surrounding those industrial bases escalated overnight, not based on any earned wealth. The unearned syndrome again. The industrial property holders adjacent to that area where the flier was put up in terms of a huge development saw their assessments go up accordingly.

[11:30]

Those industrial property holders want to do work. They want to build. They want to employ there. They want to use that land for industrial purposes. The industrial infrastructure of Victoria is extremely shaky, and it's not being helped by this particular budget or this government's attitude to regional economic planning in this area. But that's another issue; if we ever get back to the budget debate I'll talk about it. Those industrial property holders just want to do a little bit of business — B.C. Forest Products, machinery works. Some industries have been there for 50 or 100 years, providing jobs for 50, 60, 70 people. Little groups of woodworkers who occupy maybe five or six lots on industrial property and who for years have paid a reasonable tax level suddenly, because of this speculation — this unearned wealth syndrome that is a major factor on the real estate tax system in British Columbia — are facing assessments and taxes based on inflated market values in the upland areas. Think about that. That's what you base your tax system on. That's what you try and tinker with with the variable mill rate. I suspect that's why this government has had to introduce section 10, which will allow industrial business people certain exemptions. They know they've got to introduce these kinds of exemptions because that very system they continue to support and refuse to analyze at its root won't work and is unfair.

I saw first hand that industrial property holder situation. They said: "We have no intentions of selling. We don't want condominiums on our property." Well, maybe one or two of them did. But many of those industrial holders in Victoria — and I'm sure some of my colleagues on this side will talk about industrial holders in their ridings — are dedicated, long-term employers in this region. Many of them are old family businesses and want to continue to operate, but it's been made extremely difficult by a tax system about which basically for 100 years we've said: "It's really a bad one. We wish we could do something about it, but no one's got the guts to do it." This government should have the guts to do something about it, because this very piece of legislation shows the flaws: they have to exempt business and property taxes at certain times from the property tax system. This piece of legislation and the next piece — Bill 12, I believe it is — is just a tinkering, just a band-aid. It does nothing to resolve the long-term problems of taxes at the municipal level.

I would like to suggest that if this government is serious about giving a hand to the industrial property holders....

I have a particular soft spot for those industrial property holders in the city of Victoria, because indeed many of them are family businesses and have been here a long time. They provide not a lot of jobs, but combined together they are a major source of employment. They're good, solid Victoria families, and they care about this community. They're not like the multinational corporations, which at times don't particularly care about a community. These industrial property holders that I'm talking about in Victoria...

MR. REID: And around the province.

MR. BLENCOE: You talk about your own riding and I'll talk about mine.

... have been here a long time, and they care.

The government Whip has given me a note, and I'm afraid I can't read his writing.

MR. VEITCH: Sit down and I'll tell you.

[ Page 623 ]

MR. BLENCOE: Am I being trapped, Mr. Speaker? You wouldn't do that to me. I'm a rookie MLA in this House just trying my best to get along with the government and give you a few ideas on how you can improve your legislation and really do a favour to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

If this government is serious about helping those industrial property holders — and I've tried to share my thoughts about the ones we have in Victoria — they would devise a provincial industrial policy. Don't put in section 10 of the variable mill rate, which really can be abused if certain friends of the government say: "Hey, give me an exemption." That's not the way to do it, because if you're doing that it shows you've got some real problems with this tinkering. Even with the tinkering there are flaws. The tinkers won't work.

What this government should do is introduce an industrial policy that says, in effect, that industrial land — I don't know the exact wording; I don't profess to be a lawyer — should not be subjected to uplands speculation creating high assessments of those industrial properties. There should be a special class of industrial properties — and there is — because the total assessment system looks at all land in a particular precinct and says that if an industrial property holder or some developer wants to build a condominium it's going to be worth this, and so we're going to tax you with this. There should be a policy to eliminate that kind of speculation and that kind of impact on industrial property. I would suggest to this government that if they are really serious about helping the industrial property holder, they will look at a provincial industrial policy that will resolve that problem. I agree that it has to be done.

I'm quite prepared to give a hand to the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he wants some ideas from the city of Victoria or from some of our other jurisdictions. We'll give you our concerns and how we think it could perhaps be worked out. But don't put in an exemption that can be abused. It's reminiscent of the regional planning bill before us, Bill 9. Some would say — I'm not saying I would say this — that this is the Spetifore amendment of the variable mill rate legislation. The fact that they now have an exemption in here just for industrial and business property holders could make it subject to abuse. If they're serious about trying to relieve those problems for the industrial and business property holders, they should deal with that in separate legislation and in a separate industrial policy.

As I said, our party is not necessarily enamoured with this piece of legislation.

Interjection.

MR. BLENCOE: Well, Mr. Speaker, you see, the minister didn't give us the opportunity to take a look at the particular aspects of the legislation. We didn't see the act. We now see all sorts of things in here that really do give us some concern.

I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Schroeder moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:43 a.m.