[ Page 1243 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Ms. Brown –– 1243

Mr. Cocke –– 1247

Mrs. Dailly –– 1251

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1983

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing and Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Brummet) and all members on this side of the House, we note with sadness the passing of a very well known and respected British Columbian in the person of George L. Chatterton, whose death was reported today. Interestingly enough, Mr. Chatterton's career spanned four forms of government, largely but not exclusively on the southern end of Vancouver Island: on the school board; in civic government in the municipality of Saanich, where he served as reeve — as the position was then known; then in the senior ranks of government in the province of British Columbia; and also as the Member of Parliament for Esquimalt-Saanich. I think there are very few of us in this chamber, younger or older, who did not have contact with him and a good relationship with him in one way or another over the years. Perhaps the House could express its sympathy to Mrs. Kitty Chatterton and the family, through you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D'ARCY: Further to the remarks of the member for Saanich and on behalf of my colleague the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson), I wish to echo his sentiments and to note that Mr. Chatterton worked with three provincial governments, with members of all parties. When he was with the Housing ministry he was of tremendous assistance to all members of this House and of great benefit to the people of B.C. I can say, on behalf of the people in my own riding, that he was especially helpful with four major housing projects. I believe the same could be said for every other constituency and member in the province. He will be missed.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to unduly delay this, but there is a part of his work that should be mentioned: that is, the work he took on immediately after the end of the war, when on behalf of many veterans he assisted them in the administration of the Veterans' Land Act. I had personal contact with him on behalf of many people in my area, including one of my brothers. May I say that he was extremely helpful and a perfect gentleman to work with in every way.

HON. MR. McGEER: On a somewhat happier note, I would ask the Legislature to make welcome the new president of Simon Fraser University, Dr. Saywell, who is in the members' gallery today, with a familiar figure, Mr. Fred Moonen, who among the many roles he plays in British Columbia is a member of the board of governors of that distinguished institution. I hope the members will make the two visitors welcome.

MR. CAMPBELL: Mr. Speaker, today we have in the gallery Mr. Peter Falkins from Okanagan North, who is a well-known businessman in Vernon. I would like to welcome him.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to again introduce the squire of Surrey, Mr. Tom Anderson. He was in the House yesterday and was so intrigued by the debate that he's come back for another day.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 22.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1983

(continued)

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, did I adjourn debate on Bill 22? Can you tell me?

MR. SPEAKER: I don't believe so, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: No, I didn't. Okay. I'll just have to get a copy of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

In speaking in opposition to this particular piece of legislation, I think I should start off by giving a couple of reasons why I'm doing so. First of all, I want to say that Bill 22 cannot be viewed in isolation because it is, in fact, complementary to Bill 7 and Bill 12, both of which propose variable mill rates for municipalities and for other property taxation. Although I would be out of order if I started to talk about Bill 7 and Bill 12, it's very difficult to talk about Bill 22 without reflecting on the fact that it really is a part of a package of three bills dealing with the municipality and the whole question of taxation.

This bill introduces a new system of designing assessments. It introduces an interim revised assessment roll. Instead of operating every year the way the present assessment roll operates, it will operate every second year. That is really fraught with all kinds of hazards, as was experienced recently when we found that property values — certainly in British Columbia — skyrocketed for no apparent reason and dived also almost as quickly as they went up.

[10:15]

What would happen, for example, to someone who was caught at either end of such a spiral, either at the very top, in terms of having their property assessed at the peak of that spiral, or if they were caught having their property assessed at the very bottom of the spiral, is that they would be stuck with this assessment for two years. It's very difficult to understand, first of all, why the minister responsible for this piece of legislation would move to a two-year cycle, especially when we have as volatile a market in real estate as we do in this province at this time — or in fact, have always had in this province.

It has not been the experience that the market is steady and that properties increase gradually in terms of their value over a period of years, or that property decreases gradually over a period of years, or even that their value tends to remain frozen for any extended period of time. The very opposite tends to happen, whether through the vagaries of the private market, through the economic experiences of the world in general or what's happening here in British Columbia. The only thing we know is that the value of property is very

[ Page 1244 ]

volatile: it goes up very quickly, and it goes down very quickly.

Certainly the experience that we had not more than a year ago was that a number of people who were caught at the top of the market with their assessment at peak value, which everyone agrees now was an artificial peak and certainly an artificial value, found themselves when the following assessment year rolled around paying taxes or being assessed in terms of paying taxes much higher than the actual value of their property. This is going to make that worse, because before, a person stuck with a high assessment knew that within a year their property was going to be reassessed and that they would have some relief in terms of a rollback on the tax roll. This is not going to happen once this bill becomes law. They're going to find that they're going to be stuck with that assessment for two years. As I said before, I cannot understand why the minister would introduce this at this time.

The other feature of the bill is that there are changes to the dates of the assessment cycle for the 1984 year, and what we are told is that the 1983 tax roll will be used. People need an annual updated assessment on their property to protect them from paying high taxes based on old assessments; or, at the other end of the spectrum, to protect the rest of the community from people paying less taxes than they should be paying in terms of the real value of their property. Property tax is unfair anyway, because it isn't based on people's ability to pay; it's an artificial kind of decision based on what is perceived to be the value of the property. But the least that we could do to protect people against the unfair way in which the tax is levied is to assess their property every year.

Apart from the introduction of the revised assessment roll and the odd improvement, such as requiring landlords to provide copies of assessment notices to commercial tenants, most of this bill is concerned with terminological changes consequent to the alteration of the assessment cycle.

I don't want to slough over the good things that the bill does and just concentrate on the bad things. I think this is a positive thing this bill does: if tenants ask to see the assessment on the property they are leasing, they should be allowed to do so. In fact, it's not just a matter of showing them the assessment notice; the legislation recommends that they be given a copy. The trend is to commercial tenants — people who are leasing commercial property — being asked to pay a part of the taxes levied against that particular property, and whereas in the past they have had to take the landlord's word for it that the assessment is X number of dollars, this legislation gives the tenant some kind of protection in that the tenant now has the right to to see a copy of the assessment notice. Anything that will protect the tenant is positive, and we are certainly in support of that. The problem that we have is when legislation is introduced which links positive factors with negative ones; when legislation is introduced that benefits one segment of the community, but at the same time penalizes another segment. So we have the incredible dilemma of deciding what to do in terms of a piece of legislation. Do we support it, based on the fact that it is a protection for commercial tenants? Or do we reject it, based on the fact that the changes in the assessment date, the revised system of assessment, and the laying off of assessors, are in fact negative and have had a negative impact on a part of the community?

I think what we really need are further amendments to the legislation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: In committee.

MS. BROWN: We certainly go into detail in committee when we deal with the legislation section by section, but in talking about the spirit of the bill rather than the details, I think we can reject it outright. Revising the assessment year and the whole way in which the assessments are being done tends to penalize the majority of the people and takes away the protection against unfair property taxation, which is the only protection that property owners have. It doesn't make sense to recommend amendments in the committee stage when it's the whole spirit of the bill that needs to be rejected.

I wonder why the minister would not consider pulling the bill, because it is part, as I said earlier, of the package that goes along with Bill 7 and Bill 12, which together create an intrusion, first of all, into the municipal level of politics. It intrudes on the rights of municipal politicians who are duly elected by the democratic process by the people in their communities. Pull this whole package of municipal legislation and introduce these ideas and concepts in the form of a White or Green Paper — whatever you want to call the paper — for discussion.

The Union of B.C. Municipalities will be meeting next week in the Okanagan. That would be a good time for the minister to announce that they're acquiescing to their wishes, because a number of municipal politicians have said, either in writing or in public statements to the minister, that this is what they would like to see done. They would like to see the package of legislation which infringes and impinges on municipal politics pulled, and to have more discussion around the whole idea and the whole concept of what the minister is trying to do, prior to any legislation being drafted.

It seems to me that the UBCM meeting would be a good place for the minister to announce his intentions to do just that. I am not reflecting on Bill 7 or on Bill 12 –– I am merely saying that Bills 7, 12, 22 and perhaps 9 — no just 7, 12 and 22, that municipal package, and Bill 17, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SKELLY: And Bill 17.

MS. BROWN: Oh, those are the miscellaneous statutes, aren't they? Yes, the homeowner grant. Okay, pull the section of the miscellaneous statutes which also does that — part of Bill 17 — and introduce it in the form of discussion papers. Ask the UBCM to go back to the local councils and to discuss that; to hold public hearings to give the local members of the commercial community as well as the residential community, everyone involved...to talk to them about these ideas, to suggest changes and to make recommendations; then to come back to the minister themselves, with briefs that would embody the ideas culled from the communities and the neighbourhoods they represent and back with ideas in terms of the kind of legislation they would like to see.

Mr. Speaker, if that were done, I think we would find a different kind of legislation being introduced at this level. First of all it seems to me at this point that to decide to fire assessors, to cut back on the number of assessors who do the job of assessment, is actually a step backward. Really, what the minister is trying to tell us to do is to go to assessing in terms of the actual value of property. Now you don't do that, Mr. Speaker, by having assessments every two years, to start with. You do that by having assessments at least once a year. And you don't do that by having random assessments. It's not fair, for example, for the person living at 5762 to be assessed,

[ Page 1245 ]

while the person living at 5764 isn't assessed because it is a system of random assessments, simply because there are not enough assessors to do everybody's assessments every year. So I think that to tie in the two-year assessment and the laying off of assessors, as this bill proposes, is short-sighted, and is not going to give us a more fair or equitable system of property taxation for those people who own property. We are talking about commercial — you know, the people who lease property — at the same time as we are talking about homeowners.

If the minister were really serious about wanting to improve the system, what he should be looking at is the whole area of speculation: the whole concept of buying and selling property on speculation, making an unnatural profit on land, making it so that the average person can no longer afford to purchase property; young families starting out are finding it difficult to purchase property. It is even more important now at a time when the government is cutting its assistance to first time homeowners and to people who want to purchase. If there were some way the minister would address himself to that question, to making it more fair and equitable in terms of the purchasing of property, the assessing of property and the design of property taxation, I think it would be more useful to the community at large, rather than this particular piece of legislation.

[10:30]

We are told that it is part of the downsizing of government, this business of cutting back on assessors. Well, the number of assessors hired in the province has been frozen since 1975. There has not been an incredible increase in the number of people doing the assessment job. So when the minister talks about cutting back, we are really going back almost to the beginning of time; we are going back to pre-1975 figures. That doesn't make sense. The whole speculation in land, the whole volatile business in terms of the value, cost and the development of land has all happened since then. If ever there was a time that we needed to be vigilant in terms of assessment to be sure that they were honest, fair and accurate — with accent on the word "accurate" — it's now. To be using a 1975 staff figure to deal with 1983 problems is pretty short-sighted on the part of the government. But that's not what the government is doing. They are even going to cut back on the 1975 staff figure. It's going to lay the whole thing wide open in terms of speculation. I think that is the direct opposite of what the minister tells us he is trying to do.

Mr. Speaker, in criticizing this bill I would like to suggest that it is important that we have to broaden the scope of the whole assessment concept and look at the historical performance of the assessment authority and the government's plan for its future. When the NDP was government between 1972 and 1975, we tried to tackle this question of assessment. It's always been a contentious one. No one is ever satisfied with their assessment. Either the assessment is too low but the taxes are too high — which is usually the way we feel about it — or else the assessment is too high and the taxes are too high.

One of the things that we did when we were government was to strike a committee. I notice that the House Leader is chuckling because he remembers. He wasn't on that committee. I was on that committee. He didn't qualify at that time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'm not like you. I didn't have a rich enough house.

MS. BROWN: Well, we can’t all have the best. We can't all live in Burnaby-Edmonds. I extend my sympathy to the little minister from Vancouver–Point Grey, because I know that given the option, everyone would want to live in Burnaby-Edmonds. It's not possible, so all I can do is extend my sympathies to the minister.

However this assessment authority of which I was a member and there were members from the.... Was there a Liberal Party at that time? I think there was; I can't remember who the Liberal member was. I think it was Dave Brousson. However, our responsibility was to travel around and meet with municipal governments, councils and individuals to get recommendations from them on what they felt would be the fairest way to compute assessments. We were looking for the best  way to go around and decide the actual or true value of a piece of property and then, based on that, to decide what would be the fairest way in terms of levying taxes against it.

We've always had problems with that. For example, one of the problems we have is with people who have always lived in a home and grow old in that home. The value of the house goes up and they now find themselves on a fixed income and unable to meet the taxes on the property, which is assessed and valued at a much higher level than they actually can afford. Because that is their home and where they've always lived, they'd like to remain living there. You've heard about people being land-rich and being impoverished as a result of that. So we grappled with how to deal with this. How do we make it possible for people to continue to live where they've always lived, despite the fact that the property now is assessed at a much higher rate than the taxes which they can afford to pay?

The other question that we had to deal with, Mr. Speaker, is what happens when the zoning of the property all around you changes upwards in terms of the value, and suddenly it goes from being a single-family neighbourhood to commercial or light industrial and you want to continue to live in that single-family home.

It's interesting that last weekend I was at the PNE at our booth, and one of the people who stopped by to talk mentioned that there was a grandfather clause, which I was not aware of, that goes back to the 1940s and that says if you owned your property prior to 1945, I think it was — and I promise to check this out, because as I said I was not familiar with that — it wouldn't matter that the zoning around you changed; your property would retain its single-family housing assessment qualifications. One of the things this person was complaining about was that that date hadn't changed, that the 1945 date was still the one in effect. Here we are nearly 40 years later and that date is still there even though we've had a real explosion in terms of real estate development since that time. He wanted to suggest that one of the things the government should be looking at is an amendment which would update that grandfather clause, say, every 15 or 20 years and move the date up five or ten years. In other words, if you purchased a home 20 years ago in 1963, which was in at that time a single-family neighbourhood, and suddenly all around you the houses were being demolished and replaced by highrise apartments, you could continue to have your house assessed as a single-family home and not be influenced by the fact that the taxes all around you were escalating because the assessment of the land all around you was escalating. As long as you continued to live in that house, you

[ Page 1246 ]

would continue to pay and have your house assessed as a single-family dwelling.

One of the things he suggested was that once you sold the house or moved, or whatever, then the assessment and the taxes would change. That's the kind of amendment we would have liked to have seen the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie) — who isn't here, incidentally.... Oh, it's Finance; I'm really pleased that the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) is here and taking notes. Maybe he can give me some information about this. I think he said it was Bill 80; I really must confess that I have not had an opportunity to check that out and find out how accurate it was. This older gentleman who stopped at the booth to speak to me is someone who has lived on his property for a long time, but he bought it in the 1950s, so although he has lived there for 30 years or more he just missed out on this grandfather clause. What has happened is that in the neighbourhood he moved into, which contained average family homes, those homes have been demolished and been replaced by apartment blocks and the whole zoning has been changed. This is in the East End of Vancouver. Even though he continues to hang on to his house and 40-foot lot, or whatever it is, he is finding that his property is being assessed way beyond anything he can afford to deal with, and his taxes are really becoming quite burdensome. As we pursued this further, he agreed that it was kind of a catch-22. When he was ready to sell it would be nice to show this really nice high assessment in terms of the market price, and we agreed that he couldn't have it both ways. If there was an amendment so that his assessment and taxes were kept down, then the selling price would be affected by that. However, I made a commitment that this was something I would explore with the minister responsible, and find out first of all what kind of experience the government had had in implementing that particular bill, that grandfather clause, and if there was any thought at all on the part of the government of indexing the dates maybe every 15 or 20 years and moving them up five or ten years as the case may be.

One of the suggestions that has been made, and certainly one of the ones I would associate myself with, is the argument that the Assessment Authority has really been a model Crown corporation. It runs as if it's responsible to its shareholders, and there isn't any question about its efficiency. It really has been efficient. As a matter of fact, as I said, during that period of 1980 to 1982, when property values were going absolutely berserk and no one knew from one day to another just what the value of property would be, somehow the assessments managed to keep tabs. The following year, when the values plunged and people's assessments were out of line, municipal councils took that into account, and assessments were very quickly and very easily adjusted because they had at their disposal the expertise and were able to consult with these very efficient people who work for the Assessment Authority. I can't say enough about the efficiency. I certainly was impressed with the Authority, as I said. When our committee travelled around the province, I certainly was impressed with their patience with us. Quite frankly, they were trying to teach us how to translate assessment into property taxes, and that's not the easiest thing to do. But they managed to make us reasonably proficient in that way, and enabled us to deal with those kinds of concepts. We find, however, that having been a good Crown corporation and exemplary in terms of how they discharged their responsibilities to both the government and the community at large, they're going to be penalized: rather than being rewarded by the government, they're facing financial cuts and are being told that a number of them are going to lose their jobs.

I'd like to put a couple of questions about this to the minister. What kind of research, for example, has the minister done to guarantee that after the financial cuts and the cutbacks in staff, the Assessment Authority will still be able to discharge its responsibilities to the community at large as efficiently as in the past? I see the minister is making notes again. You are ready to respond to my question, is that it?

[10:45]

As a matter of fact, the minister was on that assessment committee. I remember that he had a birthday while the committee was in Cranbrook. We threw a great party for him but forgot to invite him. Actually, it was one of the best birthday parties I ever went to. I think the minister turned 29 when we were in Cranbrook, holding hearings in terms of ways and means to improve the Assessment Authority and help them to do a better job. With that kind of information and experience, I don't understand why the minister would not have repeated that. Why wouldn't the minister have a committee of the House travel around to municipalities, taking the concepts and ideas embodied in Bills 7, 12 and 22, and in the section in Bill 17 that deals with the homeowner grant...? Why not use the legislative committees? Maybe the Committee on Municipal Affairs and Housing could have been used. Or the minister could repeat his experience of '73 and '74 and strike an independent committee, made up of members of both sides of the House, to travel and present these ideas to the local elected members, as well as to individuals in the community at large, and ask them to respond. As I said, these could have been presented in the form of a White Paper or whatever, and then briefs could be asked for, either written or spoken, at meetings of the committee, so that we could explore these ideas before they were made into legislation.

Instead, the minister is introducing three pieces of legislation, all of which, as I mentioned earlier, assault locally elected governments, impinge and infringe on the rights and responsibilities of municipally elected politicians, who have been democratically elected at the local level, based on the assumption that the grassroots locally elected politicians have a better understanding of local needs than do politicians or bureaucrats in Victoria. Instead, we have centralization and interference with that level of government, through these three pieces of legislation. They are companion pieces of legislation. I am not really reflecting on the other two bills; I'm just saying that they are part of the package. This package that has been introduced really erodes the responsibilities of the local politicians, and by so doing it erodes the power of the community in terms of how it exercises its franchise, because local politicians are elected by the community to do a job.

When you go to the polls in November — as will happen, for example, in Burnaby — and you elect your local councillors to administer the government at that level, you really think that you have the power to make decisions about who should be your local representatives and how they should deal with those particular pieces of responsibility. What we have is a provincial government then moving in and eroding their base, eroding their powers, taking away their responsibilities and saying: "Now we're going to take responsibility for that." What does that make of the local voter? What does that make of the person living in Burnaby, for

[ Page 1247 ]

example, who voted for a local councillor or a member of the school board, or whatever? It makes a mockery. It really does. I know we're talking about Bill 22. All I'm saying is that it is part of the package which is really making a mockery of the democratic system as exercised at the local level.

This is the reason I believe the minister should withdraw this piece of legislation.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What? Oh, Rosemary!

MS. BROWN: Yes, I think the minister should withdraw this piece of legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Have another committee. You're committee-happy.

MS. BROWN: Well, you know, it's not a matter of being committee-happy; it's a matter of recognizing that there should be some consultation, that some discussion should take place.

HON. MR. CURTIS: There was. Why was I travelling around the province for six weeks?

MS. BROWN: Well, I know. But he travels by himself and comes back with a piece of legislation. What do we know about what he was doing when he was travelling around the province, Mr. Speaker? None of the elected members on either side of the House were a part of that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: They were public meetings. Where were you?

MS. BROWN: I was not a part of the committee. Mr. Speaker, he was a part of a legislative committee when he was in opposition. I can't remember whether he was a Conservative at the time, or Social Credit, but whatever he was at that time, he was a part of a legislative committee which travelled around the province to discuss assessments and ways and means of making the Assessment Authority work better. Now he says he travels by himself, and why didn't any other elected member show up at his public meetings? That is not the democratic way to do it. That is not the correct way to do it, Mr. Speaker, and that minister knows that full well. That is precisely why....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: Okay. I have the opportunity now, on the floor of this House, to say that that was not the correct way to do it, that we are not going to support this legislation, that there was not democratic consultation in which members on both sides of the House were given the opportunity to participate in those hearings. We were not given that opportunity. The minister should withdraw this package of legislation, should turn it over to a legislative committee, such as the one he travelled with when he was in opposition, when he had an opportunity to listen to what the public had to say and had an opportunity to be a part of the drafting of the report which was tabled on the floor of this House when he was in opposition. He had that opportunity, and he knows very well how well that system worked. Instead of repeating that and giving both sides of the House the opportunity to be a part of that consultation, to be a part of drafting a report to be tabled in this House from which the legislation....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. MOWAT: The cricket match is over.

MS. BROWN: Well, the cricket match may be over, Mr. Speaker, but I for one don't believe that chivalry is yet dead. So I'm going to terminate my statements and then the members can cheer afterwards.

I'm opposed to this piece of legislation, and I regret very much that the minister responsible for it did not see fit to introduce it first in such a manner that there could be consultation on both sides of the House before it became law.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the comments of the Minister of Finance across the floor. That's largely why I got to my feet in this debate.

In the last eight years I have never seen anything from the government or its ministers but disdain for the legislative process in our province, and the legislative....

MR. REYNOLDS: Not true.

MR. COCKE: You should get to your seat if you're going to make comments like that, and you should stand up and defend that government you so brightly support.

Mr. Speaker, they have total disdain for the way of legislative bodies across the country and the way the legislative body here once worked. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) was talking about the committee system. The committee system works in virtually every democracy in the world. The committee system does more than permit a minister to put on his morning coat and black tie, or whatever, and go out and talk to selected groups throughout the community of the province asking questions and determining answers that he feels are best fitted for his needs. The committee system worked well when used, and the committee system that that minister has such disdain for could have worked well here.

On Bill 22, would we be having debate today had the legislative process been adhered to? When you're making far-reaching changes in tax or assessment procedures, the best thing to do is involve the legislators themselves; in so doing, you commit them to report to their colleagues, making suggestions that certain areas be covered in terms of the changes of procedure. We saw no part of that. The minister said: "Why didn't you follow me around?" I would like the minister to bring in here the notices of when he was in New Westminster, when he was in the lower mainland, when he was throughout the province as he promised us he was, travelling around for six weeks as he indicated. There was no fanfare at that time, and there is no fanfare now.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, at this point we seem to be discussing affairs which might best be discussed during the estimates of the Minister of Finance. We are on a bill that is quite specific with respect to assessments. Perhaps we could relate our remarks to the principle of this bill.

[ Page 1248 ]

MR. COCKE: I recognize how specific the bill is, and I am suggesting that when changes are made in a statute such as this one I'm looking at right here, those changes are sufficiently significant not just to involve the minister and those people he chooses to talk to, but should be involving people like you, me and other legislators in this parliament. It did not occur.

For instance, nobody asked the question about whether or not you should eliminate the $50-a-day fine for pipeline companies.

MR. PARKS: Oh yes, we did.

MR. COCKE: You did, and you agree with that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, we are really straying from the principle of the bill at this point.

MR. COCKE: I'm not straying, Mr. Speaker. That is part of this bill. Fifty dollars a day was eliminated. Fifty dollars a day was the fine for any pipeline company that did not bring in its manifesto to the commissioner and state the lengths of its pipelines, the amount of gas it was delivering, or whatever else it was delivering through the pipeline. I'd have to take you back to the section, but it's there, very straightforward. You can't read it in the bill, because it says certain things are substituted or eliminated. That, Mr. Speaker, was eliminated. I don't like to get into the committee stage of the bill; I'm just telling you about the principle of the bill. That is part of the determination of this bill. If you go to section 19 of the original Assessment Act you will find that in this amendment you are eliminating among other things the fine of 50 bucks a day.

[11:00]

The original act calls for the pipeline companies to produce certain documents to the commissioner. That's all very well and good. You ask them to do it, but what if they don't do it? In the old days, they were rather motivated to do it because if they didn't they were confronted with a $50-a-day fine. You will find that nowhere in the amended act once this amendment passes.

I'll get back to what I was saying. Had there been just, good cause for this — it wasn't mentioned in the minister's opening remarks — then a committee studying the proposition could very easily have gone back to their colleagues and said: "The reason for this is thus and so." But the only reason that we have before us is the reason of the bill.

HON. MR. GARDOM: A leadership speech, I can hear it.

MR. COCKE: Holy doodle! You think I should go, Garde? You never know, with his support.

Mr. Speaker, there's another aspect to the bill which worries me, and now that the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Schroeder) is here I'll bring up this aspect: nobody was consulted, and certainly the minister, when introducing the bill, said absolutely nothing about the aspect in this bill which eliminates a person's availability to go to the commissioner and apply for certain lands to be taken out and assessed as farmlands.

It tells all about how you assess farmlands and so on and so forth, but the beginning of that section in the original act provides that a person — you, for instance, Mr. Speaker — owning a large chunk of land, let's say for the sake of argument in the Prince George area.... On that large chunk of land you're running some livestock and planting a little bit of this, that and the other thing. You now haven't got at your disposal, once this is passed, the necessary facility to go and ask that that be taken out. You have to hope that some logically minded assessor comes along and notes that you are farming. Under this act assessments are now made every two years, as opposed to trying to update them each year, so you, Mr. Speaker, as my example, could very easily be stuck with a pretty hefty tax as a result of wrongful assessment.

These are the reasons why I suggest that there is a real place in parliamentary democracy — if a government has any kind of concern for that process — and the real place is that legislators are able to go out and acquaint themselves with the needs of the total community. I can't believe the way this place has deteriorated. Even in W.A.C. Bennett's day we had standing committees of this House that became informed. Why did they become informed? Because they were able to listen to witnesses — as you would under this bill — who were highly informed and could produce the arguments that were necessary so that a logical conclusion could be arrived at.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: You sure can't do that under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker. And what are those back-benchers doing who are so loquacious from their chairs? What are they doing to inform themselves about Bill 22, for example? Has one single, solitary person from that back bench got up and established any arguments whatsoever with respect to this bill? You can't tell me they have, because they haven't.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not the principle of this bill, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: The principle of this bill, Mr. Speaker, is that....

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please come to order.

MR. MOWAT: Doom and gloom.

MR. COCKE: What the hell has that got to do with anything, Mr. Member for Little Mountain? He has nothing more to say than to sit there listening to logical arguments and making remarks like "doom and gloom."

MR. MOWAT: It's a waste of time. You have not spoken to the bill yet. You've got nothing logical to say. You've got the same speech every time you get up.

MR. COCKE: I've spoken specifically to this bill, if you would listen. If you can't listen, why don't you stand up and speak to it yourself? Or sit and speak to it, as you will.

Mr. Speaker, I'm criticizing this bill not on the basis of large amounts of information; they haven't been afforded one. What one has to do under these circumstances is to go to the original act that's being amended and take the new bill and look at what those amendments might do in terms of one's own logic. Wouldn't one be far better prepared to argue or to

[ Page 1249 ]

support this bill, one way or the other? The minister tells us that he was out there listening to people in the community. Would we not be better prepared to argue Bill 22 had we been afforded an opportunity to listen to these people?

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for Burnaby-Edmonds says: "Let's travel around." We don't necessarily have to travel. Standing committees can meet, you know, in a number of committee rooms in this building. As a matter of fact, the NDP caucus will allow a minister to use our caucus room from time to time to listen to people coming in and witnessing with respect to proposed changes. They have changed the assessment act, and we can go into that assessment act.

As I pointed out, we don't know the reason for eliminating the $50 a day fine for pipeline companies. We don't know the reason why a person with land that he or she deems to have as farmland can no longer go and make an application directly to the commissioner. We don't know why, Mr. Speaker. There may be logical reasons for this. The minister certainly hasn't given us any logical reasons, not one single shred, other than to sit in his place and announce across the floor that he has been all over the province listening to people. We have little evidence of that, and certainly no evidence in terms of his speech introducing this bill.

I suggest there's nothing wrong with having committees either move around or listen to evidence here. I think it is great. It is good for democracy, and it should have been done on such major changes to such a very important bill. As a result of certain changes in this bill, it now permits that land in a falling cycle — in a buyer's cycle, let's call it — is going to be assessed too high and can be assessed too high for some number of months. That land does not have to be valued again for two years as opposed to one year. It is a biannual change as opposed to an annual change. There are certain people who can make application for change under certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is the sale of your land. That's great if you happen to want to sell your land, but what if you want to keep it? If there are no significant changes at that juncture, you are stuck with the situation.

You can, I am told, make application for appeal, but looking at section 39 of the bill there is no set date for appeals. That is pertaining to the rural aspect. It strikes me that there are too many changes here to warrant us just sitting back and saying: "Okay, let's accept this bill as it is."

Another aspect of the bill that concerns me is that it is going to be very difficult in the future to decide the worth of the parts of your property. Formerly — or until this passes — the improvements were separate from the land itself. Now it is all being lumped into one package and the improvements are not quoted separately. I am not sure at all whether that gives me an opportunity to assess what's going on. As a matter of fact, I think it is going to be darned confusing for people. If the Clerk is looking for the section, it is section 26 that has been amended by section 16 of this amendment bill. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that lumping improvements into the overall assessment isn't a wise idea. In some areas improvements seem to be an awful lot more than in others. The land values in one particular area may reflect that general area. Improvements, however, tend to be more a result of the value of the improvements.

We've all had some criticism of improvements. Over the years many of us have argued that one who paints his house to make it look nice in the neighbourhood tends to have an adverse situation set up in his bank account as a result of having painted his house or kept it up to date. It seems that the neighbour who lets his house fall apart, so to speak, suffers a less damaging effect on his bank account as a result of that. These are things we would like to see addressed, and they are also things that could very easily be addressed — not easily, because it's a very difficult situation to contend with. But it certainly is something one should be looking at with respect to future changes in the Assessment Act. I was listening to the speech made by my colleague the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). As I recall, he made the assertion that if a young family builds an additional family space in the basement so that their children can play, the assessor comes around, sees an improvement on the property, and up goes the assessment. On the other hand, we have a similar situation where two working people with far greater income don't need that extra space, leave it as it is but utilize the rest of their house, which is equally nice in every other respect, and they're going to be paying less tax — not because of anything other than need. Sometimes I think that these kinds of situations should be addressed. They're not being addressed, because I don't think we've done enough work in terms of revamping and revising our entire outlook on assessments.

[11:15]

Assessments are not only of significant interest to this room. Assessments are of major interest to every city, village and town council in this province. This year, of course, they are of increased significant interest, particularly if those municipalities have a relatively high proportion of commercial property, because a lot of the commercial assessment is going to be reduced as a result of the $50,000 change with respect to machinery. Those things in tandem are going to be creating possible confusion throughout the province. I really feel that we in this province would be better served by the Legislature of B.C. if we had the kind of input that one should have before moving in the direction this bill takes us.

I have a high regard for the minister, and the fact that he travelled around the province is at least of some benefit. But why doesn't the minister have as high a regard for his colleagues in this place? Why would he not involve them? He says: "Why didn't you guess that there was something going around and attend these meetings where I sat as a potentate listening to plaintiffs and to people make their case?" I think it would have been far better if he had engaged, as he once did in this House, in the committee process. He was part of a committee that was engaged in the process of looking at this whole question of assessment.

Well, I don't think that we've been given enough information. I don't think that a bill of this significance warrants the minister expecting the opposition to sit back and applaud his efforts. He did not, in his opening remarks, give us sufficient information with respect to the changes. I'm sure there will come a time when he stands on his feet, closing the debate, and says: "I will answer all your questions in committee stage." That's too late. There should be involvement at the outset. This isn't some highly secret proposition. This isn't one of those bills that's going to significantly change the value of stocks on the stock market or change taxation as it would apply to a budget situation. No, this is a policy statement and it goes on to make that policy law.

[ Page 1250 ]

Everybody elected here has to go back to their individual areas and answer other elected people who will ask questions about why certain things were a part of this change of the Assessment Act. What will your answer be? What will my answer be? What will anybody's answer be — other than the one person on the government side who has stood to debate this bill? No other answers; no back-benchers; no ministers. Nobody else has stood to say one single, solitary word about this bill. The minister hinted — or did he outright say? — that some of his own side had been a party to the meetings that he held. They haven't stood up and said that they were a party to it. They haven't stood up and defended the actions of this bill. In saying all of these things I am not saying that this is a heinous, terrible bill. I'm saying it's a bill that confuses one to the extent that one should have heard arguments with respect to the entire matter.

Just to give you an idea of how that government operates, and has operated ever since 1976 when they decided to take a committee around — which was taxpayer-funded — every person on that committee was a Socred. We should see the light of day around here. We should have some kind of a cooperative effort.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, you listen to the catcalls in this place and you wonder why. The reason there's consternation on both sides.... Naturally the opposition is going to be angry by virtue of the way things are done, and the back-benchers who support the government are going to be angry at us for expressing our anger, and on and on it goes into the vortex. That's the way this will proceed for the next four years, unless there happens to be a dawning over there, an understanding that there are more people in this place than just the government and its supporters who say nothing except catcalling across the floor. It's about time that those people became involved in this situation.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Stand up and give me some of the answers to the questions that I've asked. I can't ask the minister to give me the answers to those questions by virtue of the fact that if he stands up to give the answer, you and I both know that the debate is over on second reading of this bill. If the minister would ask some of those people he identified as having listened to people make suggestions about changes to the Assessment Act.... Ask them to stand up and argue on your behalf, give us a couple of arguments, give us a couple of suggestions why certain aspects of this bill are here. Tell us, Mr. Minister, why you eliminated the fining of pipeline companies. Why was that necessary? He looks as though he doesn't even understand it's there. Mr. Speaker, that's what we really want.

I think the authority that this act applies to and the amended act — if ever amended — has done a relatively outstanding job. That authority was a result of a lot of work done in this province. Guess what. It was done by a legislative committee. That authority, whose staffing has not increased since 1975, has continued to do a relatively fine job. This year that authority has been cut back but it will continue to do a relatively good job, in my opinion. That authority which has naturally become far more cybernated than they were at the outset — computers now have the ability to do a lot more than computers of old — has done a reasonably good job.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the bill, as we see it now, impairs their ability to produce for the people in B.C. I believe that the biennial assessment is retrogressive. I believe that it is particularly retrogressive in a situation of decreasing valuation. On the other hand, if I were a municipal councillor and property values were going up, very likely under those conditions expenses would be going up too. The biennial assessment and its obvious result would reduce the income coming into the city or municipal coffers. So again, those concerns are natural as a result of the limited information that we have before us.

Mr. Speaker, it's a very large piece of work that this small act amends. But I would suggest that there are some pretty significant amendments, and I think that as a result of those significant amendments, it makes it very difficult for us to say yes. We look at this in tandem with the $50,000 actual exemption as it affects school and hospital taxes in another bill that's before this House. We would wonder how this runs in tandem with this. We would wonder a number of things about this bill, but the reason we wonder is because of the fact that we were not afforded an opportunity to properly assess what's happening. Why is it that this government feels that the only party, the only group, that has the right to get to the bottom of policy is the party across the floor?

I think that in this bill we see the government retaining the right to arbitrarily adjust exemptions from assessment taxation. It was just in the 1983 budget this year, on page 24, that you'll notice an announcement to increase the exemption of machinery and equipment from $1,500 to $50,000. There isn't too much argument about that. We saw it in the budget. You'll notice that when we were arguing the budget we didn't make a great screaming fuss about that. We also see significant problems for municipalities and school boards and certainly the councils. I think it would have been far better had this bill been put before us so that some of our colleagues could have been better informed. But it has not been put before us in that way. For example, we don't know why the date changes. There are many date changes, and they're not all the same. For instance, you'll find one change from December 31 to September 30. Other changes: April 30 substituted for June 30, July to December, May to September, etc. Go through the original act very carefully and you will see that the changes are significant, but you don't know the reason for them.

I don't have the note of the minister's original speech. I had wanted to allude to what he said, but it's impossible for me to do so. But I do think somebody should stand up and give us some reason for these changes.

[11:30]

I would also like to suggest that there should be some explanation for our not having an ability to apply for farmland classification. It certainly was distinct in the original act. We're talking about section 19 of the original act. I'd just like to read to you from section 19. Just a second, I've got the wrong section. Section 19 is the pipeline section. Section 21 says: "Sections 16 to 20 apply, with the necessary changes and so far as they are applicable, to rural areas, and the statements and return shall be segregated in the manner the commissioner may specify." Now, Mr. Speaker, section 20.... We're all over the place on this, but the fact is....

[ Page 1251 ]

MRS. JOHNSTON: You sure are.

MR. COCKE: Yes, I am. I should have written down the section that was amended to take out the request for farmland classification.

MR. PARKS: A bit of organization is all it takes.

MR. COCKE: You know when we were informed that this bill was coming up? We were told it was going to be Bill 12 this morning. We got the information as we sat in this House — the first time in the living memory of anybody in this Legislature that we're....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're out of order.

MR. COCKE: I'm out of order? You're out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on Bill 22, the House Leader brought this bill forward this morning without any notice. We never get any notice. And if you expect....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. At this time, hon. member, please do return to.... In the very short time remaining....

MR. COCKE: In the very short time I've got left, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to let you know that the reason people lose their tempers in this place is just that kind of comment — the kind of comment that says: "You come in here ill-prepared." Of course we're ill-prepared. We're absolutely ill-prepared on Bill 22, and the reason is exactly what I said.

HON. MR. SCHROEDER: It's been on the order paper.

MR. COCKE: It's been on the order paper for weeks. The member that adjourned debate on this bill wasn't even here this morning, and the Minister of Agriculture, in his arrogance, can give us some of his comments sometime when he has something to say.

Mr. Speaker, in closing on this bill, I would like to say that as much as one would like to support the government on something that it is doing in this infamous year, 1983, I can tell you that under no circumstances will I support this bill. Under no circumstances will my colleagues support this bill. The government doesn't have the virtue to ask us to support any bill. No questions have been answered; all the questions have been asked. No way, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the member for Burnaby-North, I must again bring to the attention of all members that discussions of any form of House business other than what is before the House is totally out of order. Notwithstanding the frustration that members feel or display, it must not come to the floor of the House, and certainly not in debate on second reading. I am sure all members appreciate the rules on that.

MRS. DAILLY: I rise to take part in this scintillating debate this morning on Bill 22, the Assessment Amendment Act, 1983. I know to most people, assessment and taxation make for rather dull speeches. I think, though, that it is far from dull when we all receive our tax notices.

It is rather interesting that the minister travelled around the province to produce this bill that we are now dealing with. I understand he travelled with a couple of other ministers. I am sure it was a very worthwhile endeavour on his part, but I cannot help wondering if really such a trip — and I may be taking a little bit of exception to some of the arguments of my colleagues here — was really worth it when one looks at what came out of that trip. The opposition have mentioned this over and over again, and I won't dwell on it. We simply have to accept the fact that when the minister travelled with his colleagues, these are basically the only concerns that were expressed. But how do we know?

I am sure there is a lot of frustration with everyone over their assessments and their taxation, and there always has been. Somehow I can't help thinking that the money that must have been spend in travelling to produce this little document is perhaps somewhat questionable. I really don't know what it does for the taxpayer of British Columbia. It is a technical kind of bill and yet underlining the technical changes is still the major problem of assessments and property taxations, which is not an easy one for any government to deal with. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that the history of the Social Credit government, since assuming office in 1975, is pretty deplorable when it comes to the whole matter of taxation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Whether the purpose was to alleviate taxation or not — I know it wasn't — this bill, with its technical changes, really doesn't do much to alleviate the basic problems of property taxation in all our districts, municipalities and cities.

The bill does deal, I know, with technical changes, but I believe that I should have the opportunity, in debating this bill, also to deal with the matter of assessments and taxation, because the bill is obviously dealing with the raising of money, ultimately revenues for the government. So I hope that you will give me the opportunity to deal a little in detail with the areas of property taxation and assessment to a certain point.

I suppose that there are a couple of things in here for which we should give credit to the minister, such as this matter of the property owner being able to provide the lessee of all or part of the property with a copy of the assessment notice. We're very glad to know that's been done, but to make a trip all over the province and come forward with that kind of recommendation is, to my mind, somewhat questionable. Perhaps the minister in closing the debate will be able to tell us that there is more moment and greater occasion for celebrating this bill than we have seen up to now.

I know that the changes of the dates in the assessment cycle may be a grabber to the minister and his deputies, but it is really not much of a grabber for the average taxpayer in B.C. who says, with a bit of a yawn, I'm sure: "So what?" We are not accepting this with just a yawn and letting it go through. The point of this bill that concerns us is that after months of preparing to bring forward changes in assessment, which hopefully might bring some alleviation of taxation burdens with it, all we are dealing with are a few technical changes.

The opposition feels that it is our duty to discuss some of our concerns re property taxation and assessments, which we

[ Page 1252 ]

feel must also be expressed by many of our taxpayers out there. I think we're all aware — and I know most of the other MLAs must go through the same experience I do — that as soon as the assessment notices arrive at our homes, our phones usually start ringing because our constituents whom we serve have also received their assessment notices and immediately jump to the conclusion that that is the ultimate tax bill they will pay. I'm sure we all go through that — and you too, Mr. Speaker. But we know that the relationship can certainly vary greatly between the assessment and the actual cost of taxation in dollars and cents to the property owner. So it is always somewhat of a complicated matter to discuss. But there are still very basic principles behind assessment and property taxation that everyone understands.

I think one of those, Mr. Speaker — one that you should, I know, be particularly interested in — is the whole area of school taxation and assessments. I think that you have, along with the rest of us, received in the past few months an excellent report by the BCSTA, which we've already discussed slightly in here, "A Taxation Report to Business." In this report the B.C. school trustees are expressing their concern over the present method of property taxation and assessment espoused by the present Social Credit government. They are making a plea for a change. So here we are standing up here discussing some technical changes in assessments, whereas I'm sure that the trustees would have been much happier to see a debate going forward in this House on some much more basic changes in taxation and assessment. They preface their report by saying: "The report does not defend education spending, nor is it politically motivated." Mr. Speaker, I know that, as former trustees, you and I both know that there is one thing about the school boards of B.C.... By and large I have found — and I'm sure you did — that once you're elected as a school trustee, there is very little politics played on the board — maybe some. But my memory shows very little. One thing about working on the school board as a trustee is that most people do so because they are interested in children and what happens to them, which, fortunately, seems to be paramount. I must say that I endorse this trustee report when they say it is not politically motivated: "The trends of property taxation which are identified are decades old and, as such, cannot be uniquely associated with any one political party."

I know that the Minister of Finance, as a former local politician who was very involved, is aware that there is very little political motivation on the school boards. I hope he will listen now as I repeat, for his benefit and for others, the concerns of the trustees regarding assessment and taxation. I must say again that this bill, whether technical or not, still has as its skeleton the whole area of taxation and revenue from taxation.

The trustees expressed a basic concern about the fact of the new provincial property tax on business. If I may quote from this, Mr. Speaker, they say: "Seizure of business property tax enables the provincial government to compensate for reductions in corporate income tax by increasing non-residential property tax. This will drive companies out of business and business out of B.C." One thing that we keep hearing from the government members is that practically their whole reason for existence is to encourage small business and business in general in British Columbia. Yet here we have a basically non-political body accusing this government of driving companies out of business and business out of B.C. with their new taxation methods.

[11:45]

Further, the trustees say: "Stores, factories, trees and mines do not vote. It is safer, politically, to apply onerous taxes to business properties than residences. If there is to be any measure of political accountability, property tax on business must be levied by local government and at the same rates as residential taxes." I'm sure some of my own colleagues may not completely agree with that statement; in using it here today I am not saying that I completely agree with it either. But I'm saying to the government and to the Minister of Finance, who is in charge of assessments and bringing in changes in the variable mill rate, that perhaps.... In considering all these changes, I hope that he will listen to concerns expressed by the school trustees for the effect that these changes are having on small businesses.

They are also making a plea for local control. This Bill 22 is actually, if I recall it correctly.... It seems again to be showing a trend for further centralization in working and bringing forward to the Assessment Authority, whether it comes directly under the government or not, some over-centralization that I consider will not be for the betterment of our taxation.

I'm moving into the bill, as I saw you leaning forward there, Mr. Speaker, towards your mike, so I'll try to relate more closely to it. But if you would bear with me, I would just like to finish the other three points that the trustees have made regarding property taxation, and then I'll go back to the Assessment Authority, which is specifically outlined in Bill 22.

The trustees say that the portion of education property tax which has been determined by the provincial government has produced the following trends and consequences. Here are four very important points that I hope the Minister of Finance will really discuss with his colleagues: "The trend to transfer the burden of education funding to property owners goes back many years." They say: "The per capita property tax in B.C. has been consistently above that of any other province...." I notice that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) is talking to the Speaker right now, and I hope that.... No, no. No problem. I just hope that you two will take a moment to listen once again to the concern of the trustees about property tax.

"The per capita property tax in B.C. has been consistently above that of any other province" — now that is not an enviable record — "while the per-pupil costs for B.C. school boards have been below the Canadian average." You know what I find interesting about that? It is that we hear exactly the opposite from the government members. In order to put across their own taxation theories and philosophy — more and more being paid by the local and less by the province — they are helping to perpetuate mess. If the trustees have printed this statement and it's wrong, I would hope that the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Education will refute it in the future. I'll read it once more: "The per capita property tax in B.C. has been consistently above that of any other province, while the per-pupil costs for B.C. school-boards has been below the Canadian average." Yet it's a strange thing that we keep hearing the opposite from the government. The government is trying to convince the public that the B.C. taxpayer has had it pretty easy and that's why they're going to let it go ahead.

The other point re taxation is: "The provincial government, by manipulation" — and these are the trustees' words, not mine; I would never think of using that word, Mr.

[ Page 1253 ]

Speaker, as you know, in reference to government — "of assessments and homeowner grants, has shifted the burden of tax from voting residents to non-voting businesses." So here I am, a socialist, standing up here endorsing the trustees and supporting business, and here is the Social Credit government, which is supposed to be the voice of business, actually doing everything through their legislation to erode the revenues business have by their manipulation of taxation.

The final point is: "Property taxes have been increasing faster than property values." I'll leave that and get back to the basic part of the bill.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There has been some anticipation of Bill 7, hon. member.

MRS. DAILLY: Right. I'll go back to Bill 22; but I do hope those points have been listened to. The Minister of Education and the Minister of Finance, I know, are courteous members of this House and have listened. All we can hope is that their courtesy will extend to some action.

I think another area in Bill 22 that really concerns the NDP is the whole scope, purpose and ability of the Assessment Authority to do the work it should be doing in an independent, capable and efficient way. One of our basic concerns is that the actions of the Minister of Finance and his government are not really going to assist the Assessment Authority in doing their proper function and work. I think you know why. It's been said before, but I think it's important to have it repeated that the staffing levels at the Assessment Authority have been frozen since 1975, which was the year the New Democratic Party left government — notice that I say "left," Mr. Speaker. Nonetheless, the Authority has improved productivity throughout this period. There has been a 30 percent increase in annual assessments since then. Now I know that might appear to be an argument for the Premier's lean-but-not-mean government theory, but I can't help wondering just what kind of a toll it is taking, not only on the assessors who have to go out and do triple the work that they had to do before.... I also wonder how they can possibly continue to do an efficient, credible job with this kind of staffing — being frozen. Yet at the same time, more and more properties are being built. Each year, despite the recession, there are more homes being built, etc., in the province of B.C. In other words, their staffing levels are frozen, and I don't think there's anyone in this Legislature who could deny that their work obviously must be increasing.

I think that the Minister of Finance, in closing debate on this bill, really does owe it to the Legislature to explain why these cuts have taken place, and are continuing to do so, at a time when the work must be increasing, relatively, on a steady basis. From everything we hear from Social Credit.... They claim that the economy is going to boom — we've been hearing that, mind you, for a number of years now. Obviously, if what they're saying is true, they should be thinking ahead to the need for more assessors, not fewer. I don't happen to share the enthusiasm of the Social Credit government, because unfortunately their policies are not going to lead to an economic boom. In fact, I'm afraid we're heading for tougher times. I don't like to be the voice of gloom, but until that government changes their priorities and puts employment as their major priority, I don't see how we can face anything but further recession.

To get back to the assessment bill, I really am concerned that the ratio of assessors to needs throughout the province has been frozen and is being decreased. I just don't see the logic and the sense to it. It's all very well to travel around the province and produce a bill with some technical changes, but you can't help wondering if these technical changes, which have already been outlined by my colleagues far better than I can, are not going to add increased work to the assessors of British Columbia. I do think that the minister must assure the taxpayers of B.C., who have enough to bear now, that they are going to have assessors able to give their property the proper assessment and ensure that equality will prevail. You can't be sure of that as long as the staffing ratio continues to be cut.

I understand that in addition to operating at 1975 staff levels, despite the increased work, the Authority has been instructed by the Minister of Finance to cut the staff levels by 25 percent.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I hope it wasn't too boring for you. Perhaps the replacement will find it more interesting — the real Mr. Speaker.

I was just referring to the cut in the assessment ratio, which I know you've heard before, but I think it bears repeating. And it is right on the bill — Bill 22. I wanted to say, just as you were taking your seat, that the Assessment Authority has been instructed by the Minister of Finance to cut staff levels by 25 percent over the next 14 months. To our minds this is ridiculous. I know that the minister will get up in defence and say: "Look, we all have to suffer." But is there any logic to cutting in on an area like this that is such a vital concern to the taxpayers of British Columbia? I ask the minister to seriously consider raising the staff levels for the Assessment Authority.

We want to discuss further the fact that to our minds it's almost been like a model Crown corporation, run as if responsible to its shareholders and continuously efficient. I don't think we can deny that. I think the minister knows that.

However, having played the game, as all of the school boards of the province have, doing their best to be efficient and do their job well, what do they get? They may get a few words of praise from the minister, perhaps, and a few pats on the head, but you know what the final reward is for being an efficient authority? It's to find themselves penalized by cuts in staff and even cuts in financial support. Again, I say we're concerned. How can the Assessment Authority do a proper job with this cutback? Now, Mr. Speaker, this is very exciting debate, and I hate to break it off at this time with so much attention. Is there any opportunity now for you to accept a motion to adjourn 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 11:59 a.m.