Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 28, 1992

Volume 3, Number 18

[ Page 1883 ]

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

ENERGY COUNCIL ACT
(continued)

A. Warnke: Where I left off when the debate was adjourned was in response to some of the remarks from the member for Skeena. As a transition from that, I noted on the concluding remarks how the member referred to the Royal Commission on Health Care and the Sullivan commission soliciting opinions from people who were interested in education. Perhaps in the case of the latter I do know something about it, because I participated in the Sullivan commission report myself. It was an excellent approach for soliciting ideas from the public at large. This is precisely the point: through such an approach one can obtain ideas from the public that would go into something that would contribute and help forge the policies of the government.

When we are talking about how best to have the public input into forging energy policy, perhaps it's that approach that the hon. member for Skeena was referring to, which we would advocate here. It would be up to members on that side of the House to tell us how this particular board would reflect the common interests and views of the grass-roots people.

On another point, the same member -- whom I respect considerably, especially given his knowledge of the area -- made a reference to the completion of the Kemano project and pointed out how people want a say in this particular project. I fully agree with the member: people do want a say. The question now is: how do we best set up the means by which people from the member's constituency can have the greatest input?

It's not clear to me how the establishment of a council -- which I described on the last day as essentially setting up an artificial elite -- would bring forth ideas from ordinary members of the public who want to have some say into this project. I think it is up to the other side to clarify, complete and elaborate on their idea for members of the House, as to how this particular council, or board, would best represent the people's point of view, and so forth. That has not been clearly illustrated here. As I said in my opening remarks yesterday, I will listen to the minister when she makes her concluding remarks on this particular bill, to see how a rationale can be provided for the procedure outlined in the bill being the best way to reflect the grass-roots interests.

I will not elaborate beyond that. I will not summarize the remarks I made yesterday, because they can be read in Hansard. Those were some final remarks I did want to mention on this particular subject. I will be awaiting the remarks from the hon. minister with some interest.

L. Stephens: I would like leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Stephens: I would like to introduce Mrs. Randa of Langley Meadows school and some of her 53 grade 7 students here this morning. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Edwards: Hon. Speaker, the debate has been very interesting. The particular point that the official opposition has chosen to put forward is that we don't need public input on the issue of energy policy. A number of the members of the Liberal opposition said that; the critic and the member for Okanagan East said that. It has been supported from various members who said the minister is quite capable of deciding energy policy. I'm flattered; I am very gratified.

I'd like to tell the official opposition about an experience I had that led me to decide that I want this council.

[10:15]

Two Ministers of Energy back, the late Jack Davis.... I don't think anyone would dispute that he, as an Energy minister, was also quite capable of making decisions on Energy policy, and he did. He said one day: "We're going to export electricity out of British Columbia." That was brand-new. British Columbia had not allowed electricity exports except for interruptible non-firm power from the surpluses that came out of a largely hydroelectric system. He decided that he would have the export of electricity. He said he would allow it; he set up the machinery to allow it.

When I questioned him -- I was critic at the time -- I asked: "When does the public get its say?" There was considerable opposition to his unilateral announcement. He said: "The public will have its say when a project applies for an export licence and gets it. Then it will go to the Utilities Commission, and then the public will have its say."

Let me suggest that the opportunity for the public to have its say directed to a specific project is not the same as the public having the opportunity to make its input on comprehensive energy policy. I assure you that I have said many times to independent power producers in this province -- and they have agreed with me -- that they would not want to be the first independent power producer that applied for a licence to export, because every opponent in this province would descend on the hearing on that particular project to talk about the comprehensive issues which had not been debated. If you do not give the people of the province the opportunity for input on the comprehensive issue of export of firm long-term electricity in general, then all of those ideas, all of their opposition and thoughts on it will go to the Utilities Commission. 

[ Page 1884 ]

Another of the arguments that the opposition has made is that it is the mandate of the minister to direct public policy, to state public policy. I believe they've even suggested that it's the mandate of the minister to get public input to make that policy. That is so. Because it is the mandate of the minister, this minister has chosen to set up a council to do that task. I cannot possibly see at any time how a minister would have time to do adequate public policy on energy without having some machinery and some method by which the public has broad access to make representations, not just at public hearings but through many ways: through groups that they participate in, through collaborative processes and through all sorts of processes that are being developed, attempted and being put forward.

As the opposition may know, the round table has done a whole paper on public consultation. It involves a number of ways of doing public consultation, and I am firmly convinced that the Energy Council will follow some of those methods. Basically what we are trying to do with this council is avoid a situation where the public has no way to have its input in a broad, comprehensive way but in fact has only the opportunity to deal with individual projects. I believe that would distort the kind of input that we would have, and it limits the opportunities that the public has for input.

The council is not set up to be representative in the very firm sense. We hope that the up to six councillors besides the chair will be representative of some of the regions, will be representative of the sectors, will be representative of whether or not it's a consumer or producer, and so on. Basically, we hope it will be representative, but there is no expectation that only the members of the council will have their say. In that sense they are not expected to represent great constituencies and bring in their views. As members of the council, they are expected to go to the public and solicit the public's view, on a broad base. When the opposition suggests that we are creating an artificial elite, that is an artificial charge, hon. Speaker. It is not so. What we are doing is naming some people whose mandate will be to solicit opinion and to make the whole process accessible to all people in British Columbia.

I very happily report that the leader of the third party said that he agreed and would support this bill. He is a former Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, and I applaud his view. I believe he sees very clearly what the council can do. He has been in this position, and he will support the view, as will his party. But he suggests that we should be sure that we don't simply deal with issues such as the export of electricity. I assure members of the chamber that the broad, general function of this council will be to on a semi-annual basis, from year to year, from double year to double year, put forward a broad supply-and-demand energy plan. It's a continuing process. It's a process that goes on within the ministry. The council will allow public input into our policy-making function, and our announcement of policy, as well as the expert advice within the ministry, will be based on the public input that comes through the council.

Basically, except for the specific issues that the council are asked to report on, such as the export of electricity, the council will be expected to deal with all aspects of energy. That does not mean only electricity; that means all forms of energy. It will deal with many of the aspects of what we need to do in public policies around energy. It's very important that we all understand that before we vote on the bill.

There was some concern that the recommendations be made public. I assure the members of this House that, if you look at the legislation, you will see that the chair of the council makes a report to the minister for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Then the chair of the council will report publicly what he has just said to the minister, within 30 days in one way or another. Basically, it has the same terms of reference as the CORE commissioner has: when the recommendation is made to the minister, it cannot be kept as an internal document; those recommendations will also be made public. Basically, it is a very public body even to the point of its reporting.

I have already announced, hon. Speaker, that when this council is initiated, I would name Mr. Dick Gathercole to chair the council. There has been a lot of discussion here about the qualifications that Mr. Gathercole has for this position. I would like to state again that I cannot think of a person better qualified to hold the position. Mr. Gathercole has worked in the energy field in British Columbia for the past 11 years. He has dealt with energy in all its forms. He has represented views, and he has been an advocate for people throughout British Columbia. He has, as well, worked in various areas of consultation with the public on energy policy. He is a lawyer with a background and training to be objective. Basically, he has represented viewpoints that are now being put here as his own viewpoints. I think that the opposition should be very careful in what they are reading and in what they choose to say about that. The opposition has suggested that we should ensure that the people of low income in this province are represented. I respond that Mr. Gathercole has worked for years with the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and has represented the consumers of probably the lowest income in energy issues as well as others. We expect that all consumers will again have the opportunity to have input into this council.

I believe that this bill brings excellent news for the people of British Columbia. I believe it is an excellent step into the future and into a new world where people are demanding their input and demanding that they have an opportunity to say something about their own resources, environment, economy and social patterns. This kind of input will now come for energy policy.

Energy affects everyone in the province. It is a matter of interest in one way or another, and probably in four or five different ways, to most people in this province. People are interested in energy, they have said that they're interested and they have said that they want their input. The council will allow that to happen, and I believe it will allow it to happen in a way that is affordable and in a way that is going to make access very broad and very effective.

[10:30]

[ Page 1885 ]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 18, Energy Council Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 7.

HOME OWNER GRANT
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 7 increases the basic homeowner grant by $20, which is a 5 percent increase at a time of inflation of about 2 percent. In addition, the basic homeowner grant for seniors is increased to a maximum of $720. Unfortunately, this bill also eliminates the supplementary homeowner grant. The supplement, which was introduced two years ago, is being eliminated in response to the government's difficult financial position, and because it disproportionately benefits owners of expensive homes.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the House please come to order so that all hon. members can hear the debate.

Hon. G. Clark: Actually, hon. Speaker, I prefer some banter, although it tends to lengthen my remarks.

The basic grant is being increased to cushion some of the impact of the supplement's removal on owners of middle-valued homes. In Vancouver, for example, the owner of a home assessed at a little bit less than $200,000 in 1991 -- that's assessed value, and obviously the market value would be somewhat higher than that in general -- received a supplemental homeowner grant of about $120, or $10 a month.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

In contrast, the owner of a home at twice that value -- that is, $400,000 -- received a supplement three times higher -- $515 annually. Overall, more than one-half of the total paid out in supplementary grants went to the owners of the top 20 percent of homes by value by district. Also, over 60 percent of supplements were paid to the 35 percent of households that have incomes in excess of $60,000 per year.

The supplement was clearly a measure that provided a benefit to high-income homeowners and owners of expensive homes. Obviously the difficulty is that those with relatively moderate incomes -- my constituents included -- did receive some benefit, and that will be removed. But it cannot be used to disguise the fact that there was a dramatic benefit conferred upon those with very high-priced homes. The majority of British Columbia households will be unaffected by the elimination of the supplement. In 1990, 400,000 renter households received no benefits, and 300,000 homeowners received no supplemental homeowner grant. Seniors, for example, benefited very little. They accounted for almost 30 percent of homeowners, but received less than 15 percent of the total supplement payments.

After taking into account the increase in the basic grant, only a little over one-third of all households will be negatively affected. Of these, only one-half will see a school tax increase in excess of $10 per month. The majority of households, although not benefiting from the supplementary grant, were nevertheless paying for it by way of a higher deficit or higher taxes. In fact, the elimination of the supplement has also allowed the government to keep the average of school tax rates this year the same as it was in 1991. There is a zero increase in school taxes in British Columbia.

This rebalancing of taxes represents a reversal of the previous government's policy. The government increased school tax rates in 1990 when it introduced the supplement. The effect was a shift in the tax burden from upper-income households to lower-income ones. The introduction of the supplement was not only very regressive, but fiscally irresponsible. In 1990, the year the supplement was introduced, the province had a deficit of $727 million. The next year, in which the supplement was doubled, the deficit grew to over $2 billion. The 1991 cost of $100 million.... The government could not afford this supplement when it was introduced, and it cannot afford it now. The price of maintaining the supplement in 1992 would have been a higher deficit, increases to other taxes or reduced spending for valuable programs -- health and education being the two principal ones.

It is important to recognize that homeowners, especially those living in higher-valued houses, are not being asked to pay an excessive portion of the revenue measures introduced in our budget. The changes to the homeowner grant system provide less than 12 percent of the additional revenues generated by our budget measures. In contrast, more than three-quarters of the revenue to be raised through budget measures will come from corporations and higher-income taxpayers.

For most homeowners the elimination of the supplement and the increase to the grant restores school taxes to 1989 levels. On average, net school taxes for home-

[ Page 1886 ]

owners in 1992 will be only marginally higher -- some 4 percent on average -- than they were three years earlier in 1989. An average annual increase of about 1 percent, or 1.5 percent in some cases, in the net amount payable by a homeowner is not an unreasonable increase. I don't think there are any municipalities that can say the same about their own taxes.

British Columbia homeowners will still pay among the lowest property taxes in Canada and certainly the lowest for a comparable urban centre. A survey by a nationwide real estate company shows that a homeowner living in either the west side or the east side of Vancouver will still pay less tax than owners of equivalent accommodation in comparable neighbourhoods in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg, Halifax or, indeed, any other major city in Canada.

Eliminating the supplement and increasing the basic grant is one element in this government's response to a difficult financial position. In addition, it is fair and improves the equity of our property tax system.

Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

A. Cowie: At this time the Liberal Party intends to speak fairly briefly on this subject, as the minister has, and then we will deal with more details during committee. I think that will help move things along. It's probably appropriate that all bills be treated that way.

Some Hon. Members: Not all.

A. Cowie: That a lot of bills be treated that way.

The other thing I would like to say is that we will be putting forward an amendment in committee stage that will deal with the deferral of this for one year while we have appropriate consultation with the UBCM and the municipalities -- recognizing that the tax notices have already gone out.

This bill does nothing to create an air of certainty in this province; in fact, it creates uncertainty. The last thing we need at this particular time is more taxes.

This bill will result in massive tax increases in the more urban areas of the province. The lowest increase in the lower mainland is found in Port Coquitlam -- I notice that the member isn't here this morning -- where citizens will face a 12 percent increase as a result of this tax bill; while the highest increase will be in the city of North Vancouver, where the increase will be close to 20 percent as a result of the removal of the supplementary homeowner's grant. Urban areas face, by far, the greatest level of tax increase -- far more than in the rural areas -- simply because the urban areas have a greater assessment on property values.

The government is content to preach a message of consultation and openness to British Columbians, but when it came to the elimination of the supplementary homeowner's grant, municipalities throughout this province were caught totally unprepared. They are required to have their budgets submitted by May 15, so they were left scrambling to re-evaluate the situation for their particular residents.

[10:45]

The Union of B.C. Municipalities issued a statement on April 2 of this year in which they expressed great concern that there hadn't been appropriate consultation. The UBCM has a long tradition of advocating and practising consultation and cooperation with provincial governments. The UBCM believes that government works best for the people when it recognizes economic realities, agrees not to arbitrarily cut them off or download, and avoids confrontation wherever possible.

Over the last number of years the UBCM negotiated this particular supplementary homeowner's grant as a measure to offset irregularities in the cost of funding schools. That's why it was put in. For many years the NDP has said that the cost of education should not be on the backs of the homeowners and the property owners. There should be a more equitable way of funding education. That is why this supplementary homeowner's grant was initiated. It was very important to create stability for municipalities.

I'm sorry that the Minister of Municipal Affairs is not in attendance this morning, because while we can have the Minister of Finance simply and arbitrarily have his government eliminate this grant, it is the Minister of Municipal Affairs that suffers the consequences. I have been at a number of regional meetings of the UBCM, and I will tell you that everyone was terribly upset. I had people from rural areas approach me and tell me that their taxes were going up -- by the many hundreds -- as a result of this; one person actually said up to $1,000 for property worth less than $100,000. I found that difficult to believe, but he provided the information to me. Whether it was correct or not, he was terribly upset because he didn't have the time, through his regional organization of the UBCM and through UBCM, to explore those situations. The lack of consultation is what the people are more upset about than anything. It is the Minister of Municipal Affairs when he goes around the province that has to suffer the consequences. We all expect the Minister of Finance to be hassled and be given a hard time on taxes -- that's part of the job. But the poor old Minister of Municipal Affairs, who's a nice guy and who should go around and give good messages of cooperation....

J. Tyabji: Is he a nice guy?

A. Cowie: He doesn't deserve to be hassled the way he's been hassled -- largely because of the elimination of the supplementary homeowner's grant.

Equitability and stability in property taxation has been thrown into turmoil by the elimination of the supplementary homeowner's grant, according to the UBCM. I will leave others of my party to speak on the property value aspects of that. I want to rebut to some extent the minister's claim that the elimination of this grant will not result in increased taxes. I quote from the Sun, May 20, which is always correct in its figures. Abbotsford, for instance, will have an increase in taxation of 18.2 percent -- not due specifically to this elimination of the supplementary homeowner's grant -- which is unconscionable. It's too much in this day. Burnaby will have an increase of 22.3 percent; Chilliwack, 18.8; Coquitlam, which I mentioned earlier, will have an increase of 20.2 percent; and Cranbrook, which isn't very far away, 14.9 percent. Delta is going to 

[ Page 1887 ]

have a very large increase. My hon. friend our critic for Finance comes from Delta and will deal with that matter. In Ladner it's 18.7; in North Delta, 18.6; and in Tsawwassen, 21.9 -- largely because of the elimination of this supplementary homeowner's tax. All of the municipalities were scrambling to try and keep their taxes down this year, and in came this particular shocking initiative by the Minister of Finance. Fort St. John will have an increase of 11.6; Kamloops, 15.9. I could go on, but I think the gist of my message is getting across. I will finish by saying: White Rock, which is an average municipality, 19.3 percent.

I don't disagree that people who have large homes and large incomes should pay a burden if we are in difficult times; in fact, they don't disagree -- they have to share the load. But I don't think that the proper place to share the load is through the property tax. It should be through income tax or some other measure. This is simply not the way to deal with this particular situation. The NDP, for a number of years, have said that. They said that the school tax should not be a burden on the homeowners, that it should not be dealt with that way, that there has to be a more equitable way.

I did give notice earlier that I will be putting in an amendment. I think that is the proper way to deal with this. I am also not foolish enough to think that the minister thinks that.... He must have thought about the fact that if this bill does not go through by the end of this month, then my understanding is that it wouldn't be effective, and it couldn't be implemented. I may be wrong in that, but that is my understanding. It is getting near the end of the month, and I know the minister knows that. So we would like to delay this. Perhaps one of the things the minister is doing is just letting it delay until the end of the month so it won't be implemented, and then he won't be embarrassed -- he can deal with it through consultation. That is another way of dealing with this, if he wishes, and we would be willing to cooperate if he doesn't want to go back to committee until the end of the month, or into the next month. So we will be bringing an amendment when he comes back into committee.

Finally, since I promised I would be brief, I just want to deal with Vancouver's situation, because I represent part of Vancouver. There is no question about it, I represent an area of Vancouver that is one of the wealthier ones. Again, people there do not mind paying their fair share of the school tax. In fact, a good education system, like a good health system, is a priority for the people in my riding. So it is not that they don't want to pay a fair share. But when you get organizations putting out large advertisements in the Courier -- which is the only paper that really serves the Quilchena area -- simply saying that school costs do not belong on the property tax roll..... Mike Harcourt, in fact, is quoted here. It is another Mike Harcourt quote. In fact, this is right from his quote: he doesn't believe it should come from the tax roll. That is why we find it hard to understand that this bill has come forward. It goes on to say: "The man" -- the Premier, the former mayor -- "who said we should remove school costs from property tax has just decided to bill property taxpayers in Vancouver for $115 million." That is what it amounts to. So it is very costly. The increase to the average Vancouver taxpayer, as a result of this tax, will be 17 percent, an increase to the average senior will be something like 12.5 percent, and all tax increases are imposed regardless of ability to pay -- that is the greatest concern. What the people who sponsored this particular advertisement say is: contact your MLAs. And since the majority of MLAs, including the minister, are from Vancouver, undoubtedly they must be getting the message.

As my final part of this address, I want to tell the minister how hard it is going to hurt the various parts of Vancouver -- just to prove a point that it is hurting all of Vancouver, not just the wealthier areas. In the Arbutus-MacKenzie area, which is my riding, the increase will be 22.13 percent. In Southlands, it will be some 23.91 percent. In the Fairview area, which is in the central part of Vancouver, it will go up by 11.17 percent. Getting along more toward the East End, in the Knight Street area, it's 14.45 percent. In the East Hastings area, it's 12.86 percent. So it's hurting all sides. In some areas it's not going up that much. In Mount Pleasant, which is a nice area, it's going up by almost 3 percent; in the Grandview area, it's 7.86 percent. But as a whole, it's going up by an average of 19.17 percent.

That's hurting people of all incomes, and it is not fair to the property owners. Some owners have seen the value of their house go up tremendously over the last few years, and one can say that they should pay more taxes because of that. But some of these people simply cannot afford the cost.

I know that in Vancouver the taxes can be capped or are being capped, and there's agreement that that's on a temporary basis. There is a measure afoot to have other municipalities cap their taxes, but that's just deferring the problem. While it might help for a short period of time, it doesn't really deal with it.

Suffice it to say, we will be voting against this bill when the time comes. When it goes into committee, we will be putting forward an amendment.

D. Symons: Hon. Speaker, I would also like to address this bill, which I have great concerns about. I have some concerns about the manner in which the minister presented the bill: painting it as a tax savings for many homeowners. For my constituency, this is not the case.

I want to belabour that point for a few minutes to indicate the need for a second thought. One of the previous Premiers of the province was famous for his second thoughts on something. I think it's time that the Finance minister and the Premier of this province also give second thoughts to some of the bills they're bringing forward, because I don't think they've really looked deeply enough into the effect it's going to have on the people of this province. It is fine to say that we're simply going to find another way of squeezing another nickel out of every person in the province, but you must consider the effects that's going to have upon those people. I don't think the government has really thought that through.

What I have here are the tax bills from a cross-section of people in my riding. I would like to give a little 

[ Page 1888 ]

description of each of these, because I've actually been in each of the homes involved. So it's not just something that somebody sent along, saying: "Consider this." I know the places involved; I've been in them.

[11:00]

The first one is for a self-owned apartment -- a strata title -- of an elderly retired lady. Her tax bill for this year.... I'm going to look at only the part that's affected by this bill, and that's the school portion of it. After taking into consideration that the homeowner supplement has been taken away, but the basic homeowner grant has been increased by $20 -- nice gift the government is giving here -- she actually comes out ahead by this bill. She is living in a modest building that was built 25 years ago. It's a nice accommodation, but modest by today's standards. Anyway, in 1991 her total basic school taxes, after you took off the supplementary homeowner grant and the homeowner grant, came to $11.85 -- very reasonable. This year, when you increase the basic homeowner grant but take away the supplement, she is paying $5.83. In other words, this person is saving $6.02 this year over last year on the school portion of her taxes. It's a 54 percent reduction, if you care to look at it that way. The government seems to be pointing out these percentages, so I'll mention that. The 54 percent is based on a $6 reduction -- not a great saving there, but some. By the way, if the person is retired and over 65, in both cases there's no saving at all because they aren't paying taxes either way.

The next case I have here is what I would call a young, struggling family, just beginning. Newly married; new child. They bought an older home in an area of Richmond that has homes that were built during wartime. This is what a young, struggling family might be able to afford: decent accommodation but certainly not what you could live in for long when your family begins to grow. What happens to these people? The school portion of their tax last year was $57.22, taking into account the reductions that were available to them. This year it's $97.00. Remember this is a modest home I'm referring to -- something that a struggling, starting family could get. In other words, for them there's a $39.78 increase in the school portion of their taxes, for a 68.5 percent increase.

When we listen to the minister speak, these are the people that he says this bill is helping. It is supposed to be assisting, not costing more for these average British Columbians. I would certainly describe this family as very average. They're just beginning in the workforce, have a limited income, are starting a family. These are the people that this bill is obviously hurting.

The next family is well set, on in years, not retired yet. They're living in a home that they bought 30 years ago. It's a home that was built at that time. It's modest by today's standards. What has happened to them? Last year on the school portion they paid $238.86 after reductions. This year it's $455.97. In other words, there is roughly a $220 increase, a 50 percent increase, in their taxes. Again, these are not the wealthy people of the province that we're referring to. You're not soaking the rich; you're soaking the average and the below average people as well.

The final one I would describe as one of the more upscale homes that are being built. They're quite common in areas where they take down an older home and rebuild on that property because of property prices being so high. You can build quite a substantial, very nice home, with fairly large square footage and all the rest. The school portion of their taxes last year was $736. It has jumped now to $1,460, roughly a $724 increase. That's more than a 50 percent increase in their taxes.

That is the effect that the removal of the supplementary homeowner grant is going to have on four different types of residents in my riding. My riding is not unusual in the province; it is typical of lower mainland ridings. This is not a fair tax.

J. Beattie: The lower mainland is not the province.

D. Symons: The lower mainland is not the province; I would agree. But the member opposite might recognize that the lower mainland does contain a fair proportion of the population of this province and an awful lot of the money generated in this province. We have to be careful that we do not overly tax one area of the province against another area. When the hon. member opposite mentioned that the lower mainland is not all of the province, we must remember that we can't unduly soak one area to pay for the others. This is exactly what the hon. member didn't mean to say but is exactly what he was saying. Should the rest of the province be subsidized excessively because of one area? That is not a fair method of taxation. We must have this tax applied equally and fairly to all residents of the province; it must not weigh unduly upon one area. My area would be one that this would do that to.

I would point out to members that this bill certainly does not seem to fit within the philosophy that this government would have us believe in. In 1982, when the Premier was mayor of Vancouver -- and this just shows how ten years can change a person considerably -- he said:

"As your mayor, I don't like to see people being taxed. Our taxpayers are being wrung dry to subsidize schools in other parts of the province. As the major urban centre of the province, we are willing to pay our share, and perhaps even a little bit more in recognition of the needs of less populated areas. But there is a definite line between reasonable taxation and outright gouging -- a line that is being crossed by Victoria."

How prophetic those words were then, because they certainly apply today. He goes on to say:

"The education financing formula must be changed. Even better, education costs should be taken off the property tax altogether and financed through federal and provincial income taxes."

The reason I quoted that last bit is that that is the Liberal position. The Liberal Party feels that we must remove the burden of school taxation from the homeowner and place it in general revenue. This bill does the reverse of that -- the reverse of what the now-Premier talked about ten years ago.

We're finding that the tax here.... As much as I don't really approve of this method of the government bringing in the removal of the supplementary homeowner grant, it was a move in the direction of removing 

[ Page 1889 ]

the burden of taxation from the homeowner. Your government is taking away that removal, slight as it might be -- through the supplementary homeowner grant -- of the burden from the backs of homeowners in this province.

For that reason, hon. Chair, I am very much against Bill 7. We have to find a fair way of treating homeowners of this province. This bill is not one to do that.

V. Anderson: I too must rise to express my disagreement with this bill and on behalf of the people in the riding that I represent, to express the concern they have about the direction in which this government seems to be going in increasing the burden, in many different ways, upon voters of this province. There is a direct impact upon them due to the tax increases that the hon. member just referred to, particularly upon seniors and persons with disabilities.

Even if we were to accept that $20 was a significant increase in the basic grant, we would question why the percentage of the grant that was given to seniors and the disabled was not at least equal to the grant given to other members. If we were to give an equal grant to the disabled and seniors, they should have gotten $35 instead of $20. So the grant has even built in that inequality into its basic undertakings. It just shows that the government has not taken into consideration the fine points and the implications of what they're doing, even to the point of recognizing within what positive measures -- small as they might be -- there is equal representation for those seniors and persons with disabilities. These are not persons who are able to do anything, generally, to respond to this increase and the others that go along with it, because many of them are on fixed incomes. They are on incomes that do not increase with the cost of living. Little by little their income is whittled away. What value they do have is in the increased value of their homes where they live.

I would mention one lady in particular who was not able to afford to live in her home anymore, because she could not afford the cost of living and the cost of care that she needed to come into her house day by day and week by week. Though she was wealthy in the sense of book value, she was poor in the sense of operating value. So she was forced to sell her house and to move out of it, because she could not continue to live in it. Yet this is a government that says they're trying to encourage people to continue to live in their homes and to provide them with the care and the opportunity to be there. At the same time, the increasing burden upon them in so many different ways contradicts the very thing that the government is saying they will do. On one hand they will, perhaps, provide a homemaker and some assistance to her, but on the other hand they will take it away from her, so there is a great contradiction in the kind of activities which these people are feeling and the pressures that come upon them.

Not only are there the increases in direct taxation, which they feel as they buy their groceries or as they attempt still to drive their car or to live within their homes, but there are the increases of the indirect pressures that come upon them because of the cumulative effect of the government actions.

In another context, we were talking about the increased pressures on municipalities, which they then pass on to their homeowners -- the increased effects which come from the actions of this government. One example of this cumulative effect comes in a letter from the Greater Vancouver Regional District, dated May 15, directed to the Hon. John Cashore, Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks. In that letter -- and this has to do with revising British Columbia's waste discharge permits fee system -- Gordon Campbell, the chairperson of the board of directors, writes: "It is apparent to the district that under the proposals as put forth, costs could increase dramatically for GVRD waste-water treatment plants depending on how the province elects to implement the options.... The financial impact of these programs on local residents will be unprecedented, even with the substantial assistance we anticipate from the province." That is only an anticipation; even with that anticipated support, the unprecedented increases that are coming upon the municipalities, and thus directly upon the homeowners, are ones that we have to see in total, not just one by one.

The Minister of Finance is great at quoting figures. To misquote a phrase we're always aware of: "Figures don't lie." I would change that to say: "Figures are used to confuse."

Interjection.

V. Anderson: I wouldn't want to say that the minister was lying in the presentation of his figures, but he's certainly confusing the members of my riding and many others. One of the confusions that comes across is one I learned a long time ago in basic statistics: statistics do not apply to any particular individual. To say that the average person is 5 feet 7 inches tall does not necessarily mean that any person is exactly 5 foot 7 -- they may be less; they may be more. It doesn't tell you about the individual person.

The quotations that we have heard from the Finance minister talk about percentages. They don't talk about what happens to the individual. He talks about the people who will perhaps not be greatly affected by this -- seniors and the disabled. But the majority of those who will be affected by it as individuals, when they receive their tax bill and have to go pay it, are the ones we are talking about. You can't dismiss their need just because the average is not affected or even because the majority might benefit by it. You cannot disregard the individual need.

[11:15]

If this government was as concerned as they have said they are with the individual needs of seniors, the disabled and those with low income, they would be willing -- as they bring forth this variety of bill -- to make the kind of exemptions and counter-presentations that would take the needs of these individuals and their families into account. It's because of the lack of concern with individuals and dealing only with averages and statistics that we get into the problem, regardless of what government it is -- that you ignore the individuals who are in greatest need.

[ Page 1890 ]

I would pressure this government to rethink not only this bill but all of their bills so that they are implementing what they have said they would: to benefit low-income people, seniors and those persons with disabilities. Let's not deal with the average; let's not deal with the general. Let's deal with persons who have names and addresses and places to live. Until this government begins to do this, I will have difficulty supporting them, not only in this bill but on all of the bills which have a cumulative effect to pressure those in greatest need and to increase the difficulty of their lifestyle.

J. Beattie: I'm glad to rise, and I hope to be able to rise again when I will perhaps have a chance to respond to the amendment which I am anticipating from the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

There were a couple of issues that caused me to get to my feet right now, because when we talk about confusing statistics and generalities, I'm afraid I have to say that the last two members -- the members for Richmond Centre and Vancouver-Langara -- have certainly imbibed in the brew of misinformation and generalization. For example, the member for Richmond Centre talks about....

Interjection.

J. Beattie: Yes, he's holding up a piece of paper. I'll continue to hold up my piece of paper.

Perhaps the individuals you refer to and the pieces of information that the member for Richmond Centre presented are accurate. I have no doubt that there are people in that area of the province who are paying $784 more in municipal tax this year, based on their homes. But talk about giving half of the information. The member seems to suggest that all of this is the result of the homeowner's grant. At no time did he indicate that....

A. Warnke: Most of it is.

J. Beattie: Most of it is not, my friend. For example....

Interjection.

J. Beattie: Let me just read a little piece of information -- perhaps you'll incorporate into your own information -- from the Vancouver Sun, which the members opposite have a tendency to quote and have said that they believe in quite strongly. I'm quoting an article of May 7, 1992: "In dollar terms, average homeowners in Richmond are facing total bills which are $375 higher this year after the homeowner grant is taken into consideration." The fact of the matter is that the municipalities in this province, led by the mayor of Vancouver, have attempted to snow the public to say, as a result of the lack of the supplemental homeowner's grant, that all the tax increases are a result of that. It's just not true. It's factually inaccurate.

I'd like to read some information here. Municipal-level opponents to the change have suggested that the lower mainland has been targeted by this program with the average Vancouver homeowner looking at a $237 increase in taxes. Because property values in the lower mainland are higher.... This is the reason that I make reference to the lower mainland versus the interior, because there is quite a distinct difference. It's not a targeted attack, as the member would like to suggest, or that somehow we're robbing Peter to pay Paul. The fact is that real estate values are that much higher in the lower mainland.

However, just to continue, because property values in the lower mainland are higher than elsewhere, many homeowners will pay a little more. The reality, however, is that many municipal officials are neglecting to tell the public that they have added their own proposed municipal tax increases to the overall tax figures. Departmental figures show that in Vancouver the owner of an average $228,000 home will pay $180 more compared to a $61 increase for a $162,000 home and a $419 increase for a higher priced $359,000 home. Anything above that isn't due to the change in homeowner grants and should be the subject of some serious questions. Some questions I hope the member from Richmond will ask.

I'd like to continue with the so-called regressive aspects to this. Opponents have called the replacement of the supplemental homeowner grant with an increase to the basic grant regressive and suggest that it will hit people with low and fixed incomes much harder than people with the ability to pay. That is not correct. The supplemental grant was introduced two years ago by the previous government and was a regressive program. It saw two thirds of the money spent on the program go to about one third of all B.C. homeowners. It just so happens that most of them happen to be in the lower mainland. I'm very sorry about that, but a good number of the people in this province don't live in the lower mainland. What's more, the higher the value of your property, the more money you got.

For Example: a $200,000 home in New Westminster received a $200 subsidy, while a $400,000 home received $700. We suggest that there is some relationship to the value of your home and the income that you sustain. We're not saying it's 100 percent accurate. We're not saying it's perfect or that there may not be an element of regressivity in that. The fact of the matter is, when you have a tax system like the supplemental tax, it is purely regressive. It rewards those who have more expensive homes. Even those members on that side of the House will have to admit that's regressive; at least I hope they will.

There is another point I wish to make....

Interjection.

J. Beattie: The supplemental tax was regressive. The member for Richmond-Steveston has admitted that, and I'm glad he has.

Getting back to the smokescreen that has been put up by some municipal officials, I'd like to refer to Mayor Gordon Campbell of Vancouver. He suggested that the program will adversely affect seniors. I'm sorry to hear him talking about this in a fearmongering 

[ Page 1891 ]

fashion. He has gone so far as to suggest that the seniors can expect an average increase of $159 per year. Talk about generalizations and fearmongering!

The reality is that replacing the supplementary homeowner grant with a basic grant clearly benefits seniors. A senior owning the average Vancouver home worth $228,000 will pay an additional $45 a year, or $3.75 a month. In fact, roughly 40 percent of seniors who own moderate-to lower-priced homes in his own -- the Mayor of Vancouver's -- city will pay less school property tax this year as a direct result of the change. In Surrey a senior owning the average $161,000 home will pay $20 less because of the change. About 60 percent of all senior homeowners will pay lower net school property tax.

I think the issue of generalizations and of using figures to cover up the truth is something that many politicians and public officials have used for a long time. Contrary to what the member for Vancouver-Langara suggests, we have dealt with specifics. Furthermore, his point that we should be speaking more about those people who are affected can be applied in a reverse manner to him. Pay some recognition to the fact that a large percentage -- perhaps more than 50 percent -- of the people in this province are benefiting from what I consider to be a step away from regressive taxation to more progressive taxation, which has been implemented by the Minister of Finance. On that, I will sit down and wait in anticipation for the amendment from the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. Hopefully, I will have a chance to rise and speak again on this important issue.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to the dialogue from the member for Okanagan-Penticton. Possibly he was picked to speak for the government because in his constituency the removal of the supplemental homeowner grant may not have much of an effect. He also commented on municipalities incorporating all the increases they're going to put on taxes and being less than fair with what they're telling the public about the increases and what's really going to happen with the supplemental homeowner grant.

I would hope that the member over there thinks that they are wise enough to take last year's tax notice, and it's listed specifically for each tax what the rate and the amount is.... It's very simple for those people to take off what they've lost from last year on this year's taxes, and that's the increase.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out, and I don't think that the communities and the mayors of those communities are trying to fearmonger or tell people something that isn't quite true. I think what they are doing is exactly the opposite; they are telling people the exact effect that the removal of the supplemental homeowner's grant will have on almost all British Columbians.

We average it out. The minister uses averages, and sometimes averages sound great, but when you get down to the real tax notices which some of the members in the opposition brought forward, that's where it really comes home. It really comes home to roost when you have to write the cheque at the end of the year for those tax notices. If that member doesn't have to do it, that's just great. But I know a lot of people, and a lot of constituents in Peace River North, are going to write a substantially larger cheque to the cities and communities this year. It's not all because of increases in services from those communities; it has an awful lot to do with the removal of the supplemental homeowner's grant.

The member should also do a little study on the supplemental homeowner's grant and why it was initiated. It was initiated because of the intricacies of the school taxing formula and how it affects different areas in different ways. It doesn't affect Fort. St. John the same as it may affect Penticton, but it does have an effect. I'm also going to read out some stats for everyone in the House to hear. They're all here, and they're all real.

[11:30]

Before I do that, I want to go back to what one of the other members talked about, and that's the people who purchased homes quite a number of years ago and found that the assessments have increased quite dramatically. I know specifically of a home in Victoria. The house was built in 1936, and it was purchased by the second-last owner in about 1972. He paid about $15,000 or $20,000 for that piece of property. Today that house is on the market for $150,000. That person was a member of the Teamsters' union, who that side of the House say they represent: the ordinary working person. Well, that person sold that house for a couple of reasons: one, because his taxes were increasing too much, and the other because he was getting on in years and couldn't afford to look after it. So it does affect everyone. It affects every British Columbian. Whether the members opposite think that anyone who happens to own a house worth more than $100,000 is rich.... The member from Okanagan-Penticton seems to think that if you own a house that shows up on the assessment for $150,000 -- and I think he used $100,000; I'm using $150,000.... This person was not rich. He was one of those average British Columbians. You look at the assessment of the home this fellow lives in, or you look at whether he drives a Chevy or a Ford, and you can determine whether he's rich or not, and how much more he can pay. That is simply not the way to do it. You cannot continue, and this government cannot continue, on that road of thinking that they can constantly take from whom they determine as the rich, or the corporations, or the companies, and give to the poor, because it does not work. It will not work, and it has been shown, in quite a few areas in the world, where it has not worked. But obviously these people across the way haven't woken up yet.

In my constituency of Peace River North, the costs of living are much greater than down here. When I talk about the price of gasoline, it is another ten cents, and in Fort Nelson probably another 15 cents a litre, compared to Victoria or Vancouver. And when I talk about the costs being higher, I mean that they heat their homes almost year-round, not just for maybe one or two months out of the year as they do in the lower mainland. All costs. Their freight costs are higher. Their cost of living is higher. So obviously most corporations, most companies and most small businesses pay their 

[ Page 1892 ]

people accordingly. They will pay them a little more money because the cost of living is higher, and because it's harder to attract people to come to the north. So there they are: according to the definition of the NDP, they're rich. They have all kinds of money; let's tax them. They're rich. They're over -- what's the benchmark, $50,000? Well, there are quite a few up north that are over $50,000. I guarantee you, hon. Speaker, they are not rich.

The other thing that the north has to offer.... When we talk about problems in the lower mainland with not enough employment for youth, maybe what we should be doing is thinking about getting some of that youth into the north. There are opportunities in the north. But if this government continues its barrage on corporations and businesses -- trying to break them -- and increasing taxes by taking away the supplemental homeowner's grant in the north, you're not going to get people to go up there. At some point in time it's going to affect what happens in Vancouver and Victoria. I know it may be a long way down the road, but it will. It slowly has an effect.

I'm going to read some stats into the record. They're from the town of Fort Nelson's 1991 property taxes. These are tax rates right off the tax notices.

Interjection.

R. Neufeld: A tax notice is what a person gets when they have to pay their tax bill. Obviously the member opposite isn't aware of them or how to read them.

A house in Fort Nelson that's assessed at $43,000 has total taxes of $993.69. The supplemental homeowner's grant for that person is $21.81. When you increase -- as the government did -- the $20 on the homeowner's grant, this person will not be affected. When we go to a house that's valued at $64,500.... That is far from a mansion. In fact, it's probably a lot less than an ordinary home. Maybe some of the members opposite should take a trip up north once in a while. Maybe the Minister of Finance could take a trip up north and see what some of these houses are and what makes the north tick and understand some of what happens to homeowners in the north. The house that's assessed at $64,500 has a total tax bill of $1,337.12. Of that, $140 is the supplemental homeowner's grant. So he's going to pay $120 more.

Let's go to a house that's assessed at $98,300. If you want to go to market value in Fort Nelson, it's quite easy for the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Municipal Affairs to phone Fort Nelson -- there's only one realty agent -- and ask him what the normal, average house is selling for now. I can tell you, hon. Speaker, that it's above this $98,300 figure. The taxes for that home are $1,934.01. There's $326.36 in supplemental homeowner's grant. That person is going to face another $300 increase. When you include that $300 increase -- and the 1 percent increase on his income tax and about a 25 percent increase on ICBC rates -- with all the other fees that have gone up in this province in the last seven months, this person is really feeling the pinch, because there is a recession in British Columbia. You may be building houses down in the lower mainland by the thousands, but you're not in the north. People are feeling the pinch.

The average home in Fort Nelson is probably selling for about $110,900. I have one here assessed at that. His taxes are $2,288.25. His supplementary homeowner grant is $395.96. Those are real figures. Those are figures that people are now paying because of the removal of the supplemental homeowner's grant by this government. Those are figures that a lot of people can't afford, and we sit down here and talk about it. Members opposite say: "Oh, my goodness, he's got a house that's worth $110,000. The fellow's rich; make him write another cheque." Absolutely ridiculous.

You go on to Fort St. John, which is the other major community in my constituency.... What I am really concerned about.... We'll use averages, but I'm also going to quote some tax notices out of Fort St. John. The average homeowner in Fort St. John is going to be affected by $181. When you take into consideration all those that are only going to be affected by maybe $25 or $30, that's a fairly high impact. In fact, it's a 19 percent increase in taxation.

The net impact of all the taxes on that community that this Minister of Finance -- the NDP government -- has initiated on homeowners, on property owners, and the reduction in transfer payments to those communities, is going to be about $450,000. Those numbers should be easy to understand for those people, but obviously they're not. It makes me a little angry when they continue to think that just because you're making more than $50,000, you are rich. That $450,000 is on a population of about 12,000 or 13,000 people; those are real dollars that those people are going to have to pay.

I'm going to read a few tax notices from Fort St. John, just so you understand that the impact is much the same in Fort St. John as it is in Fort Nelson. If you take a home that is assessed at $53,800, the increase to that person is $91.31. I can tell you, that's not much of a home. If any members opposite would like to jump on an airplane and go up there and have a look.... Maybe they should, because they would find that it would not be quite what they're expecting to see. A person with a house that is assessed at $64,000 is going to have an increase of $149. On a house that is assessed at $87,200 -- these are 1991 assessments -- the supplementary homeowner grant amounts to $281.48. On a house that is assessed at $117,400 -- that may be the average price of a home in Fort St. John, and maybe the members opposite could pick up the phone and make a check on it -- it's $453.43. Hon. Speaker, I submit to you that the cost of living in Fort St. John is much the same as it is in Fort Nelson. The only difference may be in the price of gasoline. Other than that, the cost of living up there is fairly high.

This government elects to penalize those that happen to live in the north. They're also penalizing the corporations and the companies that are up there, because they cannot attract competent and skilled workers -- all the government is doing is taxing them out of existence up there. As I've said so many times, maybe that's the reason for a couple of bills that came through to look after resource communities that may be 

[ Page 1893 ]

hit by mine or mill closures. Maybe that's why we increased social services so greatly: we want them all down here in Vancouver. I tell you, hon. Speaker, if we continue down this road we will have everybody in Vancouver, but they're going to be angry people. If you think you've got trouble now down here in Vancouver, just bring a whole bunch of angry northerners here and you'll have trouble on your hands.

I have a letter here that was written to the Minister of Finance on May 20, and I'm going to read it into the record. It's regarding property taxes. For the benefit of the member for Okanagan-Penticton, this person can read the tax notice and subtract the differences, and quite well understands where the increases come from. Maybe what he should do is get the address of this person and write her for an explanation on how to do it.

"Dear Sir:

"Enclosed are copies of my tax notices for this year and last year. You said taking away the supplemental homeowner's grant wouldn't have much effect on the taxpayers. Well, it certainly is having an effect on my taxes, and they have gone up $745.23.

"The idea of having that grant was to help communities like ours, who have high taxes because we don't have a large industrial base. Because of the oil field, we are sending millions of dollars to Victoria, but we get very little back in the way of compensation.

It's time, Mr. Clark, that you got out of your office and paid a visit to our community to see what is happening."

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. The Chair has noted on four occasions in debate this morning the use of the names of members. Could we just retain the decorum and respect of the House, and identify all hon. members by their constituency.

R. Neufeld: Hon. Speaker, I am reading directly out of a letter.

[11:45]

Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Richmond Centre on a point of order.

D. Symons: It seems to have corrected itself, hon. Speaker, but I was concerned that the back of the person being addressed was turned to the Speaker, and I believe this is a discourtesy that should not be taking place in this House.

Deputy Speaker: It's not a point of order, hon. member.

R. Neufeld: I will go back and start that paragraph again. It's time that the Minister of Finance got out of his office and

"paid a visit to our community to see what is happening. We have a major recession here and can't afford any more taxes. I've been in business here for 21 years, and this is the worst recession I have ever experienced. There was talk here last year of a taxpayers' revolt, but we've received the extra grant and now it's gone. You had better be prepared for the consequences."

That's a letter written on May 20.

The effect of the homeowner grant.... The person who wrote the letter has circled it, and she states it's $745.23, but the supplemental homeowner grant amounts to $624.80. It's sizeable; it's an awful lot of money. The point I'm trying to make is that people are having difficulty with this, and people will continue to have difficulty with this if this government elects to continue down the road of taxing those they think are rich and those corporations that are rich in order to get the revenue they need to deliver on some of their promises.

There is no way that the people in my constituency can accept this. They will accept paying what they think is their fair share, but they don't believe this is their fair share. I don't think that I can accept it. I am telling you what the people in my constituency are constantly telling me on radio programs or through letters. They are angry at the Minister of Finance for this increase.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

A. Warnke: I listened with interest to a number of points raised by my colleagues on this side and by the previous speaker. Many of the points they made I think are really worth emphasizing over and over again. I will not do that, but I will draw members' attention to some of the remarks that have been said.

The original purpose of the homeowner grant was designed to reinforce the help to people and homeowners. The proposal in this bill is for a different schedule for the homeowner grant, as expounded by the minister in terms of outlining the purpose and the rationale in his introductory remarks. When I listened to the remarks by the hon. minister, I found it very interesting that the basic rationale was essentially that we have to deal with the deficit. This is an interesting premise, but I am afraid that in this particular case I cannot really share it. The premise is that if we have to deal with the deficit; then let us look at places where we can offset the deficit; and that means, in turn, focus on property. That is the basic premise, and it's based on a premise -- and it's a rather vulgar definition of property, in my opinion -- that property is equal to wealth. The previous speaker, and my colleague from Richmond Centre, have made it very clear -- especially the eloquent statement made by the member for Vancouver-Langara -- that property does not necessarily equal wealth. So the premise that the minister has put forward here is indeed quite false. If the premise is false, then the premise is misleading us in a direction where we do not really want to go.

Therefore let us go back to the basic premise of the homeowner grant, and that is to protect people with property. Let us encourage stability in the home. Let us encourage people to improve on their home. In that sense, I would like to see all governments really concentrate more on how we improve the home, especially when I consider many members of the public who really want to improve the appearance of their home, and so forth. Indeed, the homeowner grant was intended to improve home life and improve the home. I've been in different places throughout the continent and different parts of the world, and I find that 

[ Page 1894 ]

whenever we provide a disincentive for people to improve the appearance of their home, especially the exterior appearance, because by enhancing the appearance of their home they might be assessed at a greater amount and therefore taxed more.... We do not want to go in that direction. But maybe we can elaborate on that at another time. Surely this government should be focusing on encouraging home improvement. We should be encouraging people to live in a stable home environment.

One point that I want to raise is in reference to a previous member criticizing my colleague from Richmond Centre and saying that all he was doing was holding up a piece of paper. Well, it was not merely a piece of paper. There are two pieces of paper, from this year and last year, that state right at the top, "Notice of Current Real Property Taxes." They are not fabricated pieces of paper; they are genuine tax notices from last year and this year. All one has to do is read the tax notices. It's very clear that there is one major difference between these two tax notices: the supplementary homeowner grant.

The member for Okanagan-Penticton said: "Well, that's not all of it. The increases in property taxes are certainly not all due to the supplementary homeowner grant being rescinded." Quite the contrary, hon. Speaker. When I look at this particular notice, the only difference, aside from the supplementary homeowner grant, is the basic school levy. Do you know what the difference in the basic school levy is from last year to this year? It's only $8 on a total of $736. If that is the only difference -- and that is the only difference -- all anyone has to do is take a look at the supplementary homeowner grant to recognize that nearly all of the increased amount in taxes is due to taking away the grant. I honestly do not know what the member for Okanagan-Penticton....

An Hon. Member: How much is the increase?

A. Warnke: The overall increase is $724.97, and that conforms with what the member for Richmond Centre was saying.

J. Beattie: What's the value of the home?

A. Warnke: Better watch that, hon. member, because here again, we're back to the premise of dividing the rich from the poor -- the Robin Hood syndrome, and I thought....

Interjection.

A. Warnke: The member for Okanagan-Penticton clearly did not listen to my colleague for Vancouver-Langara, because if he had paid much attention to that member he would not be saying the things he is right now in this House.

Interjection.

A. Warnke: Hon. Speaker, that is kind of an irresponsible response by that member from that side of the House.

I am very tempted to go on and on, but I'd prefer to make one final point. I was prepared to call for adjournment, but I really do have to make one more point. It is about time that this government and this Finance minister and those who want to support him stopped thinking in terms of society having only two classes, the rich and the poor. We are living in the 1990s in a complex social structure that is far beyond this polarized conception of what this society is all about. This society is not based on two remarkably different classes. This society is not based on two different kinds of regions. Indeed, the member for Peace River North made it very clear that it is not just the rich from Richmond or Vancouver or West Vancouver or North Vancouver who are being affected; it is the people throughout the entire province, including the people from the north.

Hon. Speaker, on that note, I would move adjournment of the debate until next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada