1982 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 32nd Parliament

Hansard

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

( Hansard )

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1982

Morning Sitting

[ Page

7137 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Mrs. Wallace –– 7137

Mr. Brummet –– 7140

Mr. Cocke –– 7144

THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 1982

The House met at 10 a.m.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, as you know, last night was a

great night in hockey for British Columbia and, with respect to that, I

ask leave to make a brief statement.

Leave granted.

MR. BARNES:

I think the people of British Columbia would approve if the Legislative

Assembly extended congratulations to the Vancouver Canucks hockey team,

who defeated the Los Angeles Kings in their best-of-seven quarterfinal

Stanley Cup play-offs in five games. They now advance to the

semi-finals against the winner of the quarter-final series between the

St. Louis Blues and the Chicago Black Hawks. So, with leave, I would

ask my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly to endorse the following

message to the Vancouver Canucks of the National Hockey League:

"On

behalf of British Columbians everywhere, members of the Legislative

Assembly of British Columbia extend their congratulations for your

success in defeating the Los Angeles Kings in the Smythe Division of

the Stanley Cup quarter-finals. May your good luck and inspired playing

be with you in the semi-final contest against either the Chicago Black

Hawks or the St. Louis Blues.

"Members of the Legislative Assembly, Province of British Columbia."

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, we indeed associate ourselves with the remarks of Slow

Hands Em over there. I would very much like to extend the government's

best wishes to the team in their great win. Let's hope that for the

very first time we'll have a Stanley Cup for Vancouver.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of standing order 35 to ask

leave to make a motion for adjournment of the House to discuss a

definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the standing orders provide that the member desiring to

make such a motion rises in his place, asks leave to move adjournment

of the House for the purpose of discussing it and states the matter

briefly.

MR. LEA: The subsidy agreement between the

Columbia, dated April 18, 1977, providing subsidy moneys for the

operation of certain B.C. Ferry routes, is up for review effective

April 18, 1982, which was four days ago. Further, the subsidy for those

routes is being decided by the federal cabinet with inadequate

representation from the provincial cabinet, without prior discussion in

this chamber and without the opportunity for this House to express its

dissatisfaction with the original agreement and the necessity for

vastly increasing the federal subsidy for the future. If this agreement

goes ahead without adequate discussion, either here or by the

provincial cabinet towards the federal cabinet, we in the province

stand to lose approximately $60 million over the next five years and

also suffer a falldown of service to northern communities.

MR. SPEAKER:

We will consider the matter immediately. I would, without prejudice to

the member, suggest that an opportunity to debate exactly the measures

that are suggested in the standing order are at hand. As a matter of

fact, the very next order on the order paper will provide exactly such

a provision.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

MRS. WALLACE:

Mr. Speaker, the issue raised by my colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr.

Lea) just previous to this on the lack of good management practices

that this government continually exhibits in its financial endeavours

is certainly very much in line with some of the remarks I am going to

make. Just before I adjourned the debate last night, I had indicated

that I had a series of things that I wanted to discuss relative to the

budget, but that many of the things I wanted to talk about had been

omitted from the budget.

On pages 16, 17 and 18 of the

budget speech, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) spends a lot

of time telling this Legislature about the tax changes he is going to

bring about in British Columbia. Of course, he told us there were no

tax increases, except for spending a lot of time on a tax increase that

was going to be put upon the banking institutions. He neglected to tell

us, however, that this would not apply to the Bank of British Columbia.

So that is one thing that was not in the budget.

In that

series of remarks which he made on page 18, he did talk about "an

increase in fines and penalties under various tax statutes, to ensure

prompt payment and full compliance." I'm not quite sure what the

minister had in mind when he put that sentence into his budget speech,

but certainly that minister did introduce a considerable number of tax

changes to be effective April 1, the beginning of this fiscal year —

changes that are not referred to in this budget, Mr. Speaker. They're

not mentioned at all.

Some of these changes are referred to in the

summary of the budget in the Vancouver Sun

on April 6, the day after the budget was presented. They are mentioned

in the budget but not included as tax changes. The only change

mentioned in the budget is in the dollar revenue that the government

hopes to get. One example is that, according to the budget, British

Columbians will pay $473 million in gasoline taxes during the fiscal

year starting April 1. That's $105 million more than they paid last

year, or a 30 percent increase. Now that, Mr. Speaker, does not

represent restraint on the part of this government in their taxing

policy — a 30 percent increase, and $105 million. Smokers will of

course pay $114 million this year; that's up from $102 million, an

increase of over 11 percent. The minister said he hoped to make S46

million more from liquor sales, up 14.4 percent. The new water tax

levied against Hydro burnps that cost up by $100 million, and it shows

an increase in water resources of 136 percent. That's some restraint in

tax policy, Mr. Speaker, some restraint! Car licence plates, a 14

percent increase and another $14 million. And so it goes on, Mr.

Speaker.

The minister omitted many of those tax increases,

but I don't think the record of this legislative session would be

complete without having read into the record the tax increases that

this government has actually imposed upon the people of British

Columbia, a lot of them effective April 1,

[ Page 7138 ]

the

date on which this budget became effective. I have a list here of

almost a hundred; in fact, I think it's probably over a hundred. I know

that's a long list, Mr. Speaker, and it's going to be a bit boring, but

perhaps some of us found the Finance minister's speech a bit boring as

well. I think these are omissions that should be put into the record,

because these are tax increases that this government has put upon the

people of British Columbia.

The coloured gasoline tax to

farmers and fishermen: a 26 percent increase over a period of some six

months, not over a full year. The farmers tell me that their fuel costs

over the year have increased by a tremendous amount. They're estimating

that they're going to be paying something like $75 million in increased

taxes on their fuel costs into the government coffer. That, of course,

is going to reflect on the cost of food.

Business licence

fees have a 15 percent increase. Free miners certificates are up 150

percent as of April 1, and individuals are up 400 percent. Placer mine

fees, guide outfitters and fisheries are up. Small storage plants are

up 100 percent. There's a brand new one from $50 to $100 for fish

buying stations. Fish processing plants are up from 100 percent to 300

percent. There's a 300 percent water rate increase, and a B.C. Hydro

general rate increase for industrial users of 31.5 percent. We have

only to look at medicare. The cost of medicare for single people is up

76.5 percent over a two-year period. Nursing home fees are up 61.5

percent over a two-year period. These are certainly not within the

restraint guidelines outlined by the Premier.

Bus fares for

adults are up 25 percent, and for children they're up 50 percent.

Drivers' licences are up 100 percent. Licence plates are up 38.9

percent. Vehicle inspection is up 66.7 percent. Provincial camping

parks are up from 17 percent to 33 percent. Angling licences are up 100

percent. Hunting licences are up 100 percent. ICBC rates are up an

average of something between 18 percent to 21 percent. Business

licences are up 15 percent, and for unorganized areas of the province

we don't know how much they're up. I talked about the gasoline tax

earlier. That's gone up, depending on the type and particular usage,

anywhere from 8.1 percent to 26 percent. The 26 percent, of course,

relates again to the farmers.

Medicare premiums. They've

gone up 21.7 percent for a single person. Emergency care is up 100

percent. Acute care is up 15.4 percent. Pharmacare is up; denticare has

also gone up. Of course, nobody really knows what's happened to

denticare — $30, maybe $60.

I had a very interesting

incident. A constituent who is in receipt of social assistance came

into my office the other day; his dentist is telling him that he must

pay 25 percent of his dental costs. I think there must be some mistake

there; I'm following it up. Surely this government wouldn't insist that

people in receipt of social assistance pay 25 percent of their dental

costs, yet that's what this particular constituent has been advised by

his dentist. Either the government is even more hard-hearted than I

believed, or they are very lax in getting their information across to

the people concerned.

Ambulance costs have gone up, of course; there's a tremendous increase there of 13.6 percent.

Then,

under various pieces of legislation — and I assume that these are the

sorts of things that the Finance minister referred to in his budget

speech, but he certainly didn't outline them — there's a brand-new fee.

If you make an application for a Crown grant lease, you have to pay $25

just to apply. An application for a declaration of intent under the

Land Act was $100; now it's $200 — a 100 percent increase. The issuance

of a lease or licence of occupation has risen from $30 to $100 — a 233

1/3 percent increase; that's not restraint. You're asking the citizens

of British Columbia to restrain their demands, yet you're putting these

kinds of demands on them — a 233 1/3 percent increase. That's certainly

not restraint.

The issuance of a certificate of purchase of

Crown land has risen from $30 to $50 — a 66 2/3 percent increase. The

issuance of a Crown grant has risen from $50 to $100 — a 100 percent

increase. The issuance of an easement or statutory right-of-way has

risen from $30 to $100 — another 233 1/3 percent increase. And if that

right-of-way happens to be longer than 25 kilometres, the cost goes

from $30 to $200 — a 566 2/3 percent increase. These are just

tremendous additional costs that this government is putting upon the

people of British Columbia.

There is a brand-new fee for

processing an amendment to a disposition. Extracting information from

the records has risen from $15 to $25 — a 66.7 percent increase. The

issuance of survey instructions is now $100. There was formerly no fee.

For easement greater than 25 kilometres, there's a brand new fee again

on that one.

Of course we have heard about marriage licences

going up 900 percent. This government apparently is really putting an

extra cost on people who want to enter the state of matrimony. If you

are married by a justice of the peace, that's a bit cheaper; it's only

up 166.7 percent, not 900 percent. The licence is going to cost you

nine times more than it did before. If you want to register a caveat

against someone you think should not be permitted to marry, that's up

100 percent.

Then we go to the Coal Act with more increases.

Application for a licence has gone from $10 to $25 — a 150 percent

increase; limited production permit, 100 percent increase; application

for a lease to produce coal, 100 percent increase; application to

extend the terms of a lease, a 1,100 percent increase, from $25 to $300

— it is certainly not in line with the restraint figures outlined by

the Premier; late filing of application extension, 100 percent

increase; filing notice to a group, 100 percent increase; considering

an application for consent, 100 percent increase for each licence, each

limited production permit and each lease affected.

These are

the kinds of increases that this government has been bringing in by

cabinet regulation, without any discussion in this Legislature and

without any reference in the budget speech, Mr. Speaker. There is no

reference in the budget speech to any of these things, and yet there

they are. In my estimation, when a citizen of this province is asked to

pay additional money to the government, it is a tax just the same as,

the sales tax, just the same as the income tax or any tax.

Under

the Mineral Act there is another series: free miners certificates for

corporations, up 150 percent; an individual who wants a free miners

licence is required now to pay four times more, a 400 percent increase

for that particular certificate. Of course, if he wants to abandon his

claim, that is another 100 percent increase; recording documents, 100

percent increase; recording notices,100 percent increase; filing

documents, 100 percent increase; identification tags, 300 percent

increase. Complaints is a brand new fee. If you have a complaint now

you are going to have to pay $200 just to have your complaint noted

under

section 50.

That is the Mines Act. Now on to the Mining (Placer) Act. There are eight fees under the Mining (Placer) Act, and

[ Page

7139 ]

there is a 100 percent increase in every one of them: recording, documents,

notices, copies, filing, certifying, identification tags, application fees,

late payment of rental and so on.

Then

we go on to the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act. We have more increases

of 100 percent, 40 percent, 50 percent. Under that act there is a total

of four separate increases. I know that this is not a very interesting

document to read from, but I really think that the people who peruse Hansard

have a right to know what this government has been up to outside of

this Legislature. That is why I am taking the time to put this list on

the record.

Motor vehicle licence plates have gone from $18

to $25, a 38.9 percent increase. Drivers' licences are up 100 percent.

Passenger vehicle inspections are up 66.7 percent. Transfer of

ownership is up 200 percent.

Then we go to the Park Act. We

have had some tremendous increases in the parks. Manning Lodge, of

course, has gone up 27 percent. Camping has gone up anywhere from 33

1/3 to 17 percent, depending on what park you are in. There are some

new fees as well. Docking fees for pleasure craft are up 33 1/3

percent. Stagecoach rides at Fort Steele are up 100 percent. You can

imagine the kind of effect this has on the average British Columbia

family, living now on a very limited income, who want to take children

on a short holiday, take them on a camping trip, take them to Fort

Steele to show them a bit of history. What is going to happen? While

their income is much more limited their costs are going to be much

higher: the gasoline tax, the licence fee for their car, the fees in

the campsites and even the cost of taking their children for a ride on

the stagecoach at Fort Steele. Of course, if you want to go on a canoe

trip in the Bowron Lakes, that is up 50 percent. If you go skiing you

are into the 18 and 20 percent bracket in fees.

The Wildlife

Act is another one where this government has seen fit to burnp up fees.

The firearms licence is up 100 percent. If you are a B.C. resident your

hunting licence goes up 100 percent but if you are a non-resident,

depending on what you are going to be hunting, your licence only

increases from 20 to 60 percent. Those are some pretty sizeable

increases, but if you are a resident you have a 100 percent increase —

hitting local people again. If you need a duplicate licence, that is up

100 percent; bow hunting is up 100 percent and species fees are up

again. If a local resident is applying for the fee to hunt black bear,

that fee is up 100 percent, but if you happen to be a non-resident it

is only up 25 percent. It is the same with deer: resident is up 100

percent, non-resident 20 percent. Caribou: resident, 100 percent;

non-resident 20 percent. Grizzly: resident, 100 percent; non-resident,

23 percent. Mountain goat: resident, 100 percent; non-resident, 30

percent. Mountain sheep: resident, 100 percent; nonresident, 20

percent. Angling fees: B.C. resident, 100 percent; Canadian resident,

140 percent; and if you are nonresident you get a decrease. That is

some fair treatment for the sports people in British Columbia and

Canada when they apply for licences or pay fees for angling. It goes on.

Trapping

is the same thing: B.C. residents, up 100 percent; guide licences and

outfitters, all of those are up 100 percent. This is far from being in

line with the restraint, Mr. Speaker.

Under the Fisheries Act, I mentioned some earlier. The cold-storage plant,

the fish-buying stations, the marine-plant harvesting and the vending licences

all show tremendous increases. Either there are new fees or fees are up anywhere

from 100 to 300 percent.

course, B.C. Ferries rates are up as of November 1 and will be going up

again, according to the press — and probably going up a lot more,

according to my colleague from Prince Rupert, if, in fact, this

government fails to negotiate or to take any

part in negotiations with

the federal government.

B.C. Hydro rates. We've all had an

11 percent increase there and, of course, industrial electricity is up

31.5 percent at a time when industrial users can perhaps least afford

to pay it.

ICBC rates are up, as I said, anywhere from 18

percent to 21 percent, and bus fares are also up. On April 1, wherever

you look in the lower mainland, and at whatever category, they've all

gone up anywhere from 17 percent to 50 percent.

All these

fees are coming out of the pockets of British Columbians and are being

approved by this government in cabinet without any consultation with

this Legislature and without any mention in the budget; there is no

mention in the budget at all. I'm sure that the members will be very

pleased to learn that I've come to the end of the list, but I think you

will agree that it's a pretty horrendous list, Mr. Speaker.

Another

thing that the budget simply can't seem to refrain from, no matter who

the Minister of Finance is.... They have to get involved in a little

bit of Canada-bashing, and this budget is no exception. They talk about

our taxpayers losing millions of dollars due to slow payments under

this unsatisfactory arrangement, and they're blaming the federal

government for the substantial amount of the costs to the federal tax

initiatives — the federal government is being blamed for not coming

through with this tax. Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that people who

live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, and I would like to refer

you to some of the remarks of the auditor-general in her most recent

report, again on page 16. While she says that the government has

improved slightly, she still points out some areas where this

government is very deficient in its operations.

You know,

they blame the federal government for being slow and late with their

payments, but in her report she talks about a "delay in depositing

cash." This is of particular interest to me because of the agricultural

connotations: "On 16 March 1981, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food

received a cheque for $415,000, of which $374,000 related to premiums

under the farm income assurance program." That was the previous year,

1981, Mr. Speaker.

The cheque was received in the fiscal

year ending March 31, 1981, but it "was not deposited until 7 April

1981," which was into the fiscal year which has just ended. It was not

recorded as revenue in that fiscal year. And since the province "is

required to match the premium portion ($374,000), government

expenditure on the program was understated by that amount for the 1981

fiscal year."

"The delay in depositing this cheque has the

following effects: the funds were not immediately available for use."

Certainly if you check with farmers, at that period of time there were

delays and delays and delays in payments for farm income assurance,

because the government simply did not deposit that cheque and did not

make the contributions that they should have made in the previous

fiscal year.

"The requirement for prompt deposit was not met; the recorded

assets were understated at 31 March 1981; and expenditures were not made in

the proper fiscal period."

I think, when a government has those kinds of problems going on within its

own cabinet offices, they are very foolhardy to cast aspersions on another jurisdiction.

[ Page 7140 ]

goes on. Under Unrecorded Asset, "Accounts receivable of $2.8 million

arising from a sale of land to a municipality are not included" in the

proper fiscal year. Three parcels of Crown land and the only record of

the amount was a note somewhere in the Ministry of Lands, Parks and

Housing. It should have been handled by correct accounting policies and

so recorded, and it was not.

Another instance where a loss

was recorded concerns the borrowing of $2.5 million. Repayment of that

loan was not made, and there was no agreement; nothing. That was way

back. In 1979 there was a proposal that this should be corrected but it

still hasn't been done. It's three years now since that started and

it's still not corrected.

Those are a few examples. The

report goes on, but those are examples of the way this government

operates. And yet they're ready to throw stones at other jurisdictions.

I suggest there is an intent to — may I say misrepresent? — the true financial

picture. When I spoke on the amendment, I referred to the budget as being a

sly, conniving budget. That's pretty strong, but it's certainly somewhat

contrived, at least, according to the auditor-general. If that's too strong

an expression, then it's certainly an example of sloppy control, and I think

that the auditor-general has pointed out those things very well.

also hear the Minister of Finance and all his government talk about

this province as having a balanced budget. Well, that didn't last very

long, Mr. Speaker. The headline from the Sun the day following presentation of the budget read: "Rainy Day Funds 'Balance Budget'." Even the Sun ,

in talking about the balance, puts it in quotes. They say, in the

course of their article, that the minister "disclosed Monday that he

would have to authorize the borrowing of $2.4 billion to carry out the

government program for this year." Yet they try to tell us that this is

a balanced budget. It certainly didn't take the people of British

Columbia very long to realize that the budget was not exactly balanced.

I've

talked about the kind of misleading statements that appear in the

budget which would make us believe there have been no extra charges to

the citizens of British Columbia. They' talk about a budget of

restraint; yet, in that same budget, professional and special services

for their private government press office have gone from $30,000 to

$450,000. In the name of restraint? The explanation that Doug Heal has

given for that, according to Allen Garr's column on April 8, is that

the government production was....

MR. VANDER ZALM: Do your own homework. You're always using poor Allen Garr.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, I haven't had the opportunity of talking to Doug Heal lately, Mr.

Minister. Apparently Doug Heal did say to Allen Garr that it was

because of the increase in the advertising category. But interestingly

enough, the advertising category has not decreased. In fact, it's gone

up from $403,000 to $450,000. So certainly that's not a very valid

answer, and it looks like anything but restraint in that particular

section of the government's expenditures.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE:

This is opposition according to the Minister of Finance; but the press

release I have in my hand right now was issued by the Minister of

Finance on April 2.

It's to do with improvements at the

Crystal Garden. I've nothing against the Crystal Garden. But surely in

a time of restraint we don't involve ourselves in $25,000 for the

installation of a liquor lounge, $8,000 to upgrade the lobby entrance,

$6,500 for decorative banners, $5,000 for a ballroom fan, $3,500 for

improved graphics and $3,000 for an audio-visual presentation. If we're

serious about restraint, we don't undertake those kinds of things.

That's according to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, I though it was according to Allen Garr. I'm surprised.

MRS. WALLACE:

This is a government, too, that operates by special warrants. It's a

government that is prone to overruns. We hear them tell us that we were

bad financial managers and that we don't know how to operate our

finances.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Everybody knows that.

MRS. WALLACE:

I don't think that's quite true. That's an old story that was

fabricated when your government issued a $261 million cheque that

bounced. They borrowed it back the next day. They issued it to a

corporation that was rolling in money at the time — just collecting

premiums. That story has worn very thin, and I think the people of

British Columbia have come to recognize it for what it is. When they

see you with expenditures over and above budgets — either last year's

budget or this year's budget — by nearly a quarter of a billion

dollars, they wonder just what good financial managers you are. When

you find that a great many of those warrants relate to expenditures in

your own ministerial offices, they wonder even more.

talked about the debt that you have created. Certainly you have created

a debt. The auditor-general has outlined it all here. Back in 1976 it

was $4.6 billion. As of March 31, 1981, it had risen to $8,237,000,000.

That's debt that the taxpayers have guaranteed. In addition to that, in

her report — it was issued April 7 — she says: "Subsequent to the year

end" — this was at the time when this report was issued — "there was

another $994 million that had been authorized." There's nearly another

billion dollars.

I was very interested in the question that my colleague asked the minister the other day....

The

red light. I can't believe it. In closing, I will have to simply say

that this budget does nothing to put any incentive into the economy of

British, Columbia. It.takes out money from the pockets of the people of

this province. It provides 5,200 jobs in the coal industry in the

northeast part of the province, and it does nothing for the hundreds of

thousands of people who are unemployed. That is a drop in the bucket.

Nothing is done for the loggers who are out of work and for the many

people in my constituency. I'm only sorry that my time has run out. I

devoted it to something I though should be done in this Legislature.

Unfortunately, it prevented me saying a lot of things I would have

liked to have said. I certainly do not support this budget.

MR. BRUMMET:

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take my place in this debate in

support of the budget. I'll also have some other related comments.

[ Page 7141 ]

It's

always interesting to hear the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) criticizing the increases in water tax to B.C. Hydro in this

House and closer to home. It's always interesting to compare that with

the views that she and her colleagues take when they come to my riding.

They condemn the government for giving away the water to B.C. Hydro and

for giving away the land too cheaply and for making the electricity too

cheap. It's always interesting to make that comparison — to say the

price goes up because costs go up; then, of course, it might be worth a

few votes.

It's always interesting to hear the comparison of

increases as percentages. An increase from $1 to $2 is a 100 percent

increase, and you will note that that member used percentages

throughout rather than actual dollars. It sounds so terrific, doesn't

it, when you have an increase from $1 to $5 and you talk about a 500

percent increase. What a terrible thing! What about talking about it in

real terms of $5? We mustn't increase the user fees. We have the

principle of socialism being espoused: if it costs $10 to make a

transaction, we should only charge $1 for it and sock it to the

taxpayers for the other $9. It's not only the $9, but we end up having

to take a lot more because when you take it from the taxpayers and give

it back in cheaper fees to the users, you also take about one third off

the top in administering it. So the socialist way is a much more

expensive way.

I am glad to see this government starting to

get away from kidding people into thinking that they're getting

something for free or cheap. I'm glad to see them moving away from that

socialist principle of taking it from the taxpayers and collecting from

them. Should not the users pay some of the costs of the services that

they use? Should it be taken from the general taxpayer and used by

government, increasing the costs on top of the actual fees and then

pretending that people are getting a good deal or a bargain? For

goodness' sake, how long do we think we can kid the people of this

province or this nation? We've got a fantastic example of that in the

federal situation where we've been kidding this country about how great

government is in providing for us. We didn't tell them that we've gone

through something like $120 billion in debt in the last 14 years in

order to be good government and provide for the people. We've kidded

the people. I think it's about time that we do something to bring

realism back to this world.

I noted yesterday that the

second member for Victoria (Mr. Hanson) stood here and complained about

the costs to Vancouver Island. I've been in this Legislature since

1979, and even before that I heard about the increased ferry rates that

were going to kill tourism on Vancouver Island. Yet the rates have gone

up to be more in line with the cost and tourism on Vancouver Island has

increased year after year.

That member has the audacity to

talk about how badly they are treated. We have the government buildings

here financed by the taxpayers of British Columbia as a major tourist

attraction. Victoria has the Provincial Museum financed by the

taxpayers of British Columbia as a major attraction. You have a lot of

other government-financed things here as major tourist attractions

financed by the producing areas of this province in order to attract

tourism here. And he has the gall to say that they need more money! I

wonder how he talks about electricity rates and the high gas rates and

that we have a postage-stamp principle in this province. Mr. Speaker,

how would he like to live on the gas fields or beside the dams that

generate the power for this province, and have to pay as much as

anybody else in spite of transmission costs to this province in order

to subsidize the people in this part of the province with what we give

up? How would he like to live there and explain that to the people?

says the ferry subsidy is down. He says it's only 10 percent of the

transportation budget. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have a reference

here which says that since 1976 Transportation and Highways has spent

$250,320,000 on Vancouver Island alone. And what do you have? You have

paved roads; you have paved alleys here. If $50 million of that $250

million had been put into my riding we'd have decent roads, never mind

paved roads. He has the gall to sit here, because of their votes, and

say: "We need more." He has the audacity to suggest that we've got to

keep industry and businesses right here on Vancouver Island even if if

it costs more, when it makes economic sense to put them somewhere else.

Where does that money come from? That money comes from the producing

areas of this province. He wants these businesses subsidized. Because

they choose to set up in Victoria, should we subsidize them to live

here when it's better to live somewhere else?

I would

suggest that we don't even have a housing shortage in this province. We

don't even have a land shortage in this province. The only problem we

have is that the people want to live where they choose to live, and

they have that right. However, if they want that right, then the rest

of the province shouldn't have to subsidize them to have that fight. He

said something about: "We want to be self-reliant." For heaven's sake,

be self-reliant. Quit asking for more and more, time and again. I'd

like to suggest that the businessmen in Victoria did not become

successful businessmen in Victoria because of government, because they

were subsidized. They saw an opportunity and, Lord knows, the amenities

that the taxpayers provide here provide a lot of opportunities. They

saw that opportunity and then they used their individual initiative in

order to go into business and be successful. I think it's high time

that some of those free enterprisers on this Island stood up and said:

"We did it. It's not government that made business for us. We don't

need these socialists." I think it's high time that some of these

people on the Island who have become prosperous because of the

opportunity to use their individual initiative, because of the free

enterprise system, threw out some of these socialists before we ruin

the province.

There is a list here of what various

ministries have spent over $801 million — to make things better for

Vancouver Island. Where does that $801 million come from? Some of it

comes back from the people on this island through taxation. But I would

like to suggest that all they have to do is look at the budget and see

where a lot of that money comes from. If it weren't for some government

assistance with transportation routes and communication links and with

development of resources, I wonder how many of those $801 million

anybody could have afforded to put here.

This budget is a

responsible budget. It finally recognizes the principle that government

cannot give to the people what they do not take away from the people in

the first place. We hear the criticism: "It's not a balanced budget,

because what was accumulated in past years is being spent now." That's

rather than trying to drag more out of the producing parts of this

province in order to try to prop up some of these socialist schemes for

creating jobs. Yes, they would create jobs. But how? They have to be

productive jobs, or the whole society goes down the tube in the long

run. What we're trying to do in this province is hold the line on

getting money from the taxpayers — reduce it — and the jobs created in

this province should contribute something as well as take something. .

[ Page 7142 ]

think these socialists have completely missed the point of the

restraint program. The restraint program is not to restrain those

people in need. That is evident in the Health budget and in social

services. That program is not to restrain those people, despite all the

garbage you hear in public about this, because that's all they can

attack. That program is intended to restrain those people with secure

incomes from the taxpayers' efforts in this province so that they can

contribute a little bit and share in the difficulties we have at this

time. In private industry, how many of those people are suffering? They

are suffering because they're the marketplace, which has its effect,

but in the public services we do not. The taxpayers of this province

cannot go on signing blank cheques, taking that money from the

taxpayers.

If we put together or juxtapose some of the

things the NDP are saying, they're obviously supporting the union

leaders in this province. They are in bed with them. Yes, we have this

situation where the Leader of the Opposition goes to an IWA convention,

or the B.C. Federation of Labour, and says: "Just vote for us

socialists; let's make a team and we'll get you everything you want in

this province." So by implication they suggest that if only we had an

NDP government in this province you could get all the wage increases

you want; you could get anything you want.

What are they

really saying? We have these leaders encouraged to the point where they

are saying to their members that they don't have to take

part in the

restraint, that it's the government's fault. What happens when some of

their members have the opportunity to say: "Look, I'm making $30,000 a

year now, and instead of a 20 percent increase I'll settle for 10

percent, because when you take income tax off I'm not really losing

that much per year." If those members would, do, that, they could keep

their fellow workers on the job. So the NDP, along with those leaders

who have committed, themselves to the NDP — and the NDP have committed,

themselves to those leaders — are doing a disservice to the people in

this province.

Mr. Speaker, we hear a lot about brotherhood

and sisterhood in the unions. When a union member is suffering because

of a mortgage, we hear a lot from the unions and from the socialists

about bringing down the interest rates. But what do those unions do

with their big funds, their strike funds and so on? They put them out

and invest them at 18 and 20 percent. Would they give a nickel to their

brothers to save their mortgages? No way. What happened to brotherhood

in this province? We have reached the point where the only brotherhood

we expect is from government, and government can't do it all. The only

thing government can do is take from people to give to people, and we

can't keep taking from the producers of this province without ruining

the economy.

Some of those union members out there are

starting to think for themselves. You better believe they are starting

to think for themselves, I talk to a lot of them. Some of those people

are no longer buying Kinnaird's deal of: "Stick with me. Go out on

strike and we'll get you 20 percent." It doesn't help a bit to get 20

percent or 30 percent if, in doing so, you destroy the employer. I

think the people out there are starting to recognize that.

Mr.

Speaker, I could give many examples, but basically I think we should

take a look at what has happened in this province. When the big

corporations, when the business people, when all those people who are

knocked time and time again by these socialists were prospering in this

province, guess what? So were the people of this province. You hurt

those people and say: "We've got to rip them off because they are

making money." Why in heavens name would anybody invest his money and

take all the risks if he's going to make the same amount of money as

somebody who only has to invest in a lunch bucket? They'ye forgotten

that. When our businesses have done well, so have our people — so goes

our economy.

I have said that the workers in this province

have a vested interest in the corporations and in everybody else's

doing well, because when they don't, the workers suffer. I think many

of the people are starting to recognize that. They don't just listen to

the press reports from Jim Kinnaird; those people are thinking for

themselves and they're talking. They don't just listen to all these

socialist programs about: "Trust us. We'll do it for you." The people

of this province built this great province by doing it themselves, and

I don't think they want anybody doing it for them.

I could

go on with that one indefinitely, but I'd like to cover a few more

areas. We have had a lot of criticism of travel by the ministers of

this government. I say good. It is about time, because you can't sell

our products, you can't market our goods I think there is ample

evidence of that — by sitting here in your office in Victoria. You have

to go out to where the potential buyers are and you've got to sell

them. That covers overseas travel. I think those ministers who have

travelled have more than paid for their way, and that is good

investment.

Let's talk about travel around the interior of

the province. We have had a lot of flak thrown at them for that. I say,

again, good, because I think that, especially when they bring ministry

staff with them, they learn more about what really goes on in those

areas and what really makes this province tick than by sitting in

Victoria. That is money well spent, because what many of the people

here who knock that program don't realize, — they sit within driving

distance of these cabinet ministers; they, sit within a short walking

distance of this place.... What happens to my people who have to spend

$300 to $500 to get here, plus take a couple of days off work? That is

the greatest thing that. has ever happened in this province. All of a

sudden, not just our people are having to take it out of their back

pockets to talk to the cabinet ministers. All of the taxpayers of

British Columbia are sharing to pay for an opportunity for our people

to meet with the government of this province.

We have heard a lot of attacks on the megaprojects, I can remember, in my first sitting here in this legislature in 1979....

Interjection.

MR. BRUMMET:

Whatever you say, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), because you

haven't got a good thought in your head. You've just got picayune

little attacks that you make.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. I recommend temperate language.

HON. MR. SMITH: I seek leave to make an introduction.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps at the conclusion of the member's speech. We cannot interrupt the member's speech.

[ Page 7143 ]

MR. BRUMMET: That is okay, Mr. Minister, I wasn't going to attack education. I will deal with that later.

was getting to the point of megaprojects. In 1979 I sat here and

listened to members of that opposition condemn the $9 million to $12

million that was being put into the Whistler project because it was a

giveaway. As one of their members put it: "We see the government not

only giving away a mountain or two, and lord knows what else down the

road, but they also have been in the process over the past years of

effectively giving away $9 million to $12 million of public money to

developers in the area through the travel industry subsidiary

agreement." In the farming communities they talk about it as seed

money. That seed money, according to a further report — I don't have

the up-to-date figures of what has been spent on Whistler and I don't

think anybody ever will have, because the investment just keeps pouring

in there.... Some of the results of this $9 million are that it

generated $552 million of net investment; it provided $185 million of

construction income and $67 million of operating income; it created

6,300 man-years of construction employment and 6,000 man-years of

operating employment; it produced $285 million of additional skier

expenditures and $180 million of additional non-skier expenditures. It

has improved Canada's balance of payments by $200 million, increased

federal and provincial tax receipts by $72 million, increased municipal

tax receipts by $20 million and increased school district tax receipts

by $14 million. Some giveaway!

Mr. Speaker, we have a good

budget here. We are dealing with projects that are not make-work

projects but projects that are going to make jobs and stimulate

economic activities. If we compare it to Whistler, they are going to do

well from all this. I have heard the comment, "Well, you can't sell

coal because the coal market is falling apart." In the meantime, you

have contracts being signed all over the southeast and northeast parts

of the province and Alberta. The United States is gearing up for a huge

export program. Why, if there is no market? We have a market and we

need that. I could go on to the other megaprojects, but I think that

one example of attacking these megaprojects....

Energy. We

have in British Columbia everything necessary for long-term energy

security. For economic health we have everything except perhaps the

will. I think we've been listening too much and too long to those

strident voices that are saying: "Stop anything — it might do a little

harm." What about the good it does? We have the potential here.

There's

a lot of talk about conservation. Economic stagnation is not a policy

option, nor is energy stagnation, because economic activity requires

energy. Yet here we are, listening to people who are saying: "Let's

shut it down — we don't need any more energy."

Mr. Speaker,

in 1960 when the Peace and Columbia projects were being considered, we

had the same critics. "What for? We can't possibly use all that much

electricity." By the time the Peace Dam came on in 1968 the use was

there for that electricity because it attracts the industries when it

is there.

Now I hear the same litany of doom and gloom:

"What do we need energy for? Prove it." Mr. Speaker, if someone had had

to prove in 1960 that we would need that energy before a wheel could

turn, we would still be a have-not province. Now these socialists are

trying to do the same thing. "Let's stop. We don't need energy." They

get on that bandwagon. Energy is the engine that fuels economic

development anywhere in this world.

I read another phrase:

"The evidence shows that the economic depression is an effective

strategy, the only proven strategy for conserving electricity. When we

are out of work, we use less electricity. It should be self-evident."

With

all the potential that we have in British Columbia, sometimes I think

we have people who are almost determined to overcome our advantages and

opportunities to make us equal with everybody else. That has to be

socialism.

In this Legislature we have had a budget

introduced, and we have had a lot of opposition attacks. They talk

about a $5 fee increase. They avoid talking about the general

principles involved in this budget, where it says to the people of

British Columbia that only in really good times can we keep going on

and picking up the tab. The only way to resolve the problems in this

country — you can't spend your way out of them — is to accept

responsibility. It was individual responsibility and individual

initiative that built this province, and I think we've got to give that

back to the people.

Each day, near closing hour, we have a

little performance here. Does that Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) talk about the major issues in the budget? No, sir. He comes

in and raises a point of privilege that "somebody hurt my feelings."

Somebody said a word here and compared a word there. That's using

technicalities. Mr. Speaker, the use of technicalities is the refuge of

a desperate person and a defeated person.

Even the Premier

will remember that when we played basketball in the Okanagan years ago

when we were teenagers, if you didn't win the game you registered a

protest in the hope that some board would sit there and give you the

victory because you couldn't win it fair and square. That's what we're

hearing in this House: protest technicalities, because they have

nothing else to offer. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that we'll see a lot more

use of the technical rules of this House, because you've got to hide

behind technicalities when you haven't got anything else to offer.

Mr.

Speaker, restraint is being imposed. The restraint program will not

hurt the people who need services. There's a lot of advantage being

taken out there to try to shift the blame onto, government. Isn't it

interesting that here in British Columbia — probably the only

jurisdiction that I've heard this about — the government is leading the

taxpayer revolt, because the taxpayers have had enough of just paying

more and more taxes. I can visualize some sniping at individual

comments and so on, but that is, in fact, the situation. They're also

saying to the municipalities, school districts and so on, and to the

people who depend on the taxpayer revenue in order to operate, to

private industry.... And that's their business. If they want to pay

double and try to make it, fine and dandy, the marketplace usually

looks after them if they try to go too high. But when we have

organizations that can in fact sign blank cheques and then go back to

the taxpayers those organizations have to take a responsible attitude.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, in many of our public institutions and organizations there is

a cheaper and better way to do it. But why in heaven's name would you

look for a better way to do it when all you have to do is say "sign the

cheque" and hand the bill to somebody else? I think this is going to

make some of those people look at some inefficiencies, and, believe me,

there are many inefficiencies in our whole system. We're politicians,

and we have to be careful that we don't tread on somebody's

[ Page 7144 ]

toes

and talk about these inefficiencies, but they're there, Mr. Speaker.

There are a lot of better ways to do a better job to serve more people,

and we can do it more economically than we are doing it.

It's

there, but we don't need to took for it. I can remember, as an

educator, that years ago in the United States somebody convinced the

U.S. government that the way to improve reading skills in the schools

was to just pour the money in. They poured the money in and said: "Hey,

is anything happening?" "Well, it takes time." Yes, it takes time. So

it took about 15 years before they finally did a really valid

assessment. Do you know what happened? After billions of extra dollars

had been poured in, the reading levels were no better than when they

started. But they spent a lot of taxpayers' money because somebody

said: "Money is the answer." Mr. Speaker, money is not always the

answer, and there are many examples that we can use.

Mr.

Speaker, I am generally a patient man. I'm not universally known for

that, but I have heard so much attacking of little individual items,

trying to capitalize on everybody's little dissatisfaction.... I don't

like it when my driver's licence goes up a few bucks, but I can accept

— and I think many people in this province can accept — that if it

takes $10 to process that licence I should not get it for $5 and have

the rest of the taxpayers give me that licence. I could use many

parallels. I think if we start being honest with the people of this

province, and this budget is an attempt to do that, many of them....

We're saying: "Look, if you want services, there is a cost attached."

We're through with the days when you could just keep dragging out money

and hide it somewhere in some scheme and say to the people: "Look, this

won't cost you anything; the government will look after it."

For

heaven's sake, Mr. Speaker, the people of this province built this

province on their initiative and their efforts. I would even like to

suggest a couple of examples, since I have a couple of minutes. As far

as housing is concerned, there is continual pressure that the

government should give people more money to build houses. How can you

argue with motherhood? However, if we left more money in their pockets

in the first place, they could probably build the houses more cheaply

and they would not be deluded into thinking that they can afford a

great big mansion when really all they can afford is a small house.

We've

had a lot of accusations thrown back at us about being the rich guys

over here, and not knowing anything else. I'll compare my record of

poverty as a kid with anybody in this House anytime. I don't even

regret that, because it taught me something. Those were the days when

there wasn't anybody to bail you out. Those were the days when if you

wanted something, you had to earn it. That was a valuable lesson in my

life. It gave me all kinds of liberty as a school principal, and it

gives me all kinds of liberty as an elected representative. I've never

had to be afraid that if this job doesn't work out I can't make it

somewhere else. There are many members on that side of the House who

are in the same position. They got where they are because they learned

to work for it and earn it. We are saying now that we have leaned too

far. We have had to sort of combat some of these socialist promises.

We've gone too far.

We give a good deal to our pensioners in

this province. We have senior citizens in long-term care homes, and we

have these people say that this government is taking more away from

them, raising the bills, and so on and so forth. We have said to those

people that they don't have to save a buck in their life. "Spend it

all, and when you get into those extended-care homes you get room,

board, medical and everything looked after." And they get $130 or $140

of spending money on top of that. Because of these socialists, they're

telling those people: "You're being gypped." What happens? We're saying

to people: "Look, all you have to do is wait and government will look

after it." Who is paying the price for that? The people who are paying

the price are those who treat their earnings frugally and save some

money. Then when they get there, they say: "Well, you saved some money.

You've got some money. You don't need it." I think we're doing a

disservice to people by saying, "You don't have to look after yourself

any longer, and you don't, any longer, have to look after your brothers

as they do in the union movement. Let the government look, after it." I

think we've done a terrible disservice to the people of this province.

Let

me conclude by saying that the people of British Columbia know they

made this province, and they know they can make it again. They know

that their future is in their hands. I think what they're saying, in a

sense, is that they don't know how, because they've been promised so

much. Loud demands for government assistance have been encouraged, so

people have really, in a sense, had their initiative taken away from

them, because "We like to be good guys, let's promise them anything."

But I'm saying this, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion: the people of this

country built this country on their initiative and on their pride. For

heaven's sake, let's give them that pride back.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Speaker, I will disappoint the government and my opening remark

will be positive, and that is: resign! That would be the most positive

thing that could happen to this province, despite the angry roar that

we've just heard from the member for North Peace River, who made a

great deal of sense to himself.

Mr. Speaker, I would first

like to refer to the budget. In the budget, on page 16, the Finance

minister says: "There will be no increase in personal or corporation

income taxes this year. We will continue this year to apply the small

business tax rate at 8 percent, which is one-half of the general

corporation tax rate." Mr. Speaker, that less regressive tax than any

other tax is not to be raised. What is to be raised, however, and has

been raised twice this year — the last time as an increase in tax on

health services — is direct fees. By how much? Fifty million dollars.

No tax increases, yet the most regressive tax of all has been raised by

this government.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, I dismiss with

dismay any kind of suggestion from that government that they are, in

fact, caring for the best interests of people. There have been charges

for every government service, and they've all been increased. The

member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) talked about a $5 raise here

and a $5 raise there, but it is $50 million for health alone. I suggest

that the massive increases in health-care fees have not provided better

service for the public. We, have paid 50, 60 and 70 percent more for

medicare in the past two years. Nursing-home patients have had their

monthly fees increased 61.5 percent. Emergency room fees have doubled.

Ambulance fees, hospital charges and Pharmacare deductibles are all up

by sizeable margins. Yet everywhere we find cutbacks and wage controls.

This is a revenue grab, pure and simple. This government believes in

user-pay for health care. Only three provinces in Canada impose monthly

premiums: Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

[ Page 7145 ]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: No. You see, the others charge the fair tax income tax — to pay for those services.

HON. MR. GARDOM: You want to raise income tax too.

MR. COCKE: That is the alternative. Put it on the record, because it is not a regressive tax.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The capital tax as well?

MR. COCKE: That whining member for Surrey, who is about to be defeated in his seat, is whining again. He is negative all the time.

The

government has expanded user-pay for health services by announcing that

the Ministry of Health will bring in public health inspection fees. As

the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) said, you'll be charging for

police calls next time around. It's a very interesting thing when that

member from the tulip farm gets up on his back legs and starts saying:

"Do you want to do this? Do you want to do that?" I'll tell you what I

want to do. You just listen to my speech and you'll hear what I want to

do.

Just to get back to the member for Surrey, he didn't

even know whether the tax was on or off. He accused it of being on, and

it was off at the time. Anyway, that's neither here nor there.

Just

to give you an idea of how regressive the tax is, I got a letter from a

person — not in my riding.... I'll give you an example of what he has

to say about this user pay.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Just made-up letters!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I will ignore that red-tulip rancher.

Mr. A and his wife decide to take a year off and go to Europe. They return

and go back to work with a combined income of $40,000 per year, but since they

had no taxable income for that year abroad, they are eligible for premium assistance

and free dental care for the whole year. Mr. B working last year but, due to

the recession, laid off work.... He and his wife are living off their UIC

and savings and are not eligible for assistance.

They

don't seem to understand that. That's why I say the fair way to pay for

our health services is through the less regressive tax, which is income

tax. Then, if you have income, you pay, and if you don't have income,

you don't pay. It's very elementary. Even the member for Surrey, if he

took a night-school course, could understand that.

Health

services aren't the only areas where we're taxing regressively, but I'm

not going to go through all those other areas, because the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) did it very well. She outlined them all.

The

government speaks of a balanced budget. They say: "Now, you negative

people over there, get positive." It is no more balanced.... It is the

biggest sham I've ever seen in my life. Let me tell you why. If I turn

to page 42 of the budget, what do I find? I want you to listen to this

very carefully, Mr. Member for Surrey and others. I think you should

look under the British Columbia Buildings Corporation. The British

Columbia Buildings Corporation has a debt of $221,230,656 in just the

four or five years it has been in existence. They created that debt —

the net debt.

MR. KEMPF: What are their assets?

MR. COCKE: I'm telling you, it's debt, debt, debt.

What

they did was — rather than pay-as-you-go, as governments have

traditionally done in this province for public buildings and servicing

public buildings — transfer it out of the budget. We're now able to

build a debt of $221 million. Systems, $25 million so far; B.C. Place,

$59 million so far; Urban Transit Authority, $55 million so far. That's

where they hide their debt, but it's debt nonetheless. Since this

government has been in power, our Crown corporations' debt has risen to

an astronomical $9,425,000,000 that the people in this province are

going to have to pay, through their Hydro bills, user-service payments

or whatever. They're going to have to pay it, just as surely as they

have to pay their taxes, just as surely as they have to eat to live.

W.A.C.

Bennett used to call it contingent liability. At least he tried to keep

it at a responsible level. Since these people have come to power, it

has just run wild. They give Hydro anything they want and they give any

of their other authorities anything they want, providing they don't

have to give them cash. They give them borrowing power "Borrow your

heads off, gang, That's all we want from you — borrow, borrow, borrow."

They're so deeply in the glue — and so are we — as a result of their

activities, that it's a shame.

Mr. Speaker, one thing they have money for.... I listened to that member for the North Peace River (Mr. Brummet).

MR. RICHMOND: A very good speech.

MR. COCKE:

I've never heard such nonsense in all my life! Let me tell you

something that they've got money for. Despite this restraint, they've

got money to spend on advertising and publications to further their own

political future. It's the most atrocious expenditure of taxpayers'

money to try to re-elect themselves that I've ever seen in my life.

Mr.

Speaker, the Provincial Secretary's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe'

s) bill alone will

be $2.208 million dollars for advertising and publications. Let me tell

you what one of those publications is. It's this piece of

misinformation, and it is delivered to the homes of this province at

their expense. It's a real loser if you think in terms of honest

government. You're the loser, because what you have done is disgrace

government in the eyes of the people. Any government that's going to

take your place is going to have to do an awful lot of very, very fine

work in order to restore confidence in government. The province needs

its stables cleaned badly. Mr. Speaker, there are millions of dollars

spent on this sort of performance, and all it is is talk about our

great Minister of Finance, about our restraint program, our health care

— and I'll get back to that in a second or two — and about all the good

news for the jobless. There's not a word with any really good solid

foundation. It's a disgrace that the taxpayers' money should ship this

kind of thing out to the homes of our taxpayers.

I suggest

that we should take a look at one aspect of this little newspaper that

I know something about, and that's the health care. Some time ago — and

this was a letter from the member for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr.

Curtis) to his constituents. It was his report from the Legislature.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Date? Date?

[ Page 7146 ]

MR. COCKE:

What difference does it make? It's not even dated. He hasn't even got

that much sense to date it. December 1981 — that's not a date, it's a

month.

"Often our government is criticized for

cutting back in health care. Members and supporters of the NDP are

frequently involved in this criticism but not exclusively. We as a

government have failed to adequately and fully explain our commitment

to the best possible health system in all parts of B.C. The cost of our

total health care system is quite certainly the most worrying aspect of

all provincial budget considerations."

He goes on to say:

"Please support your government when you hear criticisms in the health area."

Let's

talk about some of those areas. Firstly, there's the minister's

spending program. This is what he says: "Health care in this province

in every respect is among the best to be found anywhere in the world."

Let's just take a look at that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is it better?

MR. COCKE: In many places....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name one.

MR. COCKE: I can name Saskatchewan. I can name Manitoba, even PEI — yessir.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd rather get sick here.

MR. COCKE:

You'd rather get sick anywhere than here! I'm reading again from the

B.C. Government News: "Finance Minister Curtis, in revealing the

spending program, said that the government does not intend to

compromise services to the needy or the elderly." Let's just look at

the reality. On the lower mainland we have a place called Sunny Hill

Hospital. It is a hospital for paraplegics, for handicapped children.

This is the great health service we have; this is the reality: "It is

now nothing more than custodial." That is a quote from one of the

people who worked there. "Judy Fisher, mother of a 15-year-old boy who

suffered serious brain damage in an accident 18 months ago, said:

'Children like him require an awful lot of rehabilitation and

stimulation. It has been a 24-hour job, and the family doesn't have the

skills.'" Do you know what is happening to these people now because of

all the layoffs that have occurred at Sunny Hill? Those children are

lying in their beds all evening. There's no rehabilitation and there

are no programs. They're laying in their beds watching TV night after

night because we haven't got enough staff out there to look after them.

MR. MACDONALD: They've cut back the music program.

MR. COCKE: They've cut it out.

MS. BROWN: It used to be the best rehabilitation hospital for the children in Canada.

MR. COCKE:

That's right. One of the people out there said: "I appreciate that

we're in difficult financial times, but these children cannot speak for

themselves, and the greater their rehabilitation the lesser burden

they'll be on society in the future." They haven't got enough brains to

understand that. It's a shame, because it's this kind of hurtful policy

that's really damaging our society.

Further to that, in the

lower Fraser Valley we have the Cerebral Palsy Association saying to us

legislators and the government that they need their programs out there,

and the programs there are going to have to be cut out. That's for the

young adult cerebral palsy victims. There's no more counselling, no

more this, no more that, no more job training and no more

rehabilitation. Just cut it, off and let them go to blazes. That's not

good health care.

The minister says that we've got this

great service for the elderly. I'm glad he told us, because the Juan de

Fuca Society don't believe him. The Juan de Fuca Society have 490

chronic-care beds in the Victoria area. They're going to have to run 50

fewer beds, despite the fact that we have identified at least 200

chronically ill people in acute-care beds. What we are in fact saying

is that those chronically ill people that can't get into Juan de Fuca

are now going to wind up in Victoria General or Royal Jubilee at about

$250 to $300 a day, as opposed to $60 a day, or thereabouts, in the

long-term care beds, and it's not an appropriate bed.

So,

Mr. Speaker, that kind of situation indicates to me the minister was

talking out of both sides of his mouth. It's not true what he says in

this diatribe the public are paying for — this PR sheet that we pay

for, the public pay for, and that this government put out on a regular

basis to try to get themselves re-elected. It's a shocking thing. Why

don't they put this on user-pay? Put it on the streets, put it on the

news stands, put a price on it, and see how many people buy your sheet.

This is the kind of thing we should have user-pay for — a good

magazine. Just divide up what it costs per unit and attach that as the

price. If people in New York want to see it, then let them pay for it

too.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Ah, come on, a triple-A rating doesn't come from a PR scandal sheet. What the blazes are you talking about!

Mr.

Speaker, the minister goes on in this centrefold to say that the

funding will allow government to care for persons who occupy 675 new

long-term care beds during the coming year. What's the reality? In

March of '82 there were 1,200 long-term care patients being

inappropriately cared for in B.C. We found them in 1981 and we found

that same number again in 1982. What's the cost of that for these

cost-conscious people? Well, I'll give you an idea. The cost per day in

acute care, using the government's figures of $260 per day, is

$312,000. The cost per month is $9.4 million, and the cost per year is

$114 million. Is it any wonder, with those kinds of policies, that

we're going broke?

They say: "Look at how much we're

spending on health, " and I agree. For heaven's sake, we're spending

too much on health care in terms of what we're getting back. If we were

to get back what we are paying for, we would have the finest system in

the world. But we're not getting it back. They are wastrels; they are

rotten managers. They spend all their time reorganizing that department

at the top; they do nothing at the grassroots. Then they come around

and tell us what a marvellous system we have.

It is a shocking performance by an abysmally poor government. If that $1.1 billion hospital budget for 1982-83 were

[ Page 7147 ]

properly

managed, spent and coordinated it could give us what the government

says we have, and that is the finest system of health care in the

world. But we don't have it. They are incompetent. They are not worth

the powder to blow them from here across the street. They are the worst

government we have ever seen in this province, and yet they are still

here.

There are so many areas that we should deal with. What

about a good package for health care? Let's deal with preventive areas

of health care first. What do we see? One preventive program is public

health inspection. What are we going to do about public health

inspection? We are going to charge. He likes the idea that we're going

to charge restaurants and everybody else for public health inspection.

MR. STRACHAN: You've got it.

MR. COCKE:

I've got it. It is a regressive tax that the consumer is going to have

to pay and it is a preventive service that shouldn't be paid for that

way. It should be paid for through the taxation system, just the same

as we pay for our police. The next thing you know they are going to be

asking that each time a policeman makes a call there should be a charge

for it. What rot! It is a Disneyland bunch.

I've got so very

little time left that I just want to talk about some areas. Let me talk

about this great health-care plan we have and what it is doing to us. I

am talking now in terms of preventive services. In nine units we have a

shortage of 13 to 15 health inspectors. In seven units we have a

shortage of 11 public health nurses. We have a shortage of between 7.5

and 8.5 speech therapists in nine units. We are short five nutrition

aides and 11 mental health nurses. And the list goes on and on. That's

for prevention. Where the blazes are we going to be a few years from

now? We're going to be in real trouble, Mr. Speaker, because of the

groundwork that these people did. They laid a foundation that's full of

termites. And as I look across the floor, I can see why it's full of

termites. They come home.

Mr. Speaker, what does the Premier's own area have to say about it? Here's a quote from one of the people up there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. COCKE: None of your business. They feel the hiring freeze is a stupid way to hold down expenses.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Fiction!

MR. COCKE: It's not fiction, Garde. He'd get fired by you.

HON. MR. GARDOM: By me?

MR. COCKE: Yes, by your government. I would not reveal a source to you people. You're the most vindictive gang I've ever seen in my life.

Mr.

Speaker, the hiring freeze is a stupid way to hold down expenses. The

loss of one nurse could spell the end of a whole program, and I told

you about being 15 short. In the northern interior, what do they have

to say? "Hiring freeze plan should be discussed with local medical

officers, local bodies, instead of unilaterally coming out of

Victoria." Agreed.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. COCKE: It wouldn't be you, because it was somebody with some sense.

Mr.

Speaker, here's the list, and I'd love to table it anytime anybody

wants. These are the shortages and these are the districts.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Certainly I will.

The

Premier won't read it. It won't mean a thing to him. He's been premier

of this province for six years, or thereabouts, and he's done nothing

whatsoever, in terms of prevention, to improve our health system. Not a

thing.

To give you an idea, two years ago we had five health

educators in this province. How many do you think we have now? We have

two health educators left. Mr. Speaker, I think it's a shocking

situation that we have to put up with a government that does what this

government does to us.

Let's talk about the dental program

for a minute. What a fiasco that was. Remember when it came in? We were

told it was going to be the greatest thing that ever happened since

sliced bread." It was announced in July 1980, and the then Minister of

Health, Rafe Mair, said: "The program is primarily intended to help

children, senior citizens and the poor. Further, there will be no

premium or deducibility." That began in January 1981, and just over a

year later the present Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

effectively eliminated one of the most important features of the plan —

the preventive care package for children under 14 — by imposing a $30

deductible. We all went through that little situation, and he found

that it wasn't a politically good idea. So instead of the children's

package, in March 1982 he announced that the deductible would be

scrapped and he decided he would save the $10 million by reducing

coverage to low-income families and seniors who are on medical services

plan assistance.

The people we're talking about here are

low-income couple with a taxable income of below $2,800. They're the

ones that the member from the north wants to help, but now they're

going to have to pay 25 percent of their dental-care costs, and the

ministry will only pick up 75 percent. It's a shocking performance from

a disastrous group that has absolutely no conscience. When I listen to

that conscienceless speech and the person who pounded his desk the

hardest.... It was that member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). It's a shocking

shame.

What else do we do? In Vancouver's east end we cut

out the dental program. Dr. Kinloch says, "You're a disaster, " and I

agree. The children are suffering at the hands of this government.

can go on and on about prevention and community health. What about

alcohol and drugs? I was very interested recently when I read this

editorial: "A Mad Ending to a Sad Tale." What are they talking about

there? They're talking about Brannan Lake. Some of you haven't been

around long enough, but when that program was introduced in the first

place, we on this side of the House said categorically: "It won't

work." Why did we say it wouldn't work? Because we referred to the

background paper, for heaven's sake, that the minister was using, which

told us at the time that there were hardly any people left on the

streets hooked on heroin. They were hooked on alcohol and on other

drugs, but they were not hooked on heroin. It was there for him to see.

He didn't even read his own damned paper, and he cost the taxpayers

millions and millions of dollars. He set up Brannan Lake and the

[ Page 7148 ]

whole heroin treatment program throughout the province. It was a disaster and is now closed. But what's happening?

Well,

you've got to justify some of these expenditures, so now you're taking

over some of the alcohol and drug programs that had been run by local,

non-profit organizations which had been doing a good job. In Prince

George, for example, they've been forced to amalgamate. So, Mr.

Speaker, 90 or 100 patients in Prince George may or may not get

service. The same thing is happening in Surrey, and it is going to

happen everywhere. After we've spent all this money.... I said years

ago that that money expended would be money poured down a rat hole, and

that's precisely what we have done. It was poured down a rat hole by

that government. It was one of the biggest wastes of money...until we

see some of the present megaprojects that are going on that I don't

think they'll be able to defend very much longer.

Mr.

Speaker, while we're going along wasting taxpayers' money on PR stunts,

who are we hurting? We called 52 hospitals in this province who were

told that they are going to have to run on a restraint program. Where

do they start from? What is the foundation from which they start? Of

those 52 hospitals, 46 of them start with a deficit. What a way to go

into a restraint program. They start out in the glue and they're going

to really be glued. So people in our province are not going to be

served by this great system that the minister talks about.

Mr.

Speaker, time is running very short. If it weren't for the fact that I

have to go to Vancouver this afternoon and talk to a large number of

health-care workers, I would be right here talking along, But there is

no sense in me talking to that gang. I have been watching and there is

no response.

I will suggest that the day that that government recognizes their responsibility

to health care and quits doing the kind of PR things with taxpayers' money

that they are now doing, then we can take another look at them. But presently

this government is nothing but a PR stunt with no ability to implement any kind

of plans. It is just a PR gang. Millions of dollars out of the Provincial Secretary's

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe'

s) office. I suggest to you that anybody who could support

their budget on any basis has to have some kind of sense which is less than

desirable. I suggest to you that I will not vote for this budget. I suggest

to you that nobody with any sense of responsibility will.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

I tell you what I am going to do, Mr. Speaker, just to be fair. I am

going to give that member for Omineca a chance to get up and adjourn

debate. I will not vote for this budget. I will not vote for this

government. I think they are a disaster.

MR. KEMPF:

All I can say for the member who has just taken his seat is that he is

lucky he's not going to be here this afternoon. Mr. Speaker, in order

to clear this chamber of the hot air that has been created by that

member, I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting

of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:02 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1982,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada