1987 Legislative Session: 1st

Session, 34th 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, MARCH 26, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 283 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Budget taxation measures. Mr. Clark –– 284

Small business tax. Ms. Edwards –– 284

Budget income tax changes. Mr. Stupich –– 285

Gas and oil industry incentives. Mr.

Weisgerber –– 286

Strathcona Park. Mr. Gabelmann –– 286

Tabling Documents –– 286

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mrs. Boone –– 286

Mr. Bruce –– 289

Ms. Edwards –– 291

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 292

Mr. Blencoe –– 292

Mr. Hewitt –– 295

Mr. G. Hanson –– 296

Mr. Serwa –– 298

Mr. Miller –– 299

Mr. Chalmers –– 300

Mr. Clark –– 302

Mr. Sihota –– 303

Division –– 305

On the main motion

Mr. Serwa –– 305

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. VANT:

Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very happy day, for this is the first

time in this session that my partner MLA, the first member for Cariboo

(Mr. A. Fraser), has taken his seat. I know the whole.... [Applause.]

Without even saying it, I knew the House would royally welcome him. The

first member for Cariboo has endured since last June no less than 11

operations. He feels fine, and we all agree he certainly looks very

good today. He regrets that he will not be able to speak for a while,

only whisper. He wanted me to say, as his partner MLA for the Cariboo,

that he's very happy to be back, and he has some advice for the new

members of the House, on both sides of the House.

He says

that the first ten years as MLA are the toughest; after ten years, it's

a breeze. Of course, Alex has been the longest continuous sitting

member of the Social Credit Party in this Legislature, so he is the

senior member of our caucus. Also, of course, when he was elected last

October, I am sure he is the only member on either of this House who

got elected without any empty, hollow rhetoric, without any buzzwords.

He got elected, in fact, without saying one word, and that's unique.

Also, while I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I'm indeed very

pleased to introduce the woman who for many, many years — for decades —

has

been behind the first member for Cariboo. She's here in the members'

gallery: Gertrude Fraser. I know the House welcomes her.

MR. ROSE:

I think that the House and visitors will note the amount of applause

genuinely and generously given the first member for Cariboo. So we too

would like to welcome him back.

Sometimes around here

debates get raucous and personal and bitter, and sometimes there's a

bit of heavy breathing. I can't recall anybody on this side of the

House, or the other for that matter, ever but having the highest regard

and praise for the first member for Cariboo. I think one of the reasons

for it was his lack of rancour, his lack of partisanship — although he

was a believer in what he did — but

also the fact that he stayed in the House. He was one of the few people

who liked this room. Although he had a big, heavy portfolio, and

hundreds of things to do and miles of highway to blacktop — especially

in the Cariboo [laughter] — he

could leave his bulldozers long enough to come in and sit with us. We

liked that and appreciated that from him. He was decent. He answered

questions. We're sure glad to have him back, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PARKER: I've several guests today that

I'd like to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House.

I'd like to introduce Ray Brady, mayor, and Dave Morris,

manager, of the district of Kitimat, and ask the House to bid them

welcome; and two young men from Terrace: Manbir Prihar, attending the

University of Victoria, and Sean Vanderfluit, attending the University

of British Columbia. Sean is the leader of the opposition for the

Western Canada Youth Parliament to be held May 15-18 this year at the

University of Victoria. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS:

On behalf of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who is away attending

the first ministers' conference in Ottawa today, I'd like to welcome,

on behalf of his constituency and the city of Port Alberni, a number of

visiting students and teachers from the twin city of Port Alberni,

which is Abashiri, Japan. I would like to bid them a hearty welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH:

Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are friends of yours: first,

retired Major-General David Adamson, a long-standing friend of yours

from the RCAF and the Canadian Armed Forces, with his wife Marjorie;

and also either your daughter or your wife — I'm not sure which, Mr.

Speaker. Please bid them welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE:

It is indeed a pleasure today to rise in this House and welcome a

person who has stood by my side for over 27 years. Faithfully and

together we have proceeded through life and, in all endeavours, done

everything together. I'd like you to welcome my good wife, Margaret.

She's a pillar of strength.

MR. RABBITT: Mr.

Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a guest in the gallery, a

former resident of ours in Yale-Lillooet, presently a professional

stuntman in our province, in our Hollywood of the north. I'd like the

House to give a warm welcome to J.J. Makaro.

MR. LOENEN:

We have some very special visitors with us, Mr. Speaker: some Inuit

students from Arctic Bay. They are the visitors of and are being hosted

by a school from my constituency of Richmond, the Cambie School. I

would like the House to make them feel welcome.

[2:15]

MR. CHALMERS:

I'm pleased to say that today we have three visitors from the sunny

Okanagan, the great riding of Okanagan South. I'd like you to welcome,

please, Mr. Jona Emke, his wife Edna, and friend Ed Pavlakovic. Please

make them welcome.

MR. BRUCE: There are a few people

in the House today in the gallery and I think it would do well if this

House would join with me in welcoming them. I won't name them all but

there are a few I would like to mention.

You will recall

that at the time of my maiden speech I made a few introductions, and I

made mention that my brother wasn't here. Well, today he is. The

president of Bruce's Grocery of Canada, the biggest little home-grown

supermarket in Duncan, my brother Garry; my cousin and campaign manager

in a number of elections, both municipal and provincial, Byron Hudson;

a very dear friend of our family whose husband worked for us many years

in the enormous operation of Bruce's Grocery, Mrs. Annie Philpot; a

former candidate in Oak Bay and certainly in Cowichan Malahat on

several occasions, Dr. Charles Ennals and his wife Jill; a customer and

long-time friend of Bruce's Grocery who has been coming into the store

some 42 years of our 50-year operation, known as the bull of the woods,

Jim and Dorothy Kerrone; and, ladies and gentlemen, one of the past

[ Page 284 ]

presidents

of the Chemainus-Crofton Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Frank Thurston. I

would ask that you would bid them all a very warm welcome, and the many

other friends that have come down here today.

MR. JACOBSEN:

We have with us today Gordon and Gregory Gardner from Dewdney, and with

them is Mr. Peter Funk from Abbotsford and Mr. Lyle Wicks from

Victoria. Would you please welcome them.

MR. WEISGERBER:

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to this House two members

of the B.C. grain growers' association, Mr. Ron Scobie, the

vice-president, and Dennis Torkelson, a director. Please make them

welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your

gallery this afternoon are two very special ladies. We have Maria

McNulty, who is visiting us today from Belfast, Ireland, and Betty

Anderson, who runs the best bed-and-breakfast operation in Surrey. I

would ask the House to please welcome them.

MRS. GRAN:

Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have, from the constituency of

Alberni, Audrey and Ed Bayley. They are the parents of Robin Bayley,

one of the legislative interns working for the Social Credit caucus. I

would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today one of the

most important people any constituency could have, and that would be a

voter. Would the House kindly make welcome Margaret Ketcheson.

Oral Questions

BUDGET TAXATION MEASURES

MR. CLARK:

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister's

budget speech claimed that his tax measures would improve fairness, yet

user fees for drugs under Pharmacare have been levied on seniors to

raise $18 million, while the surtax on wealthy individuals that was

removed raised about $21 million. Is this what the minister means by

fair taxation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm

sorry I have to bring to your attention that this particular line of

questioning was ruled out of order yesterday by our Speaker, in view of

the fact that we're dealing with the budget in the House. Sorry about

that.

MR. CLARK: No questions on the budget?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to rephrase

that question?

MR. CLARK:

How can the minister justify his political rhetoric in the budget

speech with the reality of what he's doing? Is that out of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's still out of order,

hon. member.

SMALL BUSINESS TAX

MS. EDWARDS:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as well. It

deals with the small business tax that was introduced in the budget.

The combined federal-provincial small business tax right now stands at

26 percent, which is the highest in the country. What are the measures

the minister has in mind that would offset the loss of jobs that will

result from the 37.5 percent increase in the small business tax?

HON. MR. COUVELIER:

Mr. Speaker, as contained in the budget speech itself, I thought it was

adequately explained. Certainly it has been understood, to the best of

my knowledge, in the small business community itself. I'm surprised

that the members across the floor haven't had the wit to grasp the

written word. The explanation, Mr. Speaker, is that we must maintain

the relativity between the personal income tax rate and the small

business income tax rate. Failure to do so would result in many

professionals who are traditionally in the income bracket where they

might choose to minimize their tax risk. Failure to do so would result

in those individuals incorporating for the purpose of avoiding tax. The

relativity between the personal income tax rate and that small business

tax rate has always been maintained, and in my judgment and in the

judgment of the government must be in order to maintain the credibility

and fairness of the tax system.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it

should also be understood that this government and our previous

government in this province instituted a series of programs to assist

industry in their endeavours to create employment and maintain their

economic health. In the honouring of those agreements, Mr. Speaker, the

cumulative dollar cost is approximately $600 million. I make the claim

that this government certainly cannot be characterized as being

insensitive to the needs of the business community, and certainly is

always alert to any opportunity to create jobs as a consequence. We

have in the past, and we are now and we will in the future, continue to

place our greatest reliance on the private sector for job creation and

for returning some strength and vitality to our economic system. As a

matter of philosophy, Mr. Speaker, this government does not believe

that it is up to government to provide all the jobs in the communities.

It's up to the community leaders and it's up to the private sector, and

we believe our legislative package puts in place the kind of devices

that will allow that to occur.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The

Chair appreciates the detail with which the minister provided his

answer, but we should remind everyone once again that one of the

requirements of question period is that both questions and answers be

concise and to the point.

MS. EDWARDS: My

supplementary question is on the basis that two to one of these new

private small business generators will be women. Considering the fact

that access to capital is the major problem mentioned by women starting

small businesses, would the minister tell me what measures will be in

place to help these women, who use –– 70 percent of them –– their own

personal finances to take the place of that 37.5 percent increase that

will no longer be able to go back into their small businesses for

reinvestment?

[ Page 285 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am delighted to have

the question put to me. I was fortunate to have listened to the

presentation of some of the other speakers during this budget debate,

and I was particularly struck with the comments by my colleague from

Langley, who spoke very pointedly to the question of women. Dealing

with the question of women is difficult for a person of my gender,

because immediately we are suspected of being somewhat insensitive to

the problem. I suspect that if there are to be any points made in the

interests of women and their welfare –– this government's attitude

towards women –– those kinds of expressions of feelings should come

from a woman herself. I was delighted to have heard the comments by my

colleague in that respect.

BUDGET INCOME TAX CHANGES

MR. STUPICH:

A question to the Minister of Finance. The minister reduced the amount

of income tax payable by those in the highest brackets and increased it

for those in the lower and lowest income tax brackets, knowing full

well that those in the higher bracket are inclined to spend a higher

proportion of their money outside of our economy, while those in the

lower bracket spend it inside our economy. I'm wondering what studies

the minister has done to determine the effect of these changes in our

own economy.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Another excellent

question for which I am delighted to give an answer. There are some

misperceptions rampant surrounding that issue, being fed, I suspect, by

individuals in this House. First of all, it should be understood that

for a person with a taxable income of $10,000, they would have paid a

tax prior to the budget of $765. They will be paying $830 post-budget,

an increase of $65. In the province of Ontario, which is frequently

mooted as a leader in the field and one of our principal competitors

for skills and talent and investment capital, they would pay $735; and

in pre-budget Alberta, $300. For a person earning $20,000, the similar

figures –– if you've got a pencil –– are $1,725 and $1,865, a $140

increase; compared to Ontario's $1,785 and Alberta's $1,270. Continuing

on, for a taxable income of $40,000....

MR. ROSE: On

a point of order, the minister is not going to continue on without a

procedural fight on this. He has abused the House consistently. He

thinks....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr.

Speaker, on the point of order, you yourself referred to the

section

dealing with oral questions, 47A(b): "Questions and answers shall be

brief and precise." There were certain questions that were not brief

and concise, but the last one from the hon. first member for Nanaimo

was brief and precise. It's the answer that was discursive. He's giving

a speech, and that's certainly out of bounds for question period.

MR. HEWITT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I

too was going to rise on

section 47A and deal with the other side of

the coin, which is the questions that are being asked. If we all

recognize that question period is for those questions that are urgent

and important, they are the only ones that shall be permitted. What

we've heard from across the floor today, addressed to the Minister of

Finance, are questions that are really debate on the budget and the

budget speech. The questions are out of order. Questions in question

period should deal with those issues that are urgent, and those

questions that deal with the budget should be properly raised during

the debate on the budget. I can only say that if the opposition is not

prepared to come in here for question period, then let's move on to the

budget debate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Just sit for a moment please, hon. members. I think there's very little

doubt that this is becoming somewhat out of hand. I would suggest,

having listened carefully to both questions and answers, that if there

is abuse –– and I don't think that's a particularly good word; it's not

a very good parliamentary word –– it

has occurred on both sides. So I would suggest that we proceed, bearing

in mind the rules that are laid down for question period.

[2:30]

MR. STUPICH:

There was nothing wrong with the question and there was nothing wrong

with the answer, but it was the wrong answer for that question. He got

his notes mixed up. Precisely, my question was, with all of the

background left out: what studies did the minister have taken to

measure the effect of these changes on our economy? That was the

question. You've got the wrong notes.

HON. MR. COUVELIER:

Well, I tried to answer and I was cut off. I wonder whether they are

really interested in the answer or whether they're more interested in

hearing themselves put the question to us. I think that we have, and I

suggest that it should have been evident to all.... I had the

information in front of me; I was attempting to convey it. But in any

event, I have before me a comparison of taxation levels for different

income categories. I think also I have with me the average per person

tax increase in various jurisdictions, all of which portray B.C. in a

very good light.

One of the basic theses of a budget

presentation, vis--vis the reduction in sales tax, vis--vis the

elimination of restaurant meals tax, was to inject more revenue into

the system so that it could start to prime its own pump. The very basis

of the whole budget presentation was to find devices that would put

more money in the hands of the buying public, the person who needs the

help. That's where we put the money, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH:

Well, had I wanted to know what was happening in other provinces, I

would have asked. If I had wanted to know averages, I would have asked.

But I asked whether or not the minister had any studies taken or

whether he is simply gambling that something he has done may help the

economy by taking more money out of the economy.

HON. MR. COUVELIER:

I'm not reading from handwritten notes; I'm reading from a lot of

budget material that was prepared in the preparation of the budget

speech. It should be obvious that there were studies done and staff

work completed on a project. I'm trying to convey them, if only I was

given the opportunity.

[ Page 286 ]

GAS AND OIL INDUSTRY INCENTIVES

MR. WEISGERBER:

A question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

In this morning's papers there was an

article regarding a billion

dollar drilling incentive for the Canadian gas and oil industry. How

will British Columbians benefit from this billion dollar federal

program?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The announcement was made

yesterday by the federal energy minister. It's good news for British

Columbia, particularly for small companies engaged in exploration and

development in the Peace River area. There should be, for example, a 50

percent increase in drilling activity in the Peace River area beginning

this fall as a result of that important announcement.

STRATHCONA PARK

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment and

Parks. In the recent boundary changes to Strathcona, a recommendation

was made that the Elk Mountain area be added to the park. B.C. Forest

Products has the rights to cut the timber on that particular mountain

and does not want to cut the timber because it is an entrance to the

park. The parks branch is encouraging B.C. Forest Products to cut the

timber on that mountain before the land is transferred to the park.

Would the minister put a stop to that immediately and enter into

negotiations with B.C. Forest Products to provide alternative timber

supplies to them so that Elk Mountain can be put into the park and have

its timber remain?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it is not

really a question, it is a suggestion, but one which I will take as

notice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell ends question

period.

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, probably for the benefit of both sides of the House with

respect to question period and because it really did get a little bit

out of hand, I think, we should also be apprised of standing order

47A(e): "points of order arising during oral question period may, at

the discretion of Mr. Speaker, be deferred until question period has

been completed." I would commend that to both sides of the House,

because it would allow more time for the members to carry on in

question period, and of course time is critical. It is only 15 minutes

in this House, and one hates to see that time taken away.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the Critical

Industries Commission for the year ended December 31, 1986.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask leave to present a motion pursuant to the

reappointment of the acting auditor-general.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

Mr. Speaker, I move an agreement that pursuant to provisions of the

Auditor General Act, this assembly recommends to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that Mr. Robert J. Hayward be

reappointed as acting auditor-general upon termination pursuant to the

said act of his present appointment to the office of auditor-general.

Motion approved.

ON THE BUDGET

(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MRS. BOONE:

Mr. Speaker, I guess I'm pleased to rise in support of this motion. I'm

really displeased that it's necessary to do so. I think the province in

general has had a little bit of disillusionment with what has taken

place in this House in the last few months –– few weeks; it seems like

months to me, I guess; disillusionment with a government that professes

strong religious and moral values –– and we've certainly heard those

through the speeches in the last few weeks; which professes a concern

for the people; a government that professes to be in touch with the

grass roots. Yet I've seen this government right now attacking the very

roots of this society –– the elderly, those people you and I have

depended on for many years, who built this country and this province

into what we've got now. And we are attacking them, Mr. Speaker.

The

issues that we have right now are really dear to the heart of most

British Columbians, and over the past few days I've received numerous

calls, not just in my constituency office but in my office here in

Victoria. People have been calling, not just the elderly, not just the

seniors, but citizens who are outraged that this government is choosing

to take the burden of the debt of this province and put it on the backs

of the seniors.

I'd like to address my remarks first of all

to the Pharmacare dispensing fee. It's very clever of the government to

make it a percentage. This automatically indexes itself. The budget

speech indicates that it will be probably less than $5 on a usual

basis. However, each year or every time a company chooses to increase

its dispensing fee, that amount will go up. It's automatically indexing

the amount that will be charged to the seniors.

I've heard

a number of different reasons to justify these increases and they sound

good at times, they sound really good, until you look beneath the

surface. They say that costs over $125 will be reimbursed –– that's if

you happen to be below the amount that the ministry here or the

government says you are allowed; that GAIN increases will be increased

$125 so people will automatically be reimbursed on those things. It's

not bad if you think in terms of $5 a month. You might think that any

senior citizen out there could handle a charge of $5 a month. However,

if you speak to many of them, those who have chronic illness such as

heart disease, they're looking at perhaps an amount as much as $40 a

month. To have to pay that amount out and then have that reimbursed

later on is a hardship. It is a real hardship to people.

have done some calculations here, Mr. Speaker, and they really put into

perspective what is going to be affecting the seniors of this province.

A single senior person on old age pension and with the GAIN supplement

would be getting

[ Page 287 ]

approximately $650 a month. Bank

interest –– if they had any savings –– they'd

get about $100 per month. This brings their income to the vast amount

of $750 per month. I don't think there's anybody in this room who would

even try to exist on $750 a month and say that they were living

adequately, that they were living comfortably, that they were able to

eat properly, that they were able to supply all of their needs on that

$750 a month. And yet this is what we expect our senior citizens to do.

This comes to the mass amount of $9,000 –– again,

not an awful lot when you think in terms of what they have to pay out.

They have to pay their shelter, their clothing and their medical needs.

Now

when I was campaigning in October I went to the seniors and many of

them I found were comfortable. But many of them I found were having

tremendous problems. If they had a hearing problem, they were reduced

to paying $600 for a hearing aid. If they had any kind of special

dental problems, they were also having to pay those things; and I had

people telling me that they weren't having those things done, that they

were suffering without proper dental care, that they were suffering

without having the proper hearing aids. Is this what we want for the

seniors? I don't think that's what we want and I don't think that this

is the fairness that this government should be speaking about, or the

fairness that this budget should be speaking about.

Mr.

Speaker, we've also done a rough estimate of some of the charges that

would be called on. I'll deal with that a little bit later, though,

because it's something else.

The GAIN increases that we mentioned will cover $125. That is

for all those people who already have GAIN. However, there are –– and

these are the people I pointed out to you –– approximately 120,000

seniors in this province who will not be able to

get the GAIN supplement, who will not be of the amount where they can

have this paid for, and yet these people will be having to put out

these amounts in addition to what they have already. How would you like

that for your parents? How would you like that for any friend of yours?

I don't think that's what we want for our elderly in this province.

We've

also heard them say things like: "It will encourage seniors to shop

around." I found that to be one of the most distasteful things that I

heard in all of the debates on the budget. Encouraging the seniors to

shop around! When you're talking in terms of shopping around, do you

mean that they are expected to go from place to place to find a store

that's going to give them a dispensing fee that is maybe a dollar less?

Are you talking in terms of those who are in wheelchairs, who are

crippled, who are house-ridden, getting out and trying to find a place

that's going to give them their dispensing fee for less? Are you

talking in terms of people trying to transport themselves around?

come from an area where the climate gets pretty desperate in the

wintertime. In 40-below weather, do you expect my seniors to go out

into the streets to shop around for a proper dispensing fee that's less

than someone down the road? That is not only ridiculous; it is

absolutely disgusting to even think in those terms.

[2:45]

have small communities. Where are those small communities going to get

the ability to shop around for a deal on dispensing? It is just

impossible, and it is totally ridiculous that our seniors should be put

in such a situation. We are also being told that our seniors are using

too many drugs. I haven't seen many drug-addicted seniors out there,

and I think it's a shame that people are talking in terms of our

seniors....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: If there are those who are, in

the terms of some people that have been talking, popping too many pills

–– using too many prescription drugs –– then

why not deal with the people who are prescribing those drugs? Because

those drugs come from doctors, and they are not, I presume, if we

really endorse our medical profession, prescribing drugs to seniors

unless they require them. If they are, then deal with those doctors who

are prescribing drugs without properly dealing with it. Do not deal

with the people who are supposedly using them and supposedly abusing

the system. They cannot abuse that system of prescription drugs unless

they have the action of the doctors to do so.

Now the user

fees. I'm going back to my little list here, where we've done a little

rundown; again, it's a very discriminatory user fee. We've done a

little rundown here, and we've got our increased cost for pharmacy. If

a person went 13 times per year to a pharmacy, which is a little over

one per month, which is not a lot for a senior citizen who may have

many ailments, including arthritis, that would be about $65 per year

for a single person.

Physiotherapy. If that person went once per week for

physiotherapy at a $5 fee per visit, that would be $240.

Podiatrists –– and

you heard the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) so eloquently

describing the need for podiatry and how much it assists the elderly in

her community: once per month, a $5 fee for a visit, another $60.

Chiropractor.

If they went twice per month, with a $5 fee, it would be $120. And

then, of course, you've got thrown on top of that your wonderful

property tax, which you've increased to $100 regardless of what their

income is, and that's a $99 increase. So they would have, on top of all

of these things, out of their massive income of $9,000 per year an

additional $584 per year. This is for those who would not be available

for any assistance, who would not be able to get any GAIN, who would

not be able to claim any of this back from the government.

User

fees. Again, there is a misconception out there, and I've had a lot of

people.... I've had to check on this because I wasn't quite sure when I

originally heard it either, but they say that they're increasing the

fees to those in those professions by $5; that's not so. In actual fact

what you are doing is reducing the amount that is being collected by

the province. For example, a chiropractor gets $11.20 per visit; they

would be collecting $5 from their patient and receiving $6.20 from the

province. Now the things I have been hearing from my chiropractors and

from my physios are....

They are really upset. They're

upset about their patients, they're upset about their practices, and in

many cases they're saying that they have to close their doors. They've

got additional accounting costs. They've got additional charges that

they have to try to collect from people. They are telling me that in

many cases seniors that come to their place will not be able to pay

this, so they will be absorbing the cost, because they do not have the

heart to charge them the $5 fee, and that they will only be getting

$6.20. Many of these people –– in particular, I know, the chiropractors

–– have

gone since 1981 without an increase. They're having a rough time

staying open as it is. Many have come to me in the last few months

saying they need increases. They have not had an increase,

[ Page 288 ]

not

to just increase their income but just so they can keep their doors

open, just so they can pay their rent and pay their bills. If we reduce

their income further, I am sure that we will be seeing a further

reduction of chiropractors, a further reduction of physios and

podiatrists in this province.

For a government that

professes to be in tune with free enterprise and to be concerned about

the private sector, this does not seem the way to increase those in the

free enterprise system or to encourage the private sector. I hardly

think this is going to do anything for the business community.

Another

thing that we found out is that home-care physios must also collect

that $5. Now I can't quite understand how they are going to do this.

Home-care nurses are government employees. Are they going to go along

with receipt books and pick up the $5 from each of the people that they

go to? How they are going to do this, I don't know, but it doesn't make

sense to me. I don't see how they can do it. The physios that go to the

homes –– there is not a person in the medical profession that will not

tell you that those physios and the nurses that go out on home care,

that go into the homes, keep those people out of the hospitals; they

keep them in their homes. They provide a service to the people there

that saves this government money. The money that is saved by home care

is tremendous, because they do not have to go into acute care beds;

they are not taking up spaces in our hospitals.

A visit to

a physio in the hospital costs approximately $50 per visit. What we are

told is that these people who are currently going to private physios

will more than likely not put out that $5 in their user fee and will be

going to the hospitals. There is a one-to-six-week wait to get into the

hospital. Fifty dollars per visit. What are the savings in that? What

are the savings to the government? What are the savings in terms of

dollars? What are the savings in terms of human beings? We need to keep

our seniors mobile. We need to keep them active. We need to give them

the services so that they can stay out of those hospitals, stay in

their homes and remain active in our communities. Our seniors serve as

a very worthwhile part of this community, of our province. We can't

afford to let them go down the drain.

A survey that one of

the institutions here did showed that 24 percent of the people that

they serviced in their physiotherapy were retired; 33 percent of those

were middle income. Ninety percent of them, when asked what they felt

was the effect that their therapy had on them, felt that it had an

extensive use, that it helped them get better faster, that it helped

them stay at home, and made them recover and stay in the community

longer. That is the sort of thing that we need.

Why are we

picking on those people who have no ability to help themselves? Why are

we picking on those areas that have not had increases for many years?

Why are we picking on these people? To me, there seems to be a hidden

agenda, and that hidden agenda seems to be looking towards reducing the

numbers that are going to physiotherapy. As you know, we've had a

shortage of physiotherapists in this province that has been a

tremendous pressure. Surely there's an agenda there and that agenda is

to reduce the numbers that are going to physios and thereby reduce the

pressures to try to bring more physios in and train them. We need our

physios. We need our chiropractors. We need all of those types of

medicine so that our people can be worthwhile people in this area.

There is no doubt that many seniors can afford these fees.

There's no doubt in my mind that if I go out in the street and ask a

good portion of the people, they will say: "Yes, I can afford them.

Yes, I am comfortable." My concern, Mr. Speaker, is not for those

people. My concern is for those who cannot afford it. If there are 33

percent, or if there are 120,000 that are suffering, or if there are

100 senior citizens out there that are suffering from this, Mr.

Speaker, that should be a concern of this government's and not just the

opposition's.

There

are alternatives. We're always accused of suggesting that we spend more

money and that we never provide any alternatives. I'm providing some

alternatives to you. Fair taxation, so that those people, our seniors,

are not paying for the reduced taxation that those earning over $100,000 are going to get, would save our seniors.

Look at

changing your attitude, at putting more money into prevention. I've

spoken to the medical people in my city, and they have indicated that

into educating the doctors as to how much money it costs for each and

every operation they perform; how much money it costs each time they

send somebody for a B scan; how much money it costs when they send

somebody for unnecessary blood tests or xrays. There are many times

when these things are necessary, but I think there are many times when

they are abused by the profession; and by the people too, because they

don't know how much it costs. Let's educate the patients, so that each

time they ask for a B scan or a blood test they know that it is going

to cost some money, that that money is coming out of the government and

that that's increasing our debt. Let's start to educate our people to

become responsible citizens. We can't become responsible citizens

unless we know the costs involved in each and every one of these things.

Let's

work towards wellness. Let's work towards a better lifestyle. I'm

pleased to see that in the past some of the efforts to reduce smoking

have worked. There seem to be fewer smokers around now than ever

before, and as a non-smoker, I'm certainly glad to see that. Let's work

towards improving our environment, making sure that our companies out

there do not pollute rivers and the air so that we have constant

problems in our health as a result of these things. Let's work towards

safety in the workplace. These are things we could do that are

preventive things that would save us money.

I'm going to

suggest something a little radical now. Let's shake up your ministry,

Mr. Minister. That's something unheard of, isn't it? Let's go into that

ministry and look at the bureaucracy and see who's building little

empires. I think each minister here could do that. Let's see who the

empire builders are out there. Take a look at those places and see

where the money can be saved. Look at your priorities. I've spoken to

many people in different areas within the ministry, and they all say

that there is money that can be saved there.

Let's keep our

people at home as long as possible. Let's keep them out of the

hospitals. Look at improving home care services and long-term care.

Let's look at improving hospices. You're dragging your feet a little

bit on hospices. You don't see too much action on those things. Let's

get our people into hospices, so that they are not in hospitals, taking

up acute-care beds.

Let's look at something really

different. Let's dare to be a little different. Look at something like

community clinics — clinics with group practices, six salaries for

doctors. That's a radical position, isn't it? It's the Medical Services

Plan that is increasing. Why take it out on the seniors? Look at the

other areas.

Take a look at the Ontario system, where they have health

service organizations. The group is paid by the provincial

[ Page 289 ]

plan

a lump-sum fee for every patient enrolled, regardless of the number of

times that patient receives treatment. After paying their joint

expenses, this group then shares the balance of this money. The only

way to increase their income is to take more patients. They also

receive a bonus for keeping people out of the hospitals, and money from

that goes into preventive care. In those areas where they are paid on a

salary basis, where they are not paid on a fee-for-service basis, where

there is some incentive to keep people well, the doctors are 20 percent

more successful in keeping people out of hospital than fee-for-service

doctors are.

There's no doubt that this will be opposed by

most doctors. But dare to challenge it. Dare to look at something....

maybe something like a combination of the two: fees for services, but

put in some other areas that are salaried. Dare to be different.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

May

I remind this government of the pension power that came when they tried

to de-index the pensions in the federal government. I don't think our

senior citizens are going to stand by and quietly take this. You are

taking from them with each and every fee-for-service that you put on,

each Pharmacare deduction that comes out. Our seniors are not going to

stand for it and, Madam Speaker, I don't think other British Columbians

are going to stand for this either. The rest of British Columbians feel

that our seniors have rights, that our seniors should be taken care of

Our seniors have given their lives to this province; some have profited

well, others have not done so well, but no senior in this province

should be treated any differently, medically-wise, than any other

senior. We shall not stand by and allow our seniors to have their

medical services decimated on the backs of increases to corporations.

[3:00]

MR. BRUCE:

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the seniors of this

province. I rise to speak in support of the youth of this province. I

rise to speak in support of the average British Columbian. I rise to

speak in support of the ordinary British Columbian, whoever the

ordinary British Columbian may be. I realize that the term "ordinary"

is one that is used from time to time by the opposition. The word

"ordinary" talks about regular, normal, customary, usual, not

exceptional, not above the usual, commonplace. Well, I happen to think

that the people of British Columbia are more than ordinary. I think

that the people of British Columbia have some entrepreneurial spirit

and are prepared to move ahead. I don't think they're ordinary at all.

I've sat and listened to the debate in respect of the budget, and now

the amendment, it's interesting to listen to what's going on. Indeed,

it almost sounds like all we're really talking about is more a headline

speech than a budget speech when the actual debate comes from the other

side of the House.

It was interesting to hear the

statistics from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston)

on the great stream of people that are leaving Manitoba. You could see

those massive headlines today: "Manitobans Stream From the Socialists

and Head For Freedom Road in British Columbia." But, Madam Speaker....

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, I

believe

we're addressing the amendment. The member is clearly off in Manitoba,

not dealing with the amendment which deals with the plight of seniors

in British Columbia with respect to this budget.

MR. BRUCE:

Madam Speaker, it's a point being made that we really should deal with

the fact — and I appreciate what the member for Vancouver East has

risen to say — and that is just the point. These great headline

statements that are made from that side of the House are really not

what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the budget.

We're here to talk about the amendment to that budget.

It's

been interesting to hear the amendment that was presented here this

morning — and now debated here this afternoon — and the concerns that

are expressed with respect to the aspect that this budget and the

deficit reduction is on the backs of the seniors and the backs of the

low-income earners. I d like to lead through that a little bit and

touch on a few items and come back and show why that is not the case.

We come to the item of forestry, and you know we talk about

the one aspect....

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: Trees are old, and it's good

that they are.

come to the aspect of forestry and we take a look at the fact and we

hear from many members on this side of the House that what has been

spent in forestry is not enough, that it needs to be more.

MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, the member clearly has some other speech that he

planned on giving. The issue before the House is the amendment, not

forestry or any of the other issues that the hon. member wants to

address.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well

taken, hon. member. Perhaps you could relate your speech to the

amendment.

MR. BRUCE:

Well, Madam Speaker, as has been the case and has been said here, if

you're going to speak on the amendment, and the amendment is that the

deficit is being carried on the backs of the poor and the backs of the

seniors, one must look at the other aspects of the budget as well to

discuss that item, because it's truly not the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may proceed, hon.

member.

MR. BRUCE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I

thought my point would be understood.

When

we talk about that forestry aspect, and as I listen to the opposition

in regards to more money for the forestry budget itself, I too, as an

individual, would concur....

MR. ROSE: On a

point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to do this to the hon. member

because I know he's new here, but I think that all of us should

understand that when there is an amendment put to a budget speech,

while we don't have to be rigid about it — not extremely rigid about it

.... It does deal with seniors and various items of user fees and

those sorts of things. So my advice to the hon. member is to get on

with his speech to the amendment, leave out forestry and stop beating

around the bush.

[ Page 290 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think what I'd like to

suggest is that the members listen to the speech and then decide

whether or not it's out of order.

MR. BRUCE:

The point is, Madam Speaker, that there are only so many dollars within

the provincial treasury, and they only come from so many sources. Yet

we hear on the one hand that the opposition says we should have more

and more and more in a variety of ministries, and then at the same time

they say that what they're trying to do is to reduce the deficit on the

backs of the poor and the seniors. I think it's important that we look

at the total aspect of that budget as it relates to the deficit

reduction and the amendment that's being proposed here this afternoon.

would be foolish for us to debate this issue in only the very, very

small aspect of that which the resolution has presented. You've talked

about forestry, and I'll come back to that. You should know better than

any, the member for Vancouver East, who has been on his feet many times

talking about forestry and the fact that more dollars are required. And

more dollars are required, and more dollars this year are going into

that budget. I think that that's extremely important and we must keep

that in mind. We must understand that it is through those investments,

within forestry of course, that we can derive a greater income, derive

a greater return, and by so doing offset some of those costs that are

being applied to the....

MR. WILLIAMS: I draw your attention, Madam

Speaker, to the continuing speech on forestry when the member should be

addressing the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

The member has gone to great lengths to try to relate his speech to the

amendment, and I would ask the member to continue with his speech.

MR. BRUCE:

Madam Speaker, I mentioned that I would rise and I speak, too, in

support of the seniors. It is important that we look after our seniors,

and the people of this province of British Columbia and the governments

of this province of British Columbia have been looking after the

interests of the seniors. When you go through the whole aspect of the

amendment that has been proposed and you look at the fact that we are

talking about the dollars that are available and the dollars that are

not available, it is that consideration which we must follow through

with.

We've heard that this whole budget is built on the

backs of the poor and on the backs of the seniors, and that is why the

opposition has presented this amendment. But it's not true. Let's look

at it for a moment. Let's look at the fact that there is an increase to

the income assistance program. I, too, would like to see it more, and

so would the hon. members on both sides of this House. But there are

only so many dollars available.

We talk about the shelter

increase; there is an increase in that allowance. There was one in

October, there is one coming in December, which again will help the low

income and the elderly. We talk about the sales tax reduction, which

again will help those of low income and will help the elderly. It's

important that we understand and we see those measures.

Then as we talk in very great self-righteous indignation about

the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting

poorer, let us look at the property tax. Let us look at that aspect,

the property tax. that has been instituted, the fact that this

government has very clearly analyzed that aspect of the property tax.

When you take a look at the fact that people who would be purchasing a

$300,000, a $200,000, a $400,000 house, they as individuals are hardly

your low income or are hardly your middle income. But the tax that they

will pay is some $5,000 to $6,000 on that particular transaction. That

is income to the province; that is revenue to the province. The deficit

and the deficit reduction is not being borne by the elderly, is not

being home by the low income in this province.

All

one then needs to take a look at, taking that one step further, are the

property flips and transactions of apartment buildings and the like on

which some people have enjoyed tax relief because of the different

setups that have been available. Again, those people on some of those

transactions will result in paying $20,000 to $30,000 to $40,000 in

taxes to the provincial coffers. That is not on the backs of the poor;

that is not on the backs of the elderly.

We've heard time

and time again from the opposition about the need for increases in

education, the need for increases in health, and much of what's being

talked about here right now is those health measures.

MR. JONES: Madam Speaker, I wonder if we

could have the amendment read at this point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into

Committee of Supply be amended by adding the words: "That this House

regrets that, in the opinion of this House, the hon. Minister of

Finance has sought to reduce the provincial deficit by loading dramatic

property tax increases on the backs of the elderly by imposing

Pharmacare dispensing fees and user fees for each visit to

physiotherapists, chiropractors and podiatrists, thereby threatening

the basic universality principle of medicare."

MR. BRUCE: Madam Speaker, I hope that

everybody took note of the amendment.

When

you look at that aspect, the opposition calling for greater increases

in health care.... That's what this amendment speaks to in the one

sense, calling for greater increases in health care. What in fact has

this government done? They've gone and increased health care, by golly.

[3:15]

You can't have it both ways, Madam Speaker. On the one hand

the

opposition, so self-righteously at times — only some — stand up and

talk about these expenditures; they talk about the fact that these

costs are ever-creeping. But on the other hand, when action is taken

and clearly taken at the upper tax level, they are yet to come with us

and support the motions and the initiatives that this government is

undertaking.

I appreciate the spirit of this amendment

for what it is the concern that is being offered for the seniors of

this province in regard to those charges that are there that one will

have to take into account. But clearly, when one looks at the total

spectrum of what is being provided for, when one looks at the total

spectrum of the budget relative to this amendment that has been

proposed, the amendment clearly does not deal with the issue of the

deficit and how that deficit is being reduced.

As I think I have enunciated here, I would have to speak

clearly in opposition to this amendment, because it does not

[ Page 291 ]

fully appreciate the total aspect of what the budgetary

process is about in the province of British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS:

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I want to

talk in particular about the issue of the minimum $100 tax that seniors

are going to have to pay if they happen to be in their own homes and if

they are paying tax. Of course, they will be paying taxes.

Now

seniors should stay in their own homes. No one seems to doubt that that

is the case. We want them to be there. It is more healthy for them; it

creates a better situation vis-a-vis taxation and everything else. One

of the major programs that the government has come up with that helps

to keep seniors in their homes is the homemaker program. This homemaker

program has been a bit of a football back and forth because of the

numbers that have gone up and down. But the government is quite proud

of the program, and they have indicated that they will continue with

it. In fact, in a press release of February 7, 1986, the Minister of

Health indicated that homemaker services are currently provided to

nearly 29,000 British Columbians compared with 25,000 three years

ago, and he continued to talk about the increases in that program,

which provides practical aid such as cooking, laundry, housecleaning

and shopping as well as assistance with personal needs such as bathing

and grooming.

This service is generally recognized, as I

said before, and has been recognized by the Home Support Association of

British Columbia. Care at home maintains client independence and is the

preferred mode of health care for the elderly and the disabled. It

takes note that care at home offers considerable cost savings over

institutional care. The Home Support Association of British Columbia

said in a release of September 1986 that more than 40,000 elderly,

handicapped, disabled and families in crisis currently receive home

support service. Current projections indicate that the population group

over 65 years will double by the year 2006. And in fact, the release

urges the Premier to enlarge the portion of the health care pie for

community-based home health care due to the rapidly escalating elderly

population, which will ultimately result in a decreased need to

construct hospital facilities and will result in long-term cost savings

to the province.

Well, put all these things together, and

you want to see how this home-care service is working to keep seniors

in their homes. In fact, we've found that in another study that was

completed in March of this year — just this very month — by the Home

Support Association of British Columbia, of a survey that they took of

seven member agencies in five regions in September 1986 they identified

that the province saved more than $162 million over the year in 1986 by

using home support services instead of institutionalizing the people

they had identified as people who would be in these institutions if

they were not staying at home. They found in fact that across the

province there would be 2,080 people who should have personal care,

were they not being attended by these home-care people. There were

4,230 people who would be in intermediate care 1; 2,013 in intermediate

care 2; and 693 in intermediate care 3, and 979 of these seniors would

be in extended-care facilities in institutional care were they not in

their own homes. To extrapolate some of the figures, this is a saving

of $15,600 for each of the seniors who are kept in their homes instead

of being put into an institution. The question, Madam Speaker, is

whether or not these seniors are going to be able to stay in their

homes. They in fact are there, some of them, on an income which is not

even reaching $700 a month. That's the minimum amount that anybody has,

less than $700 a month — it's their Canada Pension Plan, plus their

GIS, plus their GAIN payment. It's not very much money, but some people

are staying in their homes and continuing to pay their taxes and to

support themselves and to stay out of institutional care because they

have owned their homes for a long time.

What I want to talk

about today, Madam Speaker, is a situation that exists in the town of

Sparwood. This town is fairly typical of a number of small towns in

British Columbia because it is a small town with no transit system, it

is a small town with no postal delivery, it sometimes has taxi service,

it hasn't many apartment buildings and none with any elevators in them

— which means that seniors find that they are limited to the amount of

apartment space they can take. Within the town of Sparwood there are

approximately 60 clients in the home-care service organization. Fifteen

of them live in an apartment building that has been set aside for

seniors, and that's approximately it for apartment accommodation, so we

could probably safely say there are about 40 of those people living in

their own homes in Sparwood, and that's about 1 percent of the

population.

Now the serious problem of seniors, as we all

know, is poverty. It's the most serious problem that our seniors face,

and you can see any number of figures that support that. These seniors

have been asking for more home-care services, and I say this not to

stress the fact of the home-care service shortage right now — except

for the fact of knowing it's there — but the fact that the minister and

various other members of the government side have said that $12 a month

for a $100 payment of taxes is not much. Well, that doesn't seem to be

so, according to the kinds of petitions that I have here, Madam

Speaker, that I have to present a little later this week. There are

letters from all of these people and I'd like to put a couple of these

in....

"I am a 67-year-old widow with arthritis

that affects my back and shoulders. I depend on the homemaker service

to help me out in keeping my house clean. I'm very disappointed that

the yard work was cut from the program, because it's the one thing

that's getting too hard for me to do. It's fine to say I could move to

an apartment and leave the house. I thought of that since my husband

passed away two and a half years ago. But this has become a depressed

area and houses don't sell, so what am I to do?"

Madam Speaker, those kinds of things go on. All these people

who were in their own houses. This one says: "I'm older and have bad legs. I have been

cut to two hours a week.... If I could get my 15 hours a month and yard

boy back I would be happy. I can't afford to pay for yard work with

what I get. I just make ends meet and still pay the mortgage on my

home." There are various people who go through talking about the

kinds of problems they're having with home-care service that is now cut

down to only doing laundry every other week perhaps once a month —

doing vacuuming once every three weeks perhaps. As one woman says, her

living room doesn't get vacuumed except once every three weeks or every

month, and she spends all her time there. The fridge is cleaned about

once in three months, they don't wash walls, they don't wash windows,

they don't iron and they don't clean ovens unless they're a fire hazard.

This kind of service, which is the way it is for whatever

reasons that we want to talk about, is a major problem for

[ Page 292 ]

seniors.

There are not just single seniors, although certainly there are some

more serious problems with single seniors, but there are couples.

Sometimes one of them is a client of the homemaker service; sometimes

both of them are. They give quotations like: "We find the cut in

service almost impossible to cope with." Well, this is, as I say, a

matter of a petition by the people in Sparwood who are living in that

situation. They indicate very clearly that there is no possible way

that they're going to be able to raise $12 a month more. They don't

have very many choices. I don't know what they're going to do.

Some

of them can't get to their therapy anymore because they can't have

enough hours with their home-care worker. Besides that, now they would

have to pay an extra $5 for some of the therapy that they've been

ordered to have. Now I'll grant you that some of it would be in

hospital in Sparwood, but some of it is not; some of it has to be taken

at the regional hospital, which is 75 miles away.

So these

people will not be able to stay in their homes if we put an added

burden onto them. As I say, they live in these areas with no buses, no

postal delivery, and all of those things that I mentioned before. They

are going to have another burden, and that is that they will be put on

waiting-lists to get into intermediate care. There is no intermediate

care; there's no facility open right now that they could get into. They

are sitting there right now with very few apartments, a long

waiting-list for intermediate care, the homemaker service reduced, and

all of these things that have been put on with the budget that has just

been brought down.

With all of these added burdens on these

senior citizens, even $100 in a full year will create stress, will

create hardship. I think that under the circumstances there is no

possible way that we should be putting that $100 onto the backs of the

senior citizens and pushing them out of their homes and putting them

into our already overstressed intermediate-care facilities — if there

is room for them to be there. I would definitely support the amendment,

Madam Speaker.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a

pleasure to rise in the House today. Firstly, may I take the

opportunity to offer my congratulations to the Speaker, and certainly

to the Premier, and of course to all the elected representatives within

this assembly. May I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his

appointment. If I may, I would like to provide a few statements before

getting into the budget about the district that I represent, my

constituency, namely the municipality of Delta. Since this is my maiden

speech, it's the first time I've had the opportunity to rise in this

House and talk a little bit about the district.

I might say

that the first settlers in Delta were known as the Tsawwassen Indians,

and that is a band of the Coast Salish. Tsawwassen at one time was an

island. Many years ago the Indians of Tsawwassen used to traverse the

water up the Fraser River to an area where the present Alex Fraser

Bridge is constructed. Midden dug from remains show that this was

several hundred years ago.

The village of Ladner was first

settled by two brothers who had returned from the Cariboo gold rush of

1858. Thomas and William Ladner arrived in the district in 1868. They

saw the potential for agriculture, and each pre-empted 160 acres for

farming. By 1879 Ladner had been staked out and granted municipal

status. A number of crops were grown by those two first settlers. They

started out with grain and grasses, converting to hay to feed animals.

As the years progressed through the later 1800s, many more residents

would come to settle in Delta, most of them being farmers. Following

the farmers came a number of fishermen and business people. From those

early days Delta has grown to become a much-sought-after location for

people to establish their homes and, certainly, to raise their

families. The municipality encompasses a total area of some 18,677

acres; of these....

MR. BLENCOE: Point of order,

Madam Speaker. I recognize this may be the first time the minister has

spoken, an inaugural speech, but I would draw to the attention of the

Chair that we are speaking to the amendment proposed by the member for

New Westminster. I would like to bring that to the attention of the

Chair.

[3:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

Point of order. The second member for Victoria has some experience in

this House and, no doubt, has been listening. He should realize that

some latitude is allowed for new members during budget and throne

speeches. I'll draw to the member's attention the fact that the member

for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) spoke at some length on home care and

intermediate care, neither of which are included in the amendment. Some

latitude was allowed that member. I would submit, Your Honour, that the

same latitude will be allowed the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well

taken. The latitude was allowed. The member will be allowed to continue

with his speech.

MR. BLENCOE:

On a further point of order, the House Leader for the government makes

a point that the member for Kootenay spoke on issues that relate to

senior citizens. I would put it to the Chair that the minister is not

speaking to issues relating to seniors at all. The amendment is

extremely important to this side of the House, and we want the

government to speak to seniors and defend their policies for seniors.

HON. MR. STRACHAN:

Point of order, Madam Speaker. The amendment is specific. If the member

wants a lecture on relevancy, I'll give him one. But it says: "...tax

increases...Pharmacare dispensing fees and user fees for each

visit to physiotherapists, chiropractors and podiatrists...." There

is nothing about home care and nothing about intermediate care, which

the member for Kootenay, well-intended, addressed totally in her

remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A great deal of latitude

has been allowed in both the throne and the budget speech. I'm going to

ask the minister to continue with his speech.

MR. ROSE:

I wonder if I could rise on the same point of order. I think the rules

of relevancy and standing order 43 can be applied either with some

degree of generosity or very rigorously, as we did with the member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). I understand that this is the Minister of

Agriculture's maiden speech in the House, and I think we should accord

him the courtesy of that maiden speech and allow him to continue,

admitting full well that according to the narrow guidelines alluded to

by my honourable friend, the second

[ Page 293 ]

member for Victoria, he is out of order, but with unanimous

consent we can all be out of order at any time in this House.

MR. REE:

Point of order, Madam Speaker. The amendment is in addition to the

original motion, not a change of the original motion. If one is

speaking on the original motion, they would then be both speaking

against possibly the amendment as such. To speak on the original motion

without specific reference to the amendment during the budget speech

debate — which we are on, Madam Member; under the standing orders we

are still on the budget speech debate with this amendment added in.... Speaking on the budget speech would not be out of order.

HON. MR. SAVAGE:

The municipality encompasses a total area of 18,677 acres. Of these

acreages, agriculture represents the major use, comprising 7,916

acres, or 42 percent of the total area of the municipality of Delta.

The district is made up of three distinct communities, namely

Ladner, Tsawwassen and North Delta.

Delta's

economic and population growth has been consistent with regional

projections for the past two decades. This follows a phenomenal 17

percent growth rate that followed the opening of the George Massey

Tunnel in 1959. Employment in Delta is approximately 20,000 people,

with major concentrations in the service and manufacturing sectors.

This figure is expected to increase by 50 percent by the turn of the

century.

Delta is also the home of the massive Roberts Bank

Superport. The port has been expanded recently and offers great

potential for future shipments to areas such as the Pacific Rim. Delta

is also the mainland terminus of the Vancouver-Victoria portion of the

B.C. Ferry Corporation service. This routing has seen many people come

through our municipality, some of whom, I might say, stop over to enjoy

Delta on their way to or on their way back from the Vancouver Island

area. This service also employs a number of Delta residents.

Madam

Speaker, on a very important event that is happening in Delta this

year, it is with great pride that the people of Delta host this year's

B.C. Summer Games. The response from the communities within Delta has

been nothing short of fantastic. There is a great deal of enthusiasm

and commitment by the residents and the business sectors, who have all

offered or volunteered their time to make sure that we are in fact

superhosts in Delta for the B.C. Summer Games. May I say, Madam

Speaker, that I will commit every effort possible on behalf of those

people and the constituents of Delta to ensure these games are a

success.

I am very pleased and proud to be part of this

thirty-fourth parliament of British Columbia. I wish to thank the

electorate of Delta for the faith extended to me to serve on their

behalf in this government. We as the representatives of the people of

this great province are charged with the responsibility of providing

good, sound government on their behalf.

We must always deal

with the concerns of the people in an honest and credible way. The goal

of this government should be in every way possible to enhance and to

work towards better opportunities for ourselves, our families and our

own futures.

The throne speech delivered on opening day,

March 9, clearly identifies the commitment to a fresh start. We have

promised open and accessible government, and I am proud to be part of

that promise. The fact that the Premier has committed his government to

being open and frank bodes well for the future of all British

Columbia's residents.

It has been said many times, but

bears repeating, that the people in this province are in fact our

single greatest resource. I know that my colleagues are willing to give

their utmost to ensure a good future for all of us.

I would

like to say a few words about my portfolio, namely Agriculture and

Fisheries. I am very pleased and delighted to serve as the minister

responsible for this portfolio. The opportunities that have been

extended to my family through four generations of farming in Delta —

which, incidentally, goes back over 100 years — have been immense and

rewarding. Through my years of active involvement in many producer and

farm organizations, I have been afforded the opportunity to learn at

first hand some of the problems that are faced by not only British

Columbia's farmers but also those across the country and around this

world. I fully appreciate the work that has to be done on their behalf.

Farmers in British Columbia have faced difficult times in the past, but

probably none so severe as what they are facing today. I think the

opposition leader recognized that Tuesday.

If I may refer

to the grain sector, which is having the most difficulty at this time,

we have seen many families put under severe financial and social stress

because of the world trade war on the grain sectors. Marketing policies

from outside forces — and I underline outside forces — have caused

grain prices to tumble in real dollars to a level equal to that of the

1930s. Compounding these low market prices has been an indebtedness

problem faced by producers who borrowed capital when interest rates

climbed in the early 1980s.

Another serious blow was

declining land values that substantially reduced asset values. In the

Peace River area of B.C., the ability of the farmers to have a positive

impact on the economy is certainly very limited.

Madam

Speaker, I feel it is far more important to target funding to the areas

of greatest need for the province's farmers. I want to achieve fair and

equitable treatment from the federal government on programs that are

offered to other provinces. I feel it is only right that when we share

in revenues from Ottawa, we should be dealt fairly and equitably in the

return of those dollars.

It is also very important to

recognize the role agriculture plays in the economy of this province.

We employ over 34,000 people directly in the primary resource, and

when you get to the end of the line at the food store or the counters

of the restaurants, it adds up to 172,000 people. It is a very large

contributor to the employment sector. The farmgate value of British

Columbia-produced products — and I say farmgate value; that's directly

off the farm — amounts to over $1 billion.

Another

important part of my portfolio is that of fisheries. The importance of

this sector is not often referred to, but it does play a major role in

employment as an economic generator. Fisheries employ approximately

25,000 people directly and another 25,000 people indirectly in

associated

industry and business. The value of the fisheries sector exceeds for

all added values $725 million.

There is also a great

potential for growth in the relatively new venture on the B.C. coast,

and that is aquaculture. There is potential for this sector to expand

relatively quickly and also to be a positive economic generator, but in

this expansion we must never lose sight of the fact that we must keep

an ever-

[ Page 294 ]

watchful eye on how we establish these aquaculture operations

as they relate to the other sectors.

Madam

Speaker, it is often taken for granted that one should never lose sight

of the fact — and I underline this statement — that food is the energy

of life. It is not very often thought of, but that is the case. Without

a plentiful supply of nutritious food, it is not possible to live a

healthy life.

In speaking in favour of the provincial

budget presented by our Minister of Finance, I believe that a number of

new initiatives have been well thought out by the minister and his

staff. I would like to congratulate him for his untiring efforts. I

strongly support the commitment to reduce the deficit.

addressing this problem, we will be able to support more programs for

people, rather than money being used to pay the interest costs of our

indebtedness. It is with this positive, optimistic look ahead by our

Finance minister that we as British Columbians will have a greater

future.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I look forward as one of

the members of this Legislative Assembly to working on behalf of all

British Columbians.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Speaker, the

reason we put the amendment forward I think is well-founded. Our deep

concern is that the implications of this budget, and particularly the

areas outlined in the amendment, are going to have a dramatic impact

upon our senior citizens in the province of British Columbia.

One

of my concerns is that there was no indication by the government during

the election as to what they were going to do to the senior citizens of

British Columbia. Once again this government, this party, decided not

to tell the people of British Columbia they were going to impose

dramatic tax changes, user fees on our seniors in British Columbia.

They were not candid with the seniors of British Columbia. That is

grossly unfair, grossly unfair.

The seniors of British

Columbia, I know in my riding, have been consistently hit by all sorts

of increases. Every time, for instance, there is an improvement in

their federal pensions, their daily rates in their long-term care

facilities are increased. When they start to get ahead, just start to

get ahead, what happens to them? A budget comes in that dramatically

increases the charges upon them.

[3:45]

You know, Madam Speaker, one of the things that is starting to

happen — not starting to happen; it is happening in the province of

British Columbia — is a basic lack of belief in what governments are

telling people. I tell you, there's a deep cynicism in our seniors

population when governments refuse to be honest with people about what

they're going to do. During the campaign the Premier and this

government, members running for the Social Credit Party, did not tell

people what they were going to do: "No, we won't raise taxes; we won't

impact upon user fees." The Minister of Finance said he didn't expect

any increases at all. But what happens under this so-called "fresh

start"? Well, within a matter of months it's the old system back in

place again. Those who have the least ability to pay for the financial

incompetence of this government over the last ten years are going to

pay for that incompetence. Boy, are they going to pay!

The 75 percent on Pharmacare is $22 million out of our senior

citizens to eliminate the deficit, to eliminate the gross mistakes of

this government over the last ten years — on the backs of our senior

citizens. That's deplorable, shameful, and we cannot accept that on

this side of the House, Madam Speaker. Those citizens, those seniors,

have the least ability to pay for these increases. And I can tell

you.... I'm sure you've heard from those senior citizens, and they're

asking: "What did we do wrong? Why are the Finance minister and the

Premier of this province, who promised a fresh start, making us pay for

their mistakes? Why are they doing it? What did we do to deserve such

treatment? What did, we do to see our Pharmacare dramatically impacted

upon? What did we do to deserve an increase in property taxes? What did

we do to deserve a user fee on chiropractic and physiotherapy services?

What did we do so wrong, as citizens of British Columbia and Canada?"

They're proud citizens, Madam Speaker, who have served this province in

many respects, in many professions and in many institutions, and they

deserve, at the end of their days, some respect and some understanding

for their financial predicament. They're asking today, once again, what

they did wrong, that they must pay for the Social Credit deficit and

financial mismanagement over the last ten years.

It's

going to come right out of their pockets. Personal income tax is up 9

percent for the average senior citizen, and for those with high

incomes, about 3 percent — on the backs of senior citizens. This is

very reminiscent of the Mulroney government that wanted to de-index

senior citizens' pensions in this country. This budget is the

equivalent of that Mulroney move, and boy, did that bring hostile

rebuke from the seniors of this country — and deservedly so. You are

going to get your just deserts in terms of the hostility of the senior

citizens of British Columbia, when you try to pay for your incompetence

on their backs.

There are 160,000 senior citizens in the

province of British Columbia who are below the poverty line. Thousands

and thousands more, Madam Speaker, are just making it, just getting by,

just able to stay in their homes. And now you up their real property

taxes from $1 to $100. They struggle; they try to keep their homes

intact; they try to participate; they try to understand why a

government would do this to them, when food and housing costs are going

up and their SAFER or shelter allowance hasn't been increased — no

mention in the budget, no increase at all. It's totally unacceptable.

When

you take a look at the budget in terms of the cuts for those on high

income — the surcharge eliminated — what do you think those senior

citizens must think? It entrenches the cynicism that this government

and other conservative, rightwing governments don't care about senior

citizens. Twenty-two million dollars just on Pharmacare increases —

right out of the pockets of our elderly and our old folk. That's right,

that's what you're doing — $22 million right out of their pockets.

my riding in the greater Victoria area, there are 42,000 senior

citizens; that's 16 percent of the population. In the riding of

Victoria, approximately 19 percent or over are senior citizens. Over

10,000 of those seniors living in greater Victoria are below the

poverty line, and what are you doing to them? You're raising all these

user fees; you're hitting them right where it hurts. Governments are

measured by how they treat those less fortunate or those on lower

income or those on fixed income. They are measured on how they treat

those people in our society.

I can only say that those

senior citizens are asking why you didn't tell them. Why weren't you

honest with them? Why didn't you tell the people of British Columbia

that you were going to pay for your fiscal incompetency on the backs of

senior citizens? Why didn't you tell us that? Because, like

[ Page 295 ]

the

Bennett regime, this government didn't have the guts to be honest with

the people of British Columbia — no guts at all. Now we have the result

— 160,000 senior citizens below the poverty line in the province of

British Columbia.

We asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

Dueck) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to table the

studies showing the impact on senior citizens in the areas that we are

concerned about in the amendment. Have we seen the studies? Have we

seen the analysis of what this will do to our seniors? Of course we

haven't; there are no studies. It is a blind government that is

desperate to make up for its gross mistakes, and they are not going to

take on those in the high income level who should be paying a far

greater amount of money to the people of British Columbia, and they

hurt those who have the least ability to fight back.

It's a

sad, sad day again in the province when we have a budget that is

grossly unfair to our seniors. We ask this government to reconsider its

position, to think very clearly about what it's doing to the senior

citizens and to think about the impact of what those seniors are

thinking. "Why to us?" Why pay for your problems at their expense? No,

we can't accept this. I certainly can't accept it in this great city of

Victoria. I've talked to many over the last few days who are really

deeply offended and hurt and feel betrayed once again, betrayed by a

Social Credit government that wouldn't tell what they were going to do.

Pharmacare hurt dramatically — $22 million; user fees on chiropractors

and physiotherapists.

We once again ask this government in

its wisdom to reconsider its position, to think about those senior

citizens, most of whom have contributed to this province, who have

worked for this province, who have been part of the fabric of our

communities — an important fabric, an important part — and allow them

live in a high degree of decency, to be able to pay for things that

make life a little more enjoyable. Huge increases for our senior

citizens, and we say on this side of the House that it's shameful. This

House should unanimously endorse this amendment and say to the seniors

of British Columbia that they have a place, a decent place, in our

province, in our communities.

MR. HEWITT: Madam

Speaker, for the benefit of those who are new in the House, if you

check Hansard you'll find that after every budget speech, every motion

that the Speaker do now leave the chair always has an amendment put

forward by the opposition. This is nothing unique. However, in dealing

with the motion, I think it's fair to say that any government, any

party in office as government, recognizes the contribution that seniors

have made to this province, and any politician understands that there

are those who are less fortunate who must be looked after by

government, and that social programs should be structured to assist

those in need.

It's true that the budget addresses a few

programs, and the opposition of course identifies those and says: "This

is a terrible thing that you've done in loading down the senior

citizens and increasing taxes such as the senior citizens' minimum tax

on property and the Pharmacare user fee." But we've got to think of the

rationale behind providing social services to people — to those in

need. I think the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) talks about

160,000 people below the poverty line. I won't question those figures;

I assume he's done his research and they are correct. But the social

programs available — many of them put in place by this government —

address that question and ensure that those people who are in need are

given proper assistance. And the federal government does the same thing.

[4:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

the time that I was sitting here getting ready to speak on this motion

and speak against it, I started to look at a number of the programs

available. We all know that seniors have the old age pension. We know

that those who don't have any other income then receive the guaranteed

income supplement from the federal government. We also know that this

government put into place the GAIN program — guaranteed assistance for

individuals in need, I think, is what the letters stand for — which

provides an amount of money each month to allow them a reasonable

standard of living.

We also addressed those people who

wanted to stay in their own apartments. I think the member for Kootenay

(Ms. Edwards) stated that seniors should be able to stay in their own

homes, and that's quite true. That's why we brought in the Shelter Aid

for Elderly Renters; it's why we put into place a few years ago the

opportunity for those who own their own homes to stay in their homes by

deferring the property tax on their properties, so those who are going

to pay a minimum of $100 and stay in their own home have the ability to

defer the cost so it doesn't take food out of their mouths or it

doesn't reduce their standard of living if they wish to go that way.

The

Pharmacare program has been addressed, and addressed very well I think,

by the minister responsible, in that those who are under the GAIN

program will be reimbursed the amount of money they contribute toward

Pharmacare in the form of the user fee — the $125 would go to them. So

I don't see that as loading on the backs of the individual senior

citizen.

We have the transit fares for seniors in which we

recognize that we want to give our seniors the opportunity to be able

move freely throughout the communities, so we give them assistance and

allow them to move on our transportation systems.

We have

provided, of course, subsidized housing for seniors in this province. I

think our record is probably second to none. We have the federal

government under CMHC and the provincial government with a program that

says that you can live in these government-funded apartments and I

think you pay only up to 25 percent of your income. The homeowner grant

we've identified to $680 for seniors, which is $300 more, I think, than

for anybody under age 65. That's to give them assistance and allow them

to stay in their own homes. All we've done is raise the minimum from $1

to $100.

We also recognized that we wanted the seniors to

have mobility, and as a result we gave them a reduction in automobile

insurance — not that party when it was in power, but this government —

to allow our seniors to be mobile and to operate their own cars as long

as they're able to.

So, Mr. Speaker, the amendment, which

talks about making an effort to reduce the provincial debt by loading

dramatic property tax increases on the backs of the elderly, is

incorrect and wrong. The imposing of the Pharmacare dispensing fees is

incorrect and wrong, because the money is refunded for those who are

truly in need. Those seniors who, through hard work and good

investments, etc., have sufficient in their old age to live above the

limits required for GAIN assistance are, I'm quite confident, not

crying that they've been loaded down with additional taxes, because I

[ Page 296 ]

think

that as they've done in their youth they will do in their advanced

years. They're pleased and proud and want to be part of the community

and want to be part of those of us who are able to pay into government

coffers in order that public services, people services, are maintained

in health and in education and in social assistance.

So I think that the amendment is the normal amendment — well,

I don't think; I know — that the opposition puts forward.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT:

Well, the reason, Mr. Member, is that the seniors you quote all the

time are the ones that you enjoy stirring up, because you just want to

make sure that everybody knows that this is a terrible thing that is

being done by the government of this province. But you see, I've been

now into my fourth session in this House, and the same motion comes up.

And it's amazing, you know; every time an election comes up it seems

that we win. Now that must tell the opposition something. I think it

probably tells them that there are a lot of seniors out there who just

don't accept some of the comments that are made by the opposition,

because they recognize we all have responsibilities in our society in

British Columbia.

One last thing that I think seniors as

well as the rest of us recognize is that we cannot continually go

further and further into debt as a province. I was just looking into

the budget, and I find that when we addressed the question of the

budget and the cost, the debt-servicing estimated for 1987-88 is $530

million. It's costing us.... Mr. Speaker, that's up substantially

from previous years, and we recognize there is a need to run at a

deficit when the economy can't afford to pay the way, because we also

recognize there is a need to provide people services in health, in

education and in social assistance. The seniors of this province also

recognize there is a need for the government to collect taxes to cover

these costs, and also the government must be prepared to run at a

deficit. I'm confident that the seniors, come the next election, will

do the same as they have done in previous elections: that is, keep

those people out of office, because they'll only bankrupt this

province. I vote against this motion.

MR. G. HANSON:

The amendment states that this House regrets that in the opinion of

this House the hon. Minister of Finance has sought to reduce the

provincial deficit by loading dramatic property tax increases on the

backs of the elderly by imposing Pharmacare dispensing fees and user

fees for each visit to physiotherapists, chiropractors and podiatrists,

thereby threatening the basic universality principle of medicare.

There are many other things that could have been included in

that motion, about the increase of property tax. It's fine and dandy,

you know, for that member for Boundary Similkameen to talk about

seniors having no difficulty at all paying that additional $100 per

annum in property tax. But you know there is a long-standing tradition

in this province that that particular $1 in addition to the home owner

grant was really saying to the seniors of this province: "You have paid

your income taxes over the years, you have paid your property taxes,

you have made your contribution, and in recognition of that we

symbolically take $1 from you, and we appreciate the effort you have

made on behalf of the citizens of this province." Because, you know,

it's not just the $100 — and that $100 is onerous. Seventy-one percent

of all the seniors in Canada live below the poverty line. The

retirement community of Victoria — and it is a retirement community....

The studies that have been done at the University of Victoria indicate

that one-quarter of all of the seniors here in the city of Victoria

live below the poverty line. Largely they are unattached women, over

the age of 65. More often than not they do have their own homes; they

perhaps don't have a mortgage. But you know, the costs of living on

this island, to heat their homes, to feed themselves, to look after

their health needs, and so on, on the modest federal pension.... Is not

a lot of money.

The

Minister of Finance the other day said it’s just another $8 a month —

you know, chicken feed. To people that are coming into our community

office for help, many not feeding themselves adequately and not caring

for themselves adequately, this is a burden to their basic subsistence.

The

other thing, Mr. Speaker, that is not mentioned in the rationale for

this tax increase.... We hear from the other side: where's the money

coming from? Everybody's got to pull their weight in retiring the

deficit. The seniors of British Columbia and the seniors of my

community are being asked to pay for the idiotic economic decisions

that have been made over the last few years. The question is always

posed: where's the money coming from? If they hadn't been so actively

dumping all the tax dollars into holes in northeast coal, the seniors

of this province wouldn't be asked to pick up this tab.

One

beacon in health care used to exist here in the city of Victoria; it

was called the James Bay Health Centre and Community Resources Board.

That's been changed. They still function under a society. But they

never received the support from this government after the change of

government, and gradually the present Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in her previous portfolio rescinded the

legislation and took away the health and human resource board. But we

learned a lot of things about seniors and their needs here in the city

of Victoria.

We learned from the doctors that one of the

most serious things facing seniors here was loneliness — loneliness and

its medical complications. People didn't look after themselves in terms

of nutrition. Sometimes they found themselves, because of loneliness,

overmedicated. There are various kinds of social implications to being

alienated and isolated in the community. What the health and human

resource board did, rather than just acting as a physician, was deal

also in conjunction with social workers and people that were looking at

their life, not just whether they had a sore foot or they had arthritis

or they had a cataract or whether they had some medical difficulty.

Those

doctors said: "Mr. or Mrs. Retired Person, what is your situation?

Where do you live? What is your income? What is your life circumstance?

Do you have surviving children?" What they were able to do was connect

these seniors into the resource board network. So people started being

grandparents to children that didn't have grandparents. They started

being active in their own organizations. They started being active in

their own political organizations. Do you know, the James Bay New

Horizons Society and the Community Resources Board were among the

vanguard in leading the fight when Mulroney tried to de-index their

pensions and take away their future income. Do you know, that member

for Boundary-Similkameen tried to suggest in this House that it was the

opposition that was stirring up the seniors. Mr.

[ Page 297 ]

Speaker, the seniors in this province can think for

themselves, and they're not happy with what the government is doing to

them.

We've

had earlier today discussions about fairness: fairness in access to

health care, fairness in access to services entitlements. Mr. Speaker,

when you put user fees on therapeutic services, such as chiropractic,

massage therapy, podiatry, and so on, things that can help people be

functional in their own homes, help them to be more mobile, help them

to function in a way that they want to.... What has this government

got against the aging process anyway? We're all on this glacier. We're

all moving along. What has the Socred government got against the aging

process?

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: If it wasn't so tragic, it

would be humorous.

For

a government to scapegoat seniors, to scapegoat the most disadvantaged

in our society as a group, is really just about the most bullying

tactic that I can imagine.

[4:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: What absolute rubbish!

MR. G. HANSON:

I invite the Minister of Municipal Affairs to meet with me and the

seniors' organizations and defend these fee increases around the city

of Victoria. We will go and visit the various organizations here in the

city of Victoria, and we'll hold hearings and let that minister be

aware of the feelings and the needs. What this government....

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON:

You know, Mr. Speaker, election after election we see the pattern. The

pattern is fluff and puff and pink balloons before the election, and a

hammer after the election. They think it's funny but, you know, the

doctors who are phoning the MLAs now — and they're phoning them no

matter what party they represent in this House — are saying that those

fees, even if they're $5, are an obstacle to a large percentage of

their clientele, their patients, and that when you take that $5 fee it

discourages a person from seeking the help they need. What happens —

this is the false economy of it — is that rather than a person feeling

that they are entitled to go 12 or 13 times a year for a particular

service, they don't go. You know what happens, Mr. Speaker? They end up

in an acute-care bed in the hospital at a cost of $300 or $400, when

they could have gone and had a regular therapeutic treatment that would

have kept them out of that institution. What kind of false economy is

that?

On this side of the House we support preventive

medicine. We support making the dollar work in the best possible way,

and the services being provided. When you deny a person a service

because of an obstacle such as a user fee, we pay as a society. We pay

because our acute-care beds will fill up with people who could have

been in their own homes, functional and mobile, but because they didn't

get help, they're ending up at high cost in an acute-care bed. So I'm

wondering, Mr. Speaker, why the seniors in this province are having to

suffer because of the bad economic decisions that were previously made

and continue to be made by this government.

I've also

pointed out that I think the seniors recognize that this budget is just

the start of tapping that revenue. That's the way it's seen by the

Minister of Finance. It's gone from $1 to $100. Next budget or the

budget after that we just may see $150. We may see half of the

homeowner grant; we may see that just continue to increase, and seniors

recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, it would be wise of the

government to reconsider this and to withdraw this from the budget.

They would have the consent of this side of the House if they would

withdraw those fees immediately from the budget, and then we could

expedite the bills that would be necessary to put people to work in

this province and do more productive things.

Mr. Speaker,

I've indicated that 75 percent of women over the age of 65 have an

income of less than $8,000 a year. Did all members of the House hear

that statistic? I'd like all members to reflect upon that: 75 percent

of all women over the age of 65 have an income of less than $8,000 per

year. And the emphasis of the Minister of Finance was to increase the

income tax of people whose income is under $10,000 a year by

approximately 8.5 percent — I think it's 8.4 percent. Why take from the

poorest? Why take from those who don't have an income, who are less

able to protect themselves?

You know, it was incredible

when I heard the comment the other day about the reason for the tax

breaks being given to the wealthy and to the higher incomes — because

that was the brain drain. What an absurd notion! You tax those who are

able to pay; that's what a graduated income tax is all about. It's a

fair tax; the percentage increases as the income increases. This is

just the reverse. This is the reverse of Robin Hood; it's Robin Hood on

his head.

Mr. Speaker, I know talking to this government is

really like talking to a stump. I've been around long enough to know

that, because the government does not take the suggestions made in this

House seriously, and modify their proposals. I think we can show very

clearly that these user fees for medical services, the income tax on

low incomes and the added property tax are a severe impost on those who

have the least income, so it's grossly unfair We can demonstrate it

empirically. We can demonstrate it with force of argument, with

studies, so will you listen?

I extend the invitation to the

Minister of Municipal Affairs to come with me to the seniors' groups

around the city of Victoria and we will listen to the people there

about their concerns, and if the concerns that come forward support her

budget, if they support those fees and support the additional property

tax and support the higher charges, then I will certainly...

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Will you resign?

MR. G. HANSON:

...withdraw my remarks. I will apologize to her. But if the seniors

want those withdrawn, would she resign? So the invitation is there.

know from medical services utilization in British Columbia, by age of

patient and by sex of patient from 1984 to 1985, that as people get

older they use the medical services more often. We all know that. As I

had indicated, as age increases utilization of the medical services

increases and there are all sorts of reports to indicate that. So why

would the government want to single out seniors and ask them to come

forward with funds that they don't have because they're in the poverty

groups by population? Why would they do that?

[ Page 298 ]

The

only conclusion that I can reach is that the decisions such as

northeast coal, the expenditures around the megaprojects, their

restraint program which continues to paralyze the economy in terms of

not having a consumer-led recovery here in the province of British

Columbia.... We seem to be in this economic back eddy where people

don't have the confidence to get into big-ticket items, to feel good

about their future, to spend money, to feel secure. It appears to me

that this budget is just another version of taxing those who can't

afford it, allowing those who have funds special privilege in our

society; and in the end the low- and middle-income people who continue

to work pay the burden because in the long run these seniors will be in

hospitals more frequently than they would ordinarily. They will be more

stressed, and why should that be done?

MR. SERWA:

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to rise and speak in opposition

to the amendment. I would like to read a portion of the amendment:

"...the Hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations has sought to

reduce the provincial deficit by loading dramatic property tax

increases on the backs of the elderly and by imposing Pharmacare

dispensing fees and user fees for each visit...."

Let's

take a look at this in perspective. First of all there are

approximately 355,000 seniors in British Columbia. The total of the

1987-88 budget for services to seniors is estimated at $1.3 billion.

I'm going to go through some of the programs to bring this matter into

perspective.

First of all we have the GAIN program for

senior supplements. This provides a guaranteed minimum income to those

seniors in receipt of the federal government's old age security,

guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance. The 1987-88 budget

amounts to $21.2 million for this program. There are estimated to be

45,000 participants; the benefit per participant is $471. Shelter Aid

for Elderly Renters provides assistance to offset rental costs to old

age security recipients living in rental accommodation — in the current

budget, $7.4 million; estimated participants, 9,000; the benefit per

participant is $822. Bus pass program: provides subsidized bus passes

to help and encourage the mobility of eligible low-income senior

citizens and recipients of GAIN for the Handicapped benefits. Again the

current budget, 1987-88, $6.9 million; estimated participants, 33,000;

benefit per participant, $209.

Pharmacare provides

prescription drugs to senior citizens, residents of long-term care

facilities and income assistance recipients. Seniors are now required

to pay 75 percent of the dispensing fee. The average of that 75 percent

will amount to $5 per person per prescription, up to a total annual

deductible amount of $125. The 1987-88 budget is $98.5 million for

Pharmacare; estimated participants, 310,000 — a very high percentage

of the seniors in British Columbia; the benefit per participant is $318.

Senior

housing. The government encourages the provision of housing for senior

citizens through locally sponsored non-profit societies and private

sector participation. The 1987-88 budget amount is $1.5 million; an

estimated 10,000 participants; benefit per participant, $150. The land

tax deferment program enables elderly citizens, widows, widowers and

certain handicapped persons to defer property taxes on their ordinary

place of residence; estimated participants, 3,000.

[4:30]

Now

let's look at the health programs. These are all allied to our senior

citizens. While senior citizens constitute only 12 percent of British

Columbia's population, it is estimated that approximately 37 percent of

the total health budget in 1987-88 will be spent on seniors. The

acute-care bed utilization is 40 percent for seniors. The estimated

cost for that is $531 million. Extended care: 85 percent for seniors,

estimated cost $221 million. Continuing care: 85 percent for seniors;

estimated cost, $272 million. Medical Services Plan: 20 percent

utilization by seniors; estimated cost, $108 million. Emergency health

services: 40 percent utilization by seniors; estimated cost, $22

million. Mental health: 15 percent utilization by seniors; estimated

cost, $18 million. The total of this for the 1987-88 budget is $1.172

billion. The average benefit per participant is $3,301.

What

I'm trying to do is get everything into perspective. We've mentioned,

in the motion that I'm speaking in opposition to, a dramatic reduction.

We have a total budget of $10.2 billion. We have a deficit of $850

million. What we are looking for is a differential of $321 million that

we're saving over the deficit of last year. The change in property tax

from $1 to $100 is deemed to affect 60,000 homeowners. This particular

tax will account for $6 million in additional revenue to the province.

The

seniors' Pharmacare dispensing fee. I think it's long been recognized

by all people that things that are given for nothing are often not

truly appreciated and often abused — abused not simply by the consumer

but also by those who dispense the service. In our medical health

services we have a very explosive type of budget. Over the last five

years there's been an approximately 20 percent per year increase in

Pharmacare costs. What we have to face and recognize is that we can't

maintain this level of participation. We're all aware of what is going

to occur by the year 2000, when the baby boomers reach senior citizen

age. What we have to do is convey more responsibility to the consumer.

I believe that the budget, as presented, is going to do precisely that.

It will convey a very small percentage of responsibility to consumers,

and I think their approach will be more responsible.

We do

have GAIN supplements, which we talked about, and they currently

provide benefits for 43,000 seniors. These benefits will be increased

by $125 per year for those currently receiving benefits, and an

additional 5,000 seniors will qualify for some assistance.

Basically,

user fees are very similar in nature. As a matter of fact, I differ

from the federal position and frankly believe that user fees throughout

the medical health services would be an admirable goal. I think that

financial participation by the consumer encourages prudence. Presently,

user fees for all people in British Columbia cost $15 million. This is

the proposed cost of the 1987-88 budget — they would return

approximately $15 million to the province — and the elimination of the

hospital tax reduces the cost by $40 million.

I think that

what we have here is a recognition that our senior citizens, generally,

are the people who worked hard to build this country. I don't dispute

that. They have a richness in quality that is admirable and certainly a

goal for our young people to aspire to reach. I know many seniors who

live in their own homes. As a matter of fact, I believe only 9 percent

of our senior citizens are in extended-care, personal-care or long-term

care facilities. I know many of these people who have their own homes

grow large gardens and even provide vegetables for their children.

They're independent individuals whose cost of living — at least in

Okanagan South — is

[ Page 299 ]

perhaps

dramatically different from that in some of the more urban areas in the

lower mainland. Nevertheless, I feel that they have pride; they have

got to where they've reached by, basically, their own efforts — no

guarantees; no securities. I think they have the ability, like the rest

of us, to recognize that some requirement is there on their part to pay

for part of the services I was talking about; and, the total cost, at

$1.3 billion, is very, very high.

So I speak in opposition

to the motion. I think that I've shown figures in perspective to

substantiate my stand. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MILLER:

Well, the debate so far has, I think, bogged down in a kind of dry

recital of statistics relating to the plight of seniors, and some, I

suppose, citing those statistics in evidence that they're really not

that badly off and can afford these increases; I don't think that's the

case. But I want to add a couple of dimensions to the debate about

seniors.

I'll start by telling a story about a friend of

mine in Prince Rupert who had celebrated his fiftieth wedding

anniversary. He was a pretty healthy-looking guy. Of course I asked

him: "What's the secret of this long successful marriage, and obviously

your health?" He said: "We agreed a long time ago that we wouldn't

argue. I would go outside if we were going to have an argument. You

might say I've led kind of an outdoor life."

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha, ha.

MR. MILLER:

I tried. I'm going to blame my colleague who gave me that joke. I may

not have told it well enough for the opposite side to laugh — or maybe

they don't have a sense of humour, I don't know — but I want to tie

that in, first of all, to the whole subject of dealing with seniors. I

perhaps feel a bit of discomfort, having been referred to by a very

popular and astute political columnist in this city as a "young man,"

but I do find some difficulty in dealing with seniors as a group, in

classifying a group of people in our society as "seniors." You're

old. I know that I got in trouble in Prince Rupert when I was an

alderman because I successfully brought in a motion that in effect gave

seniors in that community free transportation on our bus system. A

couple of those people came after me and really gave me heck for doing

that. What they were saying was: "We don't need handouts." I think that

that plays a large

part in the thinking of seniors.

I just

want to correct the first member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt).

He talked about measures that were introduced into legislation allowing

seniors to in effect defer their property taxes, first of all by

pointing out that that legislation was brought in during the

administration of 1972-75, and secondly by pointing out that it wasn't

all that popular. The reason, I think, is that seniors tend to be a

very individualistic group of people who have worked hard to get where

they are, and they resent being singled out for handouts. They also

believe in paying for value received. They don't believe in running up

large debts or anything else. For that reason I suspect that probably

at least some of them are swallowing these latest increases and saying:

"Well, I'll just have to pay them." But that's unfortunate, because I

don't think it's necessary.

There are some seniors, in

particular an old gentleman whom I want to refer to in my constituency

in Port Simpson who is well into his eighties and yet who every year

takes a small boat across the Skeena River and runs a trap line. Here's

a fellow who obviously doesn't worry about medicine, drugs, hospitals

or anything else, because he is still active and full of life. But when

we talk about all the statistics relating to seniors, I think it's

worthwhile if we look at some of the realities. I was in a little store

over here in James Bay — and I may be pointing in the wrong direction,

but.... It's easy to get confused in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, as

to which direction you're going. But nonetheless, I got in a lineup

behind some people going through the check stand, and in front of me

was an elderly woman who discovered when she had her purchases rung up

that she didn't have enough money. I don't know how often many of us

find ourselves in that position, but it's quite embarrassing. "Oh, I

don't have enough money here." The lineup's behind you. People are

muttering that they want to get out. And here's this elderly woman

trying to pick out the purchases that she needed to have and trying to

relate it to the amount of money she had. That's a reality; that's not

a statistic. Maybe we forget that from time to time.

We're

not, at least in my own mind, dealing with seniors — although I don't

want to stray from the amendment — we're dealing with a group of people

in our society who are generally in a certain income bracket. We're

dealing with poverty and wealth. The question we are really asking

ourselves, or the question this amendment strikes at, in my opinion, is

whether it is fair and equitable to extract the additional amount of

wealth out of the pockets of this particular group. You know, nothing

could be clearer, despite the denials on the opposite side that they're

not trying to reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors, than the

comments of the first member for Boundary-Similkameen, who clearly tied

his remarks to the fact that the cost of the deficit was some $500-odd

million a year. Clearly that was his rationale for opposing the

amendment: "We need the money, and we're going to have to take it out

of the pockets of seniors."

Previous speakers in this House

have chastised the opposition for not putting forward alternative ways

in which wealth can be drawn out of our society for necessary

government services. I think my colleague the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) very clearly spelled out how additional

revenue could be raised in this province — quite a substantial amount

of revenue — in terms of a kind of tax system that was equitable and

that was fair. In putting forward his arguments, he used statistics

that are irrefutable, and he showed quite clearly that there are people

in this province who are very wealthy indeed and who do not pay very

much in taxes.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

That's

the argument that we're trying to make here, without much success, I'm

afraid. It's not just an argument being put forward by the opposition;

it's an argument being put forward by groups out there in British

Columbia who may represent seniors — who have no particular axe to

grind, who are comprised of people who obviously must be Social

Crediters and NDPers and Liberals and Conservatives and who knows what

else. They don't have an axe to grind, but they're trying to get the

message across to this government. I guess if the amendment fails, the

conclusion that we must come to is that the government has simply

rejected the argument, and if that's the case we would think it would

have to be based on some solid, substantial reasoning.

[ Page 300 ]

[4:45]

This afternoon we posed some questions in terms of the kinds

studies that have been done to substantiate the imposition of more fees

on seniors. We asked specific questions: where are the studies? There

was no answer. We can only conclude that the studies weren't done, so

that the government in blind faith is saying: "We think the money is

there; we've got to put in some deterrent fees; these people are using

the medical services to too high a degree and these fees will not only

deter them from that but will also sweeten up the coffers of the

government and somehow bring down this $500 million cost to service the

debt."

Certainly the revenue potential that exists in this

province is far, far greater than is being considered by the

government. In fact, if the revenue potential was fully tapped — and we

hopefully will outline additional sources of revenue that can be used

in this province — there would be enough money to bring down the rate

of unemployment in this province, to implement a kind of industrial

strategy that we need here to get rid of the long-term unemployment and

to eventually get rid of that deficit. You know, this amendment says

that you don't need to take more money from seniors; the money is

available from other identifiable sources.

This amendment

provides the opportunity to take a second look to show that the

government has the capacity to change their position and cancel these

extra impositions on senior citizens. I urge all members on the

government side to consider that very, very carefully and vote in

support of this amendment.

MR. CHALMERS: Madam

Speaker, as one of the members for Okanagan South I am pleased to rise

and speak in opposition to the amendment. I would like to begin by

offering my congratulations to the Minister of Finance for the hard

work and dedicated effort that he put into putting together the budget.

I know the long hours that he spent, many evenings working very late,

to put the budget together, and I commend him for that.

I'm

particularly pleased with the emphasis on health, education, student

assistance, social assistance and job training. I'm proud to be part of

this Social Credit government. It's a government that cares about the

people of this province. British Columbians have placed their trust in

this party in all elections but one since 1952.

Interjection.

MR. CHALMERS:

No, I don't think they're gullible. I wouldn't say that about the

people of British Columbia, and I don't think you would either.

I'm

confident that we will continue to win elections, because we have a

caring and responsible government. This is a large province, a province

with wonderful diversity of people and, as a result, a diversity of

needs and concerns.

Locally, in the Okanagan, I have served

for five terms on the economic development commission, and I served as

president of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, so I speak with some

experience when I say that it's often the people at the local level who

are the ones most aware of the local issues. Our Social Credit

government is listening to local governments. We are following through

on the promise made in the throne speech to decentralize government.

The budget reinforces this government's belief that smaller governments

tend to be more efficient and cost-conscious than larger ones. As I

have said before in this House, I firmly believe that less government

is the best government.

The Premier's provincial-municipal

conference on decentralization this past January was a positive step in

that direction. Fifty-one proposals were presented and discussed with

400 local government representatives. This conference is an excellent