1988 Legislative Session: 2nd 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)

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1988

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

3657 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions –– 3657

Oral Questions

Sale of B.C. Place. Mr. Williams –– 3657

BCEC board. Mr. Williams –– 3657

Senior couples in long-term care. Ms. A. Hagen –– 3657

Pharmacare and AZT. Mr. Harcourt –– 3658

Budget Debate

Mr. Chalmers –– 3659

Ms. A. Hagen –– 3662

Mr. Bruce –– 3665

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3668

Mr. Mercier –– 3671

Mr. Skelly –– 3673

Mr. Peterson –– 3676

Mrs. Boone –– 3678

Mr. R. Fraser –– 3681

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Presenting Petitions

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This petition is made up of 17,528 names, give

or take one or two. The petition and the petitioners ask: (1) that this

House immediately establish throughout the province community health

care clinics that would provide abortion services; (2) that the

government of British Columbia uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's

decision and ensure that the decision to terminate a pregnancy remains

solely between a woman and her physician; and (3) that all abortion

services and facilities be completely funded by the Ministry of Health

and the medical insurance plan of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

SALE OF B.C. PLACE

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Economic Development. Mr.

Toigo is quoted as saying: "I'm not interested in purchasing public

assets under a cloak of secrecy and hidden agendas." Could the minister

advise if she agrees with that view?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is asking

me to make a comment on a news release put out by a private citizen,

and I would have no comment on that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister confirm that they considered

a bid proposal from this person after bids were closed and they had

entertained bids from other parties on the B.C. Place land?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the board of the B.C.

Enterprise Corporation, or I as minister, have not received a bid from

Mr. Toigo. Mr. Toigo's proposal letter, which was not accompanied by a

bid, as I understand, was received in the Premier's office.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister confirm that the proposal

from Mr. Toigo was indeed a proposal that involved all of the lands of

the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and other assets?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe Mr. Toigo himself has confirmed

that, and that proposal could not be considered in terms of the B.C.

Place lands, because the B.C. Place lands were already in the tendering

process.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister confirm that the cabinet considered it?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what the cabinet considers

at any time, and I know the member knows that full well.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier has confirmed that, so we accept

that. Has the minister established that Mr. Toigo has the kind of money

that would be necessary to deal with these assets'?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The answer to that is no.

BCEC BOARD

MR. WILLIAMS: No, indeed, Madam Minister. Could the minister

confirm that she has a split board in the Enterprise Corporation? Could

the minister confirm that Mr. Poole, the Premier's principal secretary

and deputy, was appointed in her absence?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In answer to the second part of the

question, no. That appointment was not made in my absence, if it will

make the hon. member for Vancouver East feel any better.

In answer to the first part of the question, I think you asked

something about a split board. Mr. Speaker, I would like you and the

House to know — and particularly the member for Vancouver East — that I

have really one of the best volunteer boards that I could have in the

B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

I am really proud of the work they have accomplished in a very short

time. In nine months they have achieved a great deal, and I am

particularly pleased with the work they have done. Any aspersions that

they have been split in their decision-making or anything else are just

that, and frankly I think they are mischievous aspersions, because that

board has been a very hard-working board. They've been very committed

and are a very good team.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's rather weak support for the minister who

lost her majority on the board recently. Could the minister confirm

that Mr. Couvelier signed the appointment of Mr. Poole — and not

herself?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I couldn't confirm that, because I

didn't see the order, Mr. Speaker. And the member would know that

orders get signed by all of us and that we don't sign our own orders

for appointments to boards.

SENIOR COUPLES IN LONG-TERM CARE

MS. A. HAGEN: I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Given that new rates for the elderly in British Columbia living in

long-term care facilities place an especially heavy burden on married

couples. and given that some of these couples will soon be paying more

than 100 percent of their basic income for room and board, has the

Minister of Health decided to review these excessive rates so that

senior couples may receive fair treatment?

HON. MR. DUECK: The question asked is wrong in that the

elderly or anyone will pay more than they receive, because anyone under

the minimum income, as far as the government assistance is concerned,

can now apply for GAIN. Furthermore, we're treating all couples the

same as singles. That will be looked after.

MS. A. HAGEN: Further to the minister's comment, could the minister explain how couples under guaranteed

[ Page 3658 ]

income supplement are going to be treated as singles under the federal plan? Could the minister please elaborate on that issue?

HON. MR. DUECK: As far as the provincial government is concerned, they will be treated as single under our program.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would note that those married couples, in

fact, may have something in the order of $15 disposable income, on the

basis of their guaranteed income supplement, once these new rates go

into effect. Seniors in long-term care facilities will soon be charged

85 percent of their basic income for room and board. The accepted

standard percentage of income in Canada for basic shelter and food is

60 percent. What studies has the Minister of Health done to justify

leaving old people with only 15 percent of basic income for all the

other necessities of life?

HON. MR. DUECK: The government is taking the line of action

that if someone can afford to pay, they will pay the extra; however,

the ones who cannot afford to pay will in fact be looked after, because

they can now apply for GAIN, which was not possible before. So when you

say that someone will not be able to cover the charges and will have to

pay out of his own pocket, this is not true. This is false.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would note that the charges we are talking

about are basic costs of room and board. That's 85 percent of

everyone's income in long-term care facilities. Could the minister

please explain how he expects older people to live on 15 percent of

income, which will leave most of them with under $100 a month to pay

for every other aspect of their life needs? Would the minister please

explain how seniors are to do that?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to explain, and

maybe I didn't do it too well. The question was asked how these people

can live on 15 percent when they have everything else paid for. What

I'm saying is that if people do not qualify for GAIN, they obviously

have some other income. If they qualify for GAIN, the minimum will be

approximately $159 a month.

MS. A. HAGEN: One final question to the minister, whose

figures in fact reflect a very small number of the 23,000 older people

in the community, perhaps as few as 2,000, who will be in receipt of

GAIN. Is it the intent of the Minister of Health and this government to

repeat the goal of last year, quoting the minister's own words, to

reduce the deficit with the hard-won dollars of older people? In fact,

will the punitive rates that this government is now imposing on

long-term care residents be the funds that will finance the rainy-day

funds of this government?

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like the member to repeat that I made

that statement, because I'm not aware of having made a statement of

that kind, nor do I believe that I ever would. I would very much like

that verified in this House so that we have the record, because I would

not make a statement of that kind.

PHARMACARE AND AZT

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier, but first of

all I'd like to say that British Columbians were happy to see the

government rethink its policy in regard to cyclosporin, and we'd like

to compliment the government for admitting the unfairness of its

previous policies and for recognizing that B.C.'s health care services

are not complete without the inclusion of that particular drug in

Pharmacare without a user fee. So I have a compliment to start the

remarks with.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HARCOURT: In their usual gracious manner, they have accepted the compliment.

I do have a question to the Premier with respect to the serious

threat of AIDS, specifically the treatment of AIDS. I'd like to ask the

Premier if the government, recognizing the importance of the drug AZT

to the treatment of AIDS victims, will now include AZT in Pharmacare

and not charge AIDS patients for this drug.

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, we have probably the most

generous Pharmacare program anywhere in the country. We provide many

prescription drugs for various illnesses, and all of these are dealt

with on the basis of the government — the taxpayers — contributing 80

percent and the recipient of the drug paying a minimum of $300, or 20

percent, to a maximum of $2,000. It is a very generous program, and it

has grown from when it was first introduced — I believe it was

somewhere near $12 million — to where it's now $175 million.

We've also seen, in more recent times, new drugs come onto the

market — very sophisticated drugs, which certainly are very helpful for

many ailments but are also extremely expensive. Again, these programs

are dealt with under the Pharmacare program.

The cyclosporin is different, in the sense that it's an extension of

the transplant program. It is therefore being provided to those who

have received a transplant and are continuing to receive the drugs.

It's part of that program.

The Pharmacare program, like all other programs, gets reviewed from

time to time. I gather the opposition would have it that we should act

as they might and immediately say: "Whatever the drug, or however

experimental, or whatever its status, we'll now immediately require

taxpayers to pick up the tab for all things holy; and those who can

contribute should somehow avoid having to contribute." That's not the

position of this government. This government takes the position that if

people who can contribute do contribute, then obviously there's more

for those who are truly in need of something they can't provide for

themselves.

It's the view of our government, as opposed to the opposition, that

we can't simply jump in from day to day and suddenly adopt another

program which will cost millions of dollars and will need to be picked

up again by the taxpayers. So I believe we're dealing with this very

responsibly. I'm very proud of what this government is doing and very

proud of the Pharmacare program.

MR. HARCOURT: We're not very proud of the Premier's attitude in this whole question, because his government's

policies are based on inconsistencies which essentially go back to his own personal biases and prejudices. In this case,

[ Page

3659 ]

the government's user fee policy is based on the Premier's homophobic

attitude. That's what it's based on, isn't it, Mr. Premier? If you'd

like an

interpretation of that, if you haven't heard the word, it means

fear of homosexuals. Isn't that the basis of it? There's no rationale

for it except your homophobic attitude.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, as a matter of fact, I want to clarify this immediately. The only statement I have made

on that particular issue, the issue of homophobia, is that I did not agree with a member of the NDP federally making the

statements that were made. I made that statement. If the NDP takes exception to that, too bad.

MR. HARCOURT: What we take exception to is that British

Columbia is the only province in this country that does not make this

drug available for those suffering from it. The reason is the Premier's

biased attitude in this whole area.

Just to show that, I'd like to point out another inconsistency in

the government's approach to health care, which is the charging of

families for the growth hormone drugs that are needed for the normal

physical development of children. Will the government recognize the

unfairness of this policy and stop charging families and children for

this necessary treatment, or do you think they're all going to want to

move to British Columbia too?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I said, and I repeat, where someone

is in need of a particular drug — and there are many of them in the

Pharmacare program — and they can't pay for the drug, we provide, as

taxpayers, for all of the cost. We pick up the whole of the tab. Where

people can contribute a portion of the cost, we expect that they should

or could and would contribute a part of the cost. For the most part,

most British Columbians are very supportive of that approach because it

preserves the programs for future days and for people who are truly in

need. It means that all of us — and that includes those here — if we

can contribute, should; and for someone sitting in this Legislature

earning the sort of money we do, to not contribute when we can I don't

think would be a responsible approach.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before proceeding to orders of the day,

I'll advise the assembly that pursuant to standing order 2.2, the

Legislative Assembly will be sitting tomorrow.

With that said, I call adjourned debate on the motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair.

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. CHALMERS: Prior to adjournment today, I was talking about

some of the positive things that are happening in British Columbia, and

doing so in support, of course, of the budget.

To be certain, Mr. Speaker — to continue my comments — British Columbia is

a beautiful place to live. Such beauty and variety of geography and climate

means that people of imagination and vision will be attracted to this province.

People in this province are free to pursue the various endeavours, be it in

business, in science or in the arts. The natural wealth of this province also

makes for enhanced opportunities.

But government policies must be designed to capitalize on these

positive attributes. Government must create the necessary climate for

individuals to pursue their own goals. By creating a climate that

allows for opportunity and for those who seek to strive for excellence,

all of society will indeed benefit. Our government places faith in the

individual initiative. We believe all citizens of this province must

have the opportunity to pursue excellence, be it in business, science,

research or in the arts, without undue government interference.

The question becomes practical at this point. To be exact, what sort

of policy should a government pursue in order to achieve the goal of

excellence through individual initiative? In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have

a firm belief that excellence can only be achieved through individual

initiative. It does not require much analysis to realize that, while

the citizens of a province or country may strive for excellence, the

misguided application of government policies — especially in relation

to tax measures — can destroy the incentive of the individual. A

society will not advance solely on the intrinsic merits of natural

splendour and an informed population. Such factors must be supported by

proper government policies.

This, I maintain, is the major practical philosophical difference

between the members of the government and those in the opposition. We

believe in the spirit of the individual and that the individual is best

left on his or her own to pursue excellence in business, science or the

arts. The New Democratic Party opposition, on the other hand, believes

that government must always take the lead. Taxation policies and

government programs should not be designed to tell people what to do,

but rather to assist people in doing what they think is best for

themselves or for society. To put it another way, our government does

not view its role as substituting the initiative of individuals with

some edict issued by government.

I have not elaborated on the growing diversity of the economy of

British Columbia and the necessary link between individual initiative

and government policies for some quaint academic reason. I don't

believe that any of us was elected to this Legislature to count angels

on the head of a pin, so to speak. Rather, I bring these concerns to

the forefront for very real reasons.

As mentioned at the outset of my speech, the global economic

recession of the early 1980s did not escape this province. In fact,

this province, because of its then economic base, had to shoulder a

very large burden. But as I also stated, this province in the past ten

years has made great strides in seeking to diversify its economic base.

This has been in spite of the economic constraints imposed by a very

real and very severe recession. In other words, this province made

great strides in economic diversification when the economic times

apparently least afforded such gains. Many would question: how could

this be achieved? But it was achieved for the reasons I have stated.

MR. BLENCOE: Give us some examples.

MR. CHALMERS: Hang on, you'll get them.

This government maintains a firm belief in the same ethic of

individual initiative as did the past government. Our programs and

policies exhibit this. Our government is not a government of subsidy

and handout. But let it be made certain that our government will create

the climate and the infrastructure for individual enterprise. Only this

approach will ensure continued economic growth, personal freedom and

enhanced social services.

[ Page 3660 ]

While we have made great strides, much remains to be done. In a real

way, economic diversification is only in its initial stages in this

province, and we cannot lose momentum, for to lose momentum is to lose

the future. I firmly believe that our government's budget reflects this

reality. It is indeed a budget that capitalizes on past economic

diversification initiatives. It is a budget that looks to the future

with an emphasis on improving the competitive position of British

Columbia business in the emerging global economy. It's enhancing social

services and continued responsible fiscal management.

A sound economic base, diversified not only in terms of industry and

products but also in terms of markets, is essential to even out the

economic cycle in this province. The budget addresses these concerns

specifically and builds upon past achievements in this area.

To begin with, tax levels are very important in establishing a

diversified economic base. To put it another way, tax levels are

crucial to competitiveness, both in terms of allowing new industries to

establish in this province and maintaining the competitive selling edge

of those already doing business in British Columbia. As such, our

government, as of January 31 this year, reduced the general corporation

tax rate from 15 percent to 14 percent. This was a commitment announced

by our government in the '86 and '87 budgets and will reduce the taxes

paid by British Columbia businesses by $25 million during 1988 and 1989.

Further, Mr. Speaker, our government realizes the increasing

importance that small businesses have in economic diversification and

employment creation. Accordingly, the small business income tax is

being reduced from 11 percent to 9 percent. This will save small

businesses $18 million during 1988-89 and $30 million during 1989-90.

We must not forget that forestry and mining continue to be

cornerstones of our economy. Our government is committed to ensuring

that British Columbians receive a fair return from all natural

resources and that renewable resources are indeed renewed. However, our

government must be cautious that policies reflect the competitive

taxation position of these very important industries. Therefore our

government has reduced the mineral resource tax rate from 17.5 percent

to 15 percent and the mining tax rate from 15 percent to 12.5 percent,

effective July 1, 1988.

[2:30]

Our government also realizes that forestry and mining are unique

sectors deserving of special attention in the areas of renewal and

infrastructure. Our government is committed to the renewal of our

provincial forest resource. New policies by our government require that

companies harvesting Crown land timber must replace cut trees that they

harvest. This simple variation on a user fee, if you will, means that

spending on timber renewal by the forest industry will increase

fivefold over the next five years. As well, our government will spend

more than $210 million on silviculture programs during the 1988-89

fiscal year. Our government is very serious about ensuring renewal of

the province's most valuable resource.

Our government is also very serious about making sure the citizens

of the province receive a fair return on what are quite properly viewed

as public resources. In my opinion, the new stumpage appraisal system

guarantees such a fair return.

In addition, our government realizes that investment in research in

the natural resource sector infrastructure is very important in

maintaining our competitive position. That is why our government will

provide $4 million towards the construction of a new forest research

facility at the University of British Columbia to house Forintek and

the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. An additional $4

million in Crown land will be made available for research purposes.

To assist the mining sector, additional sums will be spent on

geological mapping, an extension of the power grid to Stewart and the

recently announced $25 million loan guarantee to help the Cassiar

Mining Corp. develop new asbestos deposits known as the McDame deposit.

This assistance will ensure that the Cassiar mine's life and the life

of the community of Cassiar will be extended up to 20 years beyond

1991. This will allow not only for the continued development of the

Cassiar mine, but it will also provide that very important

infrastructure for other mines in that area or the ones that will be

created in the future.

As I mentioned earlier, tourism is an important growth industry.

Tourism has not gone unnoticed in this budget. The unique and very

successful marketing programs of Tourism B.C. will continue to play an

important role in attracting out-of-province visitors and indeed

encourage British Columbians to travel within their own province. This

year there will be an emphasis on cooperating with regional tourist

associations and the private sector. A very important development is

the opening of the Pacific Rim Institute for Tourism. Funded jointly by

the provincial and federal governments, this institute will lead to

employment and promotional opportunities for British Columbians

interested in this growing area. Our government is also committed to

enhancing the operation of the traditional sector of the province's

tourist industry; that is, the seasonal tourist accommodation sector.

Effective for the 1989 property taxation year, there will be a new

deduction of 50 percent of the assessed value of all tourist

accommodation to a maximum deduction of $150,000. This will help small

seasonal tourist operators, as they will no longer face sharply higher

property taxes resulting from the elimination of the class 8

recreational property designation. This change to the recreational

property assessment will certainly be well received in the constituency

of Okanagan South, where tourism contributes substantially to the local

economy. It's an area, I would add, where there are more hours of

sunshine than in the state of Hawaii.

The grape-growing and tree-fruit sectors are an important part of

the constituency of Okanagan South. When one speaks of agriculture in

the Okanagan, it is synonymous with the fruit industry of British

Columbia. Quite understandably, many people involved in Okanagan grape

and tree fruit industries are expressing concerns about the impact of

the Canada-America free trade agreement and the recent GATT ruling

involving provincial liquor distribution practices. But it must be

remembered that as part of the deal to secure a free trade agreement,

the grape and fruit industries were afforded protection from the

ten-year gradual removal of tariffs with the inclusion of the 20-year

tariff snapback provision. The 20-year snapback allows for temporary

application of tariffs to protect grape and fruit producers against

important surges caused by depressed market conditions.

As well, it should be noted that our government has committed itself

to a long-term strategy to develop new markets and products in the

provincial agricultural sector. As a member from Okanagan South, I

welcome this commitment. The vulnerability of relying too heavily on a

single market for British Columbia tree fruits was illustrated last fall

[ Page 3661 ]

when the Taiwanese abruptly stopped importing about 30 percent of the Red Delicious apple crop of this province.

The grape-growing and wine sectors have expressed particular concern

over both the free trade agreement and the recent GATT rulings. I share

these concerns. Our government is committed to assisting the sectors

that will be affected by the free trade agreement. I will do all I can

to monitor the situation closely and will continue to do my very best

to ensure that the adjustment assistance forthcoming adequately

addresses the needs of the long-term viability of the grape and wine

sectors in this province. I do, however, want to emphasize that

long-term planning and assistance with marketing, adjustment assistance

and a better use of funds derived from government funding programs all

hold great promise to assist the grape and tree fruit industries.

On the topic of better use of funds derived from government

programs, our government is committed to reshaping all business

assistance programs. A main consideration will be a shift from outright

grants and loans to loan guarantees and equity participation. I do not

believe it wise or advisable that government should be in the business

of making unconditional grants to industry. Such a process tends to

distort the market forces and leads to the establishment of industries

that otherwise would not be viable and probably never will be viable

short of what, in effect, amounts to continued government subsidization.

An added complicating factor is that the use of government grants

leads to needless and wasteful competition among various provinces in

Canada. In the long run, and in many cases in the short run, such

industries collapse because of simple inefficiency. Thus I welcome our

government's move to shift the emphasis of business assistance to loan

guarantees and equity participation. The hon. Minister of Finance and

Corporate Relations has stated that an important reason for this change

is that the dollar commitment can be levered four times. However, more

importantly, the money will be committed to industries that have a

proper game plan for the future. This in itself will mean a more viable

and diversified economic base.

I am, however, willing to concede that the unique economics of the

agriculture sector necessitate continued marketing systems and farm

income stabilization programs. Such programs are not affected by the

free trade agreement, and I will continue to support them, especially

in relation to the Okanagan grape and tree fruit industries.

I have dealt at some length with the practical workings of the

provincial economy. I have shown how initiatives of this government and

the previous government helped diversify our economic base. I have

shown that in an export-oriented economy like that of British Columbia,

being competitive in a global setting is the key to economic survival.

Indeed, without a strong, innovative and adaptable economy the economic

pie will shrink and, along with it, the government of the day's ability

to fund health and social services. This is not some idle economic

theory; it's an economic reality.

In essence, industry has had to reassess traditional ways of doing

business since the advent of the most recent prolonged recession. To

the credit of British Columbia industries, I believe to a large extent

they have been very successful. They have maintained their competitive

edge in the world marketplace.

But there is another important aspect to maintaining a competitive

edge in the economy, and that is the cost of government. Currently the

provincial debt incurred for government is forecast to reach about $5.3

billion at March 31, 1989. We in this province fare very well in

relation to other provinces, especially in relation to the impact of

the recent recession upon this province. However, it still must be

acknowledged that debt incurred in the everyday operation of

government, especially incurred on a sustained basis, will seriously

erode the ability to provide service for British Columbians. Money that

should go to social programs instead goes to service the dead weight of

debt. Because of that, we all suffer.

An associated and very important factor is that when the cost of

government becomes exorbitant, it directly affects other players in the

economy. Taxes have to rise to pay for the dead weight of debt and

debt-servicing. Industry soon loses its competitive edge. All sectors

compete for scarcer dollars, bidding up the cost of borrowing. Again as

the economic pie shrinks, so does the standard of living and the level

of social services for the citizens of this province.

For these very real reasons, I support our government's initiatives

to reduce and eliminate the debt associated with provincial government

operations. Some maintain that the hon. Minister of Finance and

Corporate Relations is attacking the problem too soon. I firmly believe

that the problem of the provincial debt can never be dealt with too

soon. Government must always find ways to live within its means, as a

normal family household must. Of course, the cyclical nature of the

economy of British Columbia has not always allowed us to do this. The

proposals put forward by the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate

Relations will, I believe, achieve this goal.

The new budget stabilization fund is a most welcome move. The

concept is straightforward. In good times the government puts a little

away for the rainy days. On the rainy days, the money is then used to

avoid cutting back on very important social programs. This seems to be

a practical approach to evening out the effects of the business cycles

in this province.

However, the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) referred to the

budget stabilization fund by its acronym the other day in this House —

as I recall, it's something to do with the bovine species. While the

first member for Nanaimo was attempting, I am sure, to be witty, the

record of the New Democratic Party government elected in this province

for that short period between '72 and '75, a government of which the

first member for Nanaimo served as Finance minister, is far from funny.

In fact. it was downright sad.

I could stand to be corrected, but the speech of the first member

for Nanaimo left the distinct impression that the New Democratic

government between 1972 and 1975 had an excellent record of fiscal

management, and in fact left office with a budget surplus.

MR. SKELLY: Read Public Accounts .

MR. CHALMERS: We have read the public accounts. I'm told that

the relevant years of the public accounts of British Columbia came to —

guess what — very much the opposite conclusion. In fact, the New

Democratic Party government managed to spend itself into a deficit

position within its very short tenure. In the 1975-76 fiscal year, when

the voters of this province wisely decided that they had had enough of

the New Democratic Party as government, I'm told the deficit was $405

million. Remember, the figure in 1976 was at a time when revenues

flowed much more easily to government than they have since 1982.

[ Page 3662 ]

I can sympathize with the first member for Nanaimo to a point. After

all, was it not that member who was summoned by the then New Democratic

Premier and Minister of Finance to take over the Finance portfolio to

deal with the dangerously depleted provincial Treasury — that was

heading for an obvious deficit — and to address such questions as the

well-known $100 million clerical-error overrun in the then Human

Resources ministry? I guess that explains the apparent confusion.

[2:45]

MR. SKELLY: What about the revenue overrun?

MR. CHALMERS: What about it?

There are also rumours floating around about the tenure of the

Leader of the Opposition as mayor of the city of Vancouver. Indeed, the

first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) is reputed to have

handled the finances of the city in a most correct way. There were no

deficits during his term, or so the story goes.

Section 200 of the

Vancouver Charter expressly states that the city must keep expenditures

within estimates. How then could the first member for Vancouver Centre

fail to balance the city budget? In fact, during his term as mayor the

Leader of the Opposition adopted a practice that sounds quite familiar.

When revenue was not anticipated to match projected estimates, funds

were transferred from the city's property endowment fund to help

balance the books. That's according to the Vancouver Sun ,

so maybe I should be checking other sources. Maybe the opposition can

help me with that. I wonder what the member for Nanaimo would have

called that practice.

The wise and judicious use of the funds that will result from the

government's privatization initiative is also most welcome. Moneys

derived from privatization will not be used in an expedient fashion,

but will slowly be capitalized to benefit future generations. Only

income earned from the privatization benefits fund will be transferred

to general revenue, initially to reduce the deficit and then to

contribute to general revenue.

On another matter, I'm extremely pleased that the third phase of the

Coquihalla Highway is to proceed as planned. It is self-evident that

transportation is crucial to the economic and social needs of the

citizens of this province. This is especially true for those regions

outside the lower mainland. It is estimated that some 600 workers will

be employed within the region for the duration of the project. A market

of 250,000 people will be created by connecting the Okanagan, Nicola

and Thompson Valleys to a cohesive whole. Distances will be a

one-and-a-half-hour drive apart.

I have many more comments I would like to make, but as time is

running out I would simply sum up by saying that the policies that have

been set forth by this government and talked about by the Minister of

Finance in his budget speech are all ones that I can support

wholeheartedly, and I would ask that everyone in the House do the same.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is the second budget of the current

administration, and I suppose we could consider it a sequel to last

year. As I have reviewed the budget — a fascinating document — the

sequel is like a drama unfolding. The audience is in fact the citizenry

of our province, and for them the budget that is unfolding is taking on

elements of tragedy. It's a tragedy for our hard-working pioneers, and

it's a tragedy for many struggling families and young people.

The Minister of Finance has flippantly talked about nickel and

diming people with this budget. In fact, those nickels and dimes are

going to add up to millions of dollars that have been robbed from the

pockets of the neediest and the oldest people in our province.

So bad is this budget that it has been criticized from a

surprisingly wide range of quarters. Who are the critics? The critics

are in fact economists, business people, people who are established in

their field of work and have secure incomes. They are asking, and

asking vigorously: where is this budget leading us? Where is this

government taking us with its current budget? And they ask with the

insight of knowledge. They ask with the insight of knowledge of the

reality of the lives of their parents, their older spouses or their

children who are establishing themselves in their homes and in their

communities with their young families. They ask: how can the economy

remain buoyant when what this budget does is make people fearful —

fearful for their future when there is uncertainty about how much more

deeply this government plans to dig in budgets ahead? The last two

budgets, this year's and last year's, have in fact been crafted out of

a dim analysis and cloudy planning that really do trample on the needs

and aspirations and hopes of our citizenry.

This afternoon, in the time I have available, I want to concentrate

my remarks in three areas. With the extent of this budget's impact,

it's difficult to know where to begin to talk about it, and I look

forward, in the days of the estimates, to being able to examine in much

greater detail some of the impacts that this budget will have.

Not surprisingly, following on my questions to the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) this afternoon, I want to talk first of all

about what is an unprincipled attack on older people. I think any

government, when it's planning its budget, needs to do so with some

knowledge and insight about the people who are going to be affected by

that budget. The government, I think, spends a great deal of time

figuring out the impact of budgets on business people, on the forestry

industry, on mining — and those are all very important parts of a

government's analysis. But I think it spends very little time in

analyzing and understanding the goals and aspirations and realities of

the lives of working people and of older people. I want for just a

moment to think with you about what the goals of seniors are, goals

which are in fact being attacked by this government.

First of all, the goal of people as they move into old age, into

their elder years, is to plan for their retirement and for their last

years. It's a long period of time. People are living, as we all know,

into their eighties and nineties, so we're looking in many instances at

a third of people's lives.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

And they plan carefully. They plan for their finances, they plan for

their housing, and they plan for their health. Older people plan, too,

to continue to be participants in the society in which they live,

consumers and active participants. Those are very basic aspirations,

and with those aspirations they have certain expectations about how

they will in fact be respected by the government which in many

instances is a very important part of their financial, health and

housing security. What do we have in this budget in respect to these

older people, these people who are responsible citizens, consumers,

whom small business, developers, travel agents

[ Page 3663 ]

and many of the people who are part of the business

sector of our province look upon as major players in the economy that

they are working in? What does this budget say and do?

First of all, it says in one sentence: "Our senior citizens are

valuable members of our society requiring special attention and

services." That is the only sentence that addresses the goals and

aspirations. Then, for the next period of time in this budget, we hear

what that attack on seniors is in fact going to be. It says to seniors:

"You are a burden." In fact, it says to seniors: "Don't cross our

borders. You are not a part of our economy. You are not healthy people.

You are not responsible people. You are not people who contribute to

the life of the community. We don't want you here." Our borders somehow

need to be sealed against anyone over 65, because they are going to

take away from the economy and from the quality of life in the

province. That, Mr. Speaker, is a terrible message to give to the

pioneers who have planned for their retirement carefully and are active

participants in the economy, the culture and the volunteer life of this

province. When the government attacks these people, it attacks every

one of us.

I am astounded at how often, as I am out and about in the province,

I find when I talk to people that the first subject of discussion is

their concern for an older member of the family — a mother, father,

grandparent or, in many instances, a spouse who is less well than the

other partner. They say: "If this is what's happening to our parents,

who raised us through the Depression, who raised us in hard times,

who've carefully saved to look after themselves in their old age, what

can we anticipate?" So there's a dual message that we're getting across

to people when we deal with this issue of how seniors are being

treated. There's an uncertainty created — an uncertainty that will have

an effect on the well-being and the health of seniors, and an effect on

their spending and their participation in the economy.

Now let's look at some of the specifics of this budget as they

pertain to older people. The most specific issue that pertains almost

exclusively to older people, though some younger people are affected as

well, is the rise in the percentage of their basic income that older

people will be required to pay if they are in a long-term-care

facility. That rate, which goes up every three months with the cost of

living, is moving from $16.70 a day to $19.20 a day. It is taking

almost $1,000 of expendable income out of the pockets of every one of

about 20,000 to 24,000 people who are in care. They are left with a

very insignificant and paltry amount to deal with all the other needs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to itemize some of those. We talk so often about

millions and billions that we forget how significant dollar and 10- or

20-dollar bills are to people. But I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and

most of the people in the House know what a tight struggle it is. Let

me just itemize what has to come out of the income of this person in a

long-term-care facility who is now being charged 85 percent of his or

her basic income — that's every person, regardless of the level of

income he or she may have.

That person hopefully has a phone, at $12 a month; hopefully a

cable, at $3 a month. The care home charges an activity fee of $5 or

$10 a month. The person has to buy toiletries — shaving cream, razor

blades, deodorant; clothing, which in the washing machines of a care

home, goes quickly — a conservative $20 a month; postage and

stationery, to send a card to a grandchild or to a son or daughter, and

gifts — $10 or $15 a month; outings, so that these people are not in

prison in a long-term-care facility — something like $12 a month,

perhaps a hobby, knitting or some crafts — $10 a month; a treat for a

volunteer who comes to take the person shopping or to spend an hour or

two — $3 a month. All of that, just that basic stuff, comes to $85 a

month, and it doesn't account for any of the extras that the home must

charge — for bandages, pads if someone is incontinent, medication

that's not covered by Pharmacare, for a haircut or hairdo. Nor does it

pay for glasses or teeth or any of the other things that people have to

take out of their own income. We are in fact putting these people into

poverty.

[3:00]

That's the scenario as it has been painted, but it hasn't been fully

painted yet. There are some other lines in the budget that tell us

where we're going. What we have in the budget is an indication that

this government is going to break, for the first time in many years,

the basic method by which the income of older people is assessed. For

its guaranteed income supplement program the federal government

assesses the income of people — not their savings, but their income

from those savings which have been carefully acquired to leave these

people independent. Hidden in the budget, but with some references that

we've heard.... We now know that this government is going to start

dipping into assets and savings. We are saying, in fact, to our older

people who have carefully saved and planned for their old age: "We're

going to treat you like social assistance recipients, like welfare

people."

When I was working in the Seniors' Bureau in New Westminster, and in

order to access CAP funding the government needed to do some

record-keeping of seniors' incomes.... They came to a non-profit

agency, because for a senior to have to go into the social assistance

office, having lived all his or her life independently struggling, was

something he or she was just uncomfortable doing. What this budget is

doing is putting seniors into the position where they will be treated

like people who are struggling down to their last dollar.

My colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) has talked

about the effect of poverty and that whole system on the psychology,

the mental health of younger people, who at least, we hope, will have

an opportunity to get a job and fully participate. We're talking about

people who have contributed their 35 or 40 years to this province, and

we're talking about tapping those resources and undermining their

planning for their future. All of this has been done with no public

review, with no discussion with the older community, in which there are

many organizations which would be glad to provide this government with

some insight into the lives of older people. It's not fair; it's not

just; it's not open. It's not honest, and seniors and their families no

longer trust this government to be fair in treating their interests.

There is one other area that I want to raise in connection with the

thrust of the throne speech and the budget. I find some very facile and

not very sincere or well-researched lines about health and wellness and

helping us to move from a sickness society to a society that promotes

wealth.

Interjections.

MS. A. HAGEN: Health. We'd like to have it promote wealth as well, but we're talking about health at this moment.

One of the most important parts of the budget to deal with that is the dollars that go to support people living independently

[ Page 3664 ]

in their own homes. This government has — with

sincerity, I hope — listened to the aspiration of older people that

they want to remain independent and in their own homes. I hope they're

listening to their aspiration and not just dealing with the bottom-line

perspective on this. But let's see what happens with the budget to

those dollars that go to home support, home nursing, adult day care and

physiotherapy services — all of those services that are necessary and

important to assist the older person to stay at home, to assist the

Alzheimer's person to be in his home with a spouse managing, to assist

the person who can no longer manage to do some of the heavy-duty tasks,

to provide socialization, nutrition, support and practical service.

Mr. Speaker, you will be astounded, as I'm sure others will when

they really look at the bottom line of what this government has done

with that budget. Last year all of those services took $81 million of

the budget. In this year's budget, with an increasing clientele, there

is $62,000 more for those services. I haven't even bothered to

calculate what an infinitesimal percentage that is; it's too small to

be worthy of calculation. It might hire four more less-than-full-time

home care workers or possibly five, given the poor wages they are paid,

for this whole province. And that is with a population that is

increasingly continuing to live, as they would desire, in their own

homes.

There is no commitment to providing the support those people need.

Remember, if the people are in their homes using those services, it

costs on average ten cents of the dollar it costs to have those people

in the long-term-care facility. It's shocking, Mr. Speaker. It is

something that defies my understanding in terms of a government that,

in addition to dealing with its business people, has a responsibility

to help and work with the oldest and the neediest in this province.

I just want to note that it's not only seniors who will be affected

by these fees; it will be people in mental health facilities and

alcohol rehabilitation centres. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that those

are not people who have been able to accumulate a lot of income, so the

dollars that I spoke about that will be available to those people for

their integration into society, for their socialization and

rehabilitation, will be pitifully few. Even more so perhaps does that

85 percent impact these people, because we are looking at

rehabilitation and their return to the community. So in the health area

we have these things happening, and I want to deal with just a couple

of other aspects before I move on.

This government talks about health consuming an inordinate part of

the budget and the rates going up. I want to put on the record a few

figures that show what a shell game this has been on the part of this

government.

First of all, the proportion of the budget devoted to health remains

where it has been for years — exactly at one-third. That is a figure

that most provinces and this nation have accepted as a reasonable level

of funding to be available.

Second, this government twice now has misled the House about the

percentage of increase in the budget. The member for Alberni (Mr.

Skelly) says it's more than that. Speaking from my experience, it has

been twice, but I'll take your word for it, Mr. Member, that this is an

ongoing misrepresentation.

In the 1986-87 year, the Minister of Health and the Minister of

Finance announced that 8.1 percent more dollars would go to health.

Based on the government's actual figures, 3.4. Last year, through all

the crisis with people trying to get into hospitals, there was 5

percent less money than this government promised.

In this budget statement, we have the same kind of misleading. In

the main text of the Minister of Finance's speech — a 10.2 percent

increase in budget towards health. In the actual figures in the

government's own tables at the back — 5.8 percent increase for a health

budget. I would suggest that based on last year's pattern, I wouldn't

want to hold my breath in anticipation that all of that increase would

in fact be delivered.

So we are going to take from older people something in the order of

$18 million in long-term-care fees. I haven't spoken about the Medical

Services Plan — others of my colleagues have — which is going to rob

another $141 million from people young and old in this province. And we

are seeing, in fact, a health budget that is right in line and is not

an excessive part. This government is misleading this province and its

people about the cost of health care, and it should come clean, stop

playing around and be sure we deliver services.

There are two other items that I want to dwell on just briefly in

the time I have left. One of them is again dealing with disadvantaged

people. Over the past several months, we've had a great deal of

anticipation that the government is going to make some significant

improvements in the services available to people who are abusing

alcohol and drugs. I think it was the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Savage) this morning who said that one in five health-related problems

is related in some way to alcohol misuse and abuse. It's a critical

problem in the province. Anywhere to the tune of $1 billion to $2

billion is the cost of the effects of alcohol misuse and abuse.

We spend now $24 million on such services as rehabilitation and

education. The government proposes to increase that by $23 million. But

the government is pocketing dollars that should go to rehabilitation,

instead of putting them where they should go.

In the budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced that there

would be special taxes on draft beer that would be earmarked for

rehabilitation. In fact, 25 cents of each of the dollars raised by that

special tax is going to rehabilitation; the government is pocketing the

rest into general revenue and continuing to spend a paltry 10 percent

or 11 percent of all the income that it receives for rehabilitation.

There is no more cost-effective thing that the government could do than

to provide for an enhanced service to those who need help in order to

get out of the syndrome of abuse. This government has defaulted on its

obligation to those people.

The other area of concern that I want to raise is the paltry

increase that has gone to the community colleges of the province. In my

own community, where a thousand students were turned away last year,

the news of a budget increase of less than 1 percent and the cumulative

effect of starving the colleges has rocked even those very hardy

supporters of the government who sit on the college board.

I have this day a letter from the board of Douglas College which I

am going to quote more or less verbatim, because I have it by phone

rather than in my hand. What that letter speaks about is the deep

concern of this college board — one I am sure shared by college boards

of every region of the province — about the implications of the

estimates tabled. They say: "Douglas College cannot maintain present

levels of enrolment, much less increase enrolment to meet the demand."

Remember, there were 1,000 students turned away from that college in

the fall of 1987. "The increasing number of students in our region will

be unable to gain access either to

[ Page 3665 ]

the open programs of the college or to the vocational technical programs, for which there are long waiting-lists."

At the end of the letter, the college board people say: "We

emphasize the need for clear final decisions on this matter very soon."

Otherwise the full-time-equivalents at this college will have to be

reduced.

Today we are hearing about initiatives to support the family. We

support the family by doing a number of things, one of which is to

ensure that young people, single parents and people who need retraining

have an opportunity to get the kind of skills and education they need

to be fully participating people within our community. With this

absolutely unbelievable non-increase in the funding of institutions

that serve 70,000 students in the province of British Columbia, how can

those people believe that anyone on the other side of this House cares

at all about their lives and what they're struggling to do? I wonder if

most of these people spend their time reading mining balance sheets and

forest industry balance sheets and don't talk to the people in their

ridings who are struggling to make a living and to become able — if

they have had difficulty — to participate fully in the economy.

[3:15]

A budget is this government's blueprint for its future, and even

more than any other document, it is a promise about what it believes to

be important for the people of British Columbia. This budget tells the

people of British Columbia that they are not important and that we will

nickel and dime them to the tune of millions of dollars out of their

pockets without any planning or any consultation or any concern for

their futures. I have seldom read and worked with a document that has

caused me so much concern about the direction of responsible people in

providing for the citizenry of British Columbia. I will not only vote

against this budget, but it will be my intention to ensure that people

understand that much of it is duplicitous and hard-hearted and that

people will suffer and continue to suffer as a result of how this

government views its responsibility through use of the taxpayers'

dollars. It's a shocking budget and one that this government should

hang its head in shame to have tabled in this House.

MR. BRUCE: It's just amazing how two people can read the same

document and interpret it so completely differently. However, with all

due respect to my colleague from New Westminster, let me offer a

totally different point of view than what we've just heard in this

chamber.

I think it's really important that, first of all, we recognize that

when anybody drafts a budget, probably the only person who will agree

100 percent with the budget is the person who did the work. So when the

time comes for others to look at it, everybody will have a variety of

opinions. But really it is incredible in the utmost to see and hear the

differences of opinion, certainly that which has just been espoused by

the member for New Westminster.

The economy as presented in this budget here — the future

projections and where we came from in the 1987 projections — has really

taken a good shot in the arm. Sometimes it's important to look in the

smaller sense of things rather than in the global side, because people

sometimes miss what is happening around them and don't fully appreciate

the economic growth and the vitality of an economy. We here today know

that in 1987 we saw about a 4 percent increase in the growth of the

economy, and the projection for 1988-1989 is about a 2.7 percent growth

in the economy. Those numbers sound great, but what do they mean when

you actually look around you? Perhaps you can see when you look in the

smaller context exactly what it means. Take, for instance, my

community, if I may. Not that I wish to bore you with what's happening

in my community, because there are always good exciting things

happening there. But just take a look at what's happening in my

community, and you can see what's happening in the overall provincial

economy.

In the community of Chemainus we're seeing a new hotel of some $3

million being constructed. A heritage mill commercial complex of $2.5

million is being constructed. A new marina development is taking place.

In Crofton we're seeing $240 million in upgrading British Columbia

Forest Products paper and pulp operation, and a possible $60 million

sawmill operation taking place in the Shoal Island operation. In Duncan

a whole new city centre redevelopment complex is underway and on the

drawing boards, and a proposed $5 million residential-commercial

complex on the other side of town. In Mill Bay there's a brand-new

commercial centre already under construction. In Cobble Hill we see the

Arbutus Ridge retirement complex taking place, where 500 new homes are

under construction, with a brand-new golf course and all sorts of other

facilities provided for the enjoyment of those who have moved to our

community to retire. In Cowichan Lake the village is looking to

expanding the Lakeview campsite, already proven to be a success; and we

know it will continue to be a success, as the tourism industry

continues to boom in central Vancouver Island. In Mesachie Lake, a

little west of Lake Cowichan, a major residential development is

underway and on the drawing board.

What does this mean in the small world of Cowichan-Malahat? It means

increased growth. It means some prosperity. It means jobs. It means an

improved social and economic community. Those things are occurring

because of good fiscal management by the government of the province of

British Columbia.

I could go on listing a host of other developments that are taking

place in the community, but there's no need to do that. It's important

to understand, in those that I've already mentioned to you today, that

there is growth; there's stability; there's an improvement in the

economy of the province of British Columbia. There are more people

working today than have ever worked before in the province of British

Columbia, and we are on an upswing.

People say: where is this budget leading us? There it is. I've

already shown you where this budget is leading us. And there will be

more of the same thing coming in my community, your community and other

communities throughout the province of British Columbia. Fearful of the

future? How can you be fearful of the future when we're practising good

fiscal responsibility?

The greatest cloud on the future of this province and this country

is the looming deficits of our economy. They're not great things to

talk about politically, because people generally would rather spend

more. What it comes down to is whether a government has got the resolve

and the integrity to deal with the deficit and to bring it in hand,

while at the same time enhancing and improving social programs for all

the people in the community of the province of British Columbia.

When we look at things, when we actually look at the budget....

Let's take a good look at it. In education we have an increase of $114

million. Do we have any problem

[ Page 3666 ]

with that? No, it's good. Does the opposition have

a problem with that? Why don't they stand up and say it's good? It's

the right direction. It's what we should be doing: increasing the funds

for education to make our public educational system one of the best

anywhere in this country and in the world. I've got faith in the

teachers. I've got faith in the administration of our public

educational system, and I am quite prepared to say to the taxpayers of

my community that it's important that we put more money in the public

educational system. It's our future.

Fifteen million dollars for the computer program — an expanded,

enhanced computer program. I would like more money in that computer

program and so would every member sitting in this House, but at the

same time fiscal responsibility must be in place. Not only can we look

at education; we can look at every one of the other ministry demands

and the other social services that people would like to see expanded.

So we must be prudent with how the dollar is spent. Fifteen million

dollars for the computer program — certainly it's a great step. I'd

love to see it more and so would everybody else, but it's a step in the

right direction. It's good for us today and it's good for the future,

and it's good for our children so that they can learn the new

technology, learn how computers work and be able to compete in the

modern world. There's nothing wrong with that. Let's hear it from the

opposition.

University operating grants, increased by 5 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about colleges?

MR. BRUCE: I'll get to colleges; hang on and listen.

University operating grants, increased by 5 percent. That's a good

thing. We've got good universities in this province. It's important

that we invest in those universities. But combined with that, of

course, is an increase — almost a doubling — in student financial aid.

Doesn't that make sense? Increase the budgets for the universities and

improve the student aid program so that they can get to the

universities, and yes, so that they can get to the community colleges.

If you actually understood what was going on — so they could get to the

community colleges.

Let's talk about community colleges; they are really good things.

I've got an excellent campus in my community, Malaspina College from

Nanaimo, the satellite wing. It's a new, expanded campus. Because of

the growth and the interest within our community, it looks like it will

probably expand again because people can understand and see the

importance of community colleges.

MR. JONES: What do they say in Malaspina College?

MR. BRUCE: What do they say in Malaspina? Well, I'll tell you; they understand what's happening because....

MR. CLARK: Less than 1 percent.

MR. BRUCE: It's not less than 1 percent. There has been a

reduction of 5 percent to the BCIT operating budget which will allow

for an increase of some 2 to 3 percent for all of the other community

colleges in British Columbia. Is that a good idea, ladies and

gentlemen? Of course it's a good idea because people like to go to our

community colleges. We've got one of the finest community college

programs anywhere in the country. Right here in the province of British

Columbia it's excellent, and there is an increase to the community

colleges. You have to look at the fine print. You have to know what

you're talking about.

Now let's talk about our social services. Let's talk about,

seriously, the cornerstone of any society — and I say seriously. The

cornerstone of any society is the family. It's the strength of the

province, of society and of civilization. This government is committed

not just simply to those materialistic things which we can build with

blocks — bridges, roads and sewers and all those other wonderful things

— but to that intangible aspect which is hard for some people to grasp

and see, and that's family.

When I say it's hard for some people to grasp, I don't mean that in

any derogatory sense at all; I mean that in the sense that they have

not had the good fortune that I have had and perhaps many other people

here have had in having a good, strong family around you. There is

absolutely nothing — and I know you will agree as well — that can

replace the strength and the support of a family. This government is

committed to strengthening the family unit.

MR. JONES: You're just planning the families to death.

MR. BRUCE: It's not a question of planning the families to

death; it's because this government is prepared to lead where other

governments have not gone in the past.

Let us look at some of the other social services programs.

Three hundred and seventeen million dollars to be spent on the

physically challenged and the special needs children. It's important

that a society be measured not on the great, grand things that are

built and constructed, but on how it helps and looks after the weakest

member in its community. In the instance of the physically challenged,

they are not what we would class as the weakest member of our society.

In fact they are, as Rick Hansen and others have proven, the ones that

are leading us as a society to greater challenges and to greater

understanding of what we can do when we work together in concert.

There's $195 million for equipment for special classrooms for

severely disabled children to be able to attend regular classrooms.

Does this sound like a government that doesn't care? Does this sound

like a government that isn't interested in the social aspect and the

social development of our community? Absolutely not. You can't sit

there with a straight face and say that.

Let's talk about our health care, one of the best health systems

you'll find anywhere in the world, absolutely. I want to just come back

to my colleague from New Westminster, when she states that our health

care budget is right in line with the national average. So why all this

outcry all the time when we talk about our health needs in this

province? Why is it that the opposition continues to hammer away about

the health care in the province of British Columbia when the opposition

acknowledges the fact that the health care budgets in the province of

British Columbia are right in line with the national average of this

country? Why is it? It's because they want to play on the fears of the

sick and the elderly. And I get tired of that. I don't mind arguing

about where you want to spend the dollars, whether you want to spend it

on highways or roads or whether you want to spend it on social programs

or social services or what have you. But don't play on the aspects.

Don't create that fear in the elderly and the sick, because that

doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever.

The $3.9 billion, the 10 percent increase. Okay. Argue percentage increases all you want, but the rough and the ready....

[ Page 3667 ]

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: Okay, I'll give you that, whatever you want to say

it is. But it's approximately $400 million — a $365

million increase. So what would the opposition put in there — $400

million, $500 million, $600 million? How many millions more would the

opposition put into health? And whoever said that the health budget was

a finite item? Do you just draw the line and the doors go up? Do you

just tell people, "That's it, you can't get sick past the date of

November 10," or whatever, and that the money's run out? Absolutely

not. The bills go in; the bills are paid. It's a projection; it's an

estimate; it is not a finite amount. And the opposition knows that only

too well. When you look at it, in 1978-79, $1.3 billion was spent on

health; in 1987-88, $3.9 billion is estimated to be spent on health

this year. That's a $2.6 billion increase. Does anybody have the

foggiest idea how much $2.6 billion really is? It's incredible,

absolutely incredible.

[3:30]

We hear the opposition talk about cutbacks in the health budget.

There has never been any such thing as a cutback in the health budget.

Each year the budgets have continued to go up, and each year the

budgets will go up, because we have one of the best health systems you

will find anywhere in the country — in fact, probably anywhere in the

world — and this government, because of the actions today, will

maintain the integrity and the prosperity of that health system for the

future.

Let's talk of long-term care. I appreciate the comments from the

member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), good comments in respect to

our long-term care and the concern that many of the elderly can have

when we talk about those types of increases — the 75 percent, the 85

percent — and all that's associated with it. But while it is that there

is that concern — and I know, as well, that it's there — at the same

time we cannot shy away from doing what we have to. When we talk about

asking those to pay who can afford to pay, what's so wrong with that?

What's so wrong about asking somebody in a long-term-care facility who

is financially sound, well-heeled, to pay? They have money; they were

able either through good fortune or good planning or what have you, in

their younger years when they were in the workplace, to set dollars

aside for their future. What's wrong with asking them to pay? In fact,

I'll tell you something: the majority, I believe, of those people who

can pay would love to pay, knowing that that's going to help others who

are not as fortunate as they are to be able to move into some of those

long-term-care facilities. I don't understand what's wrong with asking

those people to pay who can afford to pay. In fact, in the long term

it's going to protect and assist the integrity of that particular

operation as well.

Then we have an increased tax on alcohol. I haven't heard a whole

lot about that from the opposition, although there's been some mention

of it. Certainly the increase in tax on alcohol affects a great many

people, but the increase is for a useful and a good purpose. When we

look at the effects of alcohol — what it does to our society, what it

does to members of our family and to friends — it's important that we

continue to expand the educational programs and the treatment programs

so that abuse of alcohol is reduced. And what's this government doing?

Yes, the government has increased the tax on alcohol, but at the same

time it's increased some $23 million the alcohol and drug education

prevention and treatment programs, which will now total some $48

million in this province. A worthwhile endeavour and one that I'm

hopeful that those organizations that work so very hard in my community

on drug and alcohol abuse and educational programs will be able to take

some advantage of. I would urge it, and I'm sure others will also take

advantage of that increase.

Then we come to the small business program, the small business

aspect, where this government has reduced the income tax rate from 11

percent to 9 percent. Excellent move. It's a move that everybody, I'm

sure — opposition and government members — totally and wholly applauds,

because it is the small business that is the main generator of jobs in

our community from every end of this province, north, south, east and

west. The people who actually put the people to work are the small

business community. That type of encouragement — reducing the tax rate

from 11 percent to 9 percent — should and must be applauded by all

members of this House. If they are truly committed to job development,

to jobs for the people of this province, then all people in this House

will support this budget, because this is what will put people to work.

Then we talk of the forest industry. I am pleased when I look at the

forest industry, with my limited involvement, that we see some $210

million to be spent on silviculture. But I would like to emphasize, and

I'm sure that in a constructive manner everybody here should emphasize,

that as much as we are improving on our silviculture applications

within this province and changing the forest policy to put a much

greater responsibility on licensees and holders of TFLs for forest

management, it's important that we understand that there needs to be

more dollars put to intensive management.

Here I stand on the one hand saying it's a great budget — and it is

— but at the same time I'm quite prepared to stand here, and I know

others are as well, and say on behalf of the people of the province of

British Columbia that as good a job as we're doing, there is great room

for improvement when we talk about intensive management of the forests

of British Columbia. That should be a combined effort, both by the

underscore that, and I am hopeful and will continue to lobby for more

dollars in respect of the intensive applications of spacing, thinning

and fertilization of our forests.

However, at the same time, let me congratulate the government. Let

me speak in support of the $8 million in total that we are putting

towards a new forest research facility at UBC. It's important that we

continue to improve and enhance our research and development, primarily

in that major resource the forestry sector, which is what fuels the

economy of the province of British Columbia — indeed, the economy of

this nation. Let us never forget or lose sight of the number of dollars

that the forestry industry generates for this province and this country.

As important as it is for us to diversify our economy, to move into

other fields, let us not forget that the forestry sector is the one

that fuels the economy of the province of British Columbia — it has in

the past, it does today, and it will do so in the future. All the more

reason and all the more important that this government has committed

some $8 million to the research facility at the University of British

Columbia.

Tourism. As we speak about those primary industries and as the

communities throughout this province move in a greater fashion, a more

complete and comprehensive fashion,

[ Page 3668 ]

into the tourist industry, again, this government

has underscored and understands the importance of partnership programs

such as Partners in Tourism, a program that has done exceedingly well

for many communities, both as community initiatives and private

commercial initiatives. It allows partnership of local economic

development, as tourism is, coming from the community and developing it

with the province. An excellent program.

How could anybody speak against or vote against the Pacific Rim

Institute of Tourism, particularly the two members for Victoria? When

we look at the future of this fair city, of what it means to tourism in

British Columbia, how could you vote against a budget that is working

with the federal government, an initiative that will work with the

national government of this country to understand the Pacific Rim

countries and bring those people to our community of Victoria,

Vancouver Island and British Columbia? How could you vote against that?

I really wonder. I'm certain the members for Victoria will be able to

explain how it is that they can justify voting against the Pacific Rim

Institute of Tourism.

In last year's budget there was a mention that the farm

classification — the amount sold at the farm gate — would be increased

from $1,600 to $5,000. I'm pleased at this point that the government,

in the budget that's been presented, has announced that it will

maintain that $1,600 target. It clearly demonstrates that this

government listens to what the people in the community are saying.

In my own community, I had a meeting with the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage). Some 300 residents showed up in the

arena at Mill Bay from all over the central part of Vancouver Island to

voice their concerns as to what it would mean to their family farm

operations to have an increase of farm gate sales from $1,600 to

$5,000. So did the rest of my colleagues; so did a great number of the

others that have small family farm operations and ones that are a

little bit larger. We've had those discussions with the citizens in our

community, and we brought the message back to the government loud and

clear that this was not a move that would be beneficial to bringing

more farmland into production and enhancing that quality of life found

in the small family farm operations; indeed, that it would be a

regressive move.

This government listened and heard, and said: "Fine. We will not do

it. We listen and we hear what the people of the province of British

Columbia have said." I'm pleased indeed that that action has not been

taken.

What is important to the people of B.C. is good fiscal management —

yes, at the same time maintaining those social services that we have

come to enjoy in this province, something that many would never find

anywhere else in the world. What we enjoy in British Columbia in our

education, social services and health you won't find in other

countries. I've had the luxury of travelling throughout much of Africa

and the Middle East, and they have no idea of the luxury that we enjoy

in this province, the good health that's found in this province. To

stand up and spread the fear that is sometimes spread, in the reality

of the total world community, is ridiculous.

It is important that we don't get carried away with the moment, with

that one little aspect of the budget, but that we understand what we

have and how important it is to our well-being as a community, a

society, a civilization. It's also important to understand that good

things don't just last. You have to work to build and improve them, and

you have to take looks at how you're delivering certain services

and how you can improve on them, how you are spending the

taxpayer's dollar, and how you can take that same taxpayer's dollar and

improve the manner in which we are spending it on behalf of the

taxpayers.

Not very many governments are courageous enough to go into that

second-look field and look at how they are already delivering programs.

Governments normally add another one and another one. Very few are

prepared to say, "That one isn't working; let's cut it," or: "That one

isn't working as well as it could. Let's change it, and be prepared to

suffer the flak that will come whenever anybody tries to change things

from one small degree to another." But this government has shown the

leadership that's necessary. This government is prepared to enhance,

improve and protect the integrity of the social services that we enjoy

in this province and that you won't find anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is a good budget, and I urge all members to

join me and support it on behalf of the people of the province of

British Columbia.

[3:45]

MR. D'ARCY: I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, along with other

members of the chamber enjoyed the Easter break with your family. In

the occasional times that I was unfortunate enough to read the news

during the ten days the House wasn't sitting, I became quite happy to

be living in Canada, in British Columbia in particular, since some of

the news from around the world wasn't that good.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks about the budget I want to

say some words on behalf of those British Columbia citizens who live

beyond municipal boundaries. I don't know how many, if any, you have in

your constituency, but British Columbians who live beyond municipal

boundaries are increasingly hit and penalized by the government of

British Columbia, which obviously has a much more urban orientation

than Social Credit governments had in the past. Certainly when I was a

very young man, Social Credit governments prided themselves on how well

they represented British Columbians out there beyond the limits of the

cities of British Columbia.

Here we have a government which has, in this budget and in the last,

increased the taxation of property beyond city limits by some 64

percent, which is obviously far beyond the limits of inflation. At the

same time we have the government of the day saying to those areas:

"Because your school and hospital needs are such...." The government

refuses to help. We have seen a number of regional districts increase

their tax levels for regionalized services, and we have also seen

school districts increase their tax levels, as well as in some cases

hospital capital levies.

The fact is that British Columbians who contribute greatly to the

British Columbia economy by and large do not have access to the

services that urban British Columbians do, whether those services are

federal, municipal or provincial.... It's all very well to say:

"They're all available. You just have to drive 50 or 100 miles." But a

service which is next door or down the street or across town is not the

same as a service which is an hour or more away. The fact is that

British Columbians living beyond municipal boundaries do not have the

same level of services that urban British Columbians have. Yet the tax

rates on the property they own and are working hard to develop, to

improve their quality of life and that of all British Columbians, have

been going up immeasurably under the Social Credit administration of

the day.

[ Page 3669 ]

Considering the traditions of the Social Credit Party of the past,

which once prided itself on taking a populist approach to those British

Columbians living in the smaller and more remote communities of the

province, I find that most extraordinary.

I also feel it's most unfortunate that in this debate today....

We've had four speakers from the government benches: one of them the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) ; one from the Fraser Valley;

one from Vancouver Island, who just took his place; and one from the

South Okanagan. Not one of these speakers, in my hearing at least, even

alluded to what this budget is doing to British Columbians who live

outside city limits. What better indication do we have of the downtown

urban mentality and orientation of the Social Credit Party in the late

1980s.

In addition to the property tax increase, there are not just fee

increases in this budget, but fees being charged — I'm not going to go

through the whole list of them — that were never charged before. For

instance, a British Columbian living in an area which does not have a

sewage system who wants to put in a properly approved sewage system, in

order to protect not only his family's interest but also that of the

public at large, is now faced for the first time with a $200

application fee — $200 merely to apply. And if for some reason the

installation does not go properly or is not done perfectly, or if for

some reason something goes wrong with an existing system, it's $100 to

get a reinspection. Never before applied, Mr. Speaker. I don't know

what municipalities charge for building permits, but surely it's not

$100 for a building permit and another $100 for a modification, if one

needs a modification. Yet here we see — for the first time — a charge

of $200 to put in a properly approved sewage system. Someone who is

responsible enough to want to have a properly approved sewage system is

faced with a $200 charge simply for the privilege of being able to fill

out the application papers — another impost on British Columbians who

live, for the most part, beyond city boundaries. In some cases there

are people who live within municipal boundaries who are not on a

regular sewage system. Once again, it is a policy of the Social Credit

government of the day which shows a downtown urban mentality and

disregards the people who not only built this province but who are

still building this province out there beyond municipal boundaries.

I want to speak briefly regarding the increased and additional taxes

on liquor consumption in the province. I suppose it's trendy to

announce more — and overdue — money to go to substance abuse programs.

But as has been pointed out, less than half the increase in revenue due

to liquor taxation is going to go into increased money for substance

abuse.

I want to make another point, though. The majority of British Columbians — and

certainly this applies in your constituency, Mr. Speaker — live within a very

short distance of a border to another jurisdiction, whether it's one of

the American states to the south of us or, for that matter, Alaska if you live

in the area of Stewart, or Alberta and, in some cases I suppose, the Yukon Territory.

The majority of British Columbians live within a short distance of these other

jurisdictions. My constituents live very close to the U.S. border, and what

the tax means is that alcoholic beverages, particularly draft beer, sold in

bars will cost my constituents double if not more than double the money they

do just across the border in the United States. Certainly this same thing applies

to lower mainland people. It applies to people living in the Crowsnest Pass,

who can get to Alberta. It applies to some people living in the North Peace

River riding as well.

Mr. Speaker, you may consider this a minor point, but what the

government of the province is doing is encouraging most British

Columbians — because there is an elasticity of demand — to go out to do

what people used to do when they wanted a drink on Sunday, which was to

go en masse to Bellingham, Point Roberts, Blaine or, in my riding, to

Northport, Washington. This is good neither for the B.C. economy nor

for the responsible men and women who operate liquor outlets in my

constituency. And because some people do abuse alcohol when they're in

bars, it's not good for the safety of the rest of us on the highways.

So I think the liquor taxes are somewhat ill-thought-out, because of

the proximity of the majority of British Columbians to a border.

Just a quick aside. Government members, of course, don't have too

much to crow about in the budget, so naturally they're going to pick on

the one or two things that they feel are good and expand on them. I

suppose I would do the same in their position. But it's interesting to

hear them talk about the decrease in the income tax rate for small

businesses. What they don't really want to talk about is that the

business tax on small, medium and large corporations in British

Columbia was lower between 1972 and 1975, in the early seventies, than

it is today. The fact is that the taxes on corporations in British

Columbia range, depending on the size, between 10 percent and 13

percent. We still see that the corporate tax rate in British Columbia

is 14 percent under Social Credit today, in the late 1980s. I merely

put that out as an aside.

One aspect that has received some publicity in the last day or so is

the effect of the far-less-than-inflation increases in college funding.

I want to talk in particular about what it means in my constituency. In

my constituency about 40 percent of the increase in actual dollars is

simply going to go to pay the employers' share of the increased

medicare premiums. In other words, in real dollars there is a decline

in the amount of money available for Selkirk College and post-secondary

education in general.

I would point out that in my area, and I think other parts of the

province are very similar, we have an increasing demand — increasing

beyond our per capita level — for post-secondary education services,

particularly at the community college level. In fact, the use of the

community college by indigenous students, that is, students who come

out of high school or older people — by older I mean beyond the age of

18; they've been out of school for a few years — who wish to use the

post-secondary education services in my riding is the highest in the

province. The participation rate as a percentage of the population is

the highest in the province. This may, in part, be due to the fact that

it's 400 miles to the nearest major university.

So there is no lack of public demand for the service. There

obviously has been no resistance to paying the sharply increased fees

which the government has imposed on students in recent years, yet the

government is making less money in real terms available to provide

post-secondary education services to British Columbians within the

community they live.

I consider this, once again.... Well, I don't consider it exactly

short-sightedness on the part of the government, because I don't think

the government is short-sighted. I think that's giving them too much

credit. That's suggesting they're making a mistake and that they don't

know they're making a mistake. I think the effect of reduction in

funding in real

[ Page 3670 ]

terms to the community colleges of British Columbia

is not a mistake on the part of the government; it's a calculated,

conscious act on their part.

I want to talk briefly about another area of education funding which

I think is sorely lacking in the budget. While there is some provision

for additional funds for school districts, I'm not certain as to

whether this is an increase in money over what the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) already announced some time ago or whether

the government is simply reannouncing the same increase.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

While there is additional money for some programs for the severely

disabled, I do not detect, nor has anyone I have been able to contact

in the ministry, that there is going to be money for those British

Columbians who are moderately disabled, who have a moderate learning

disability. This is a major flaw in the school education funding system

in British Columbia today.

[4:00]

It's quite clear that if an individual who is being mainstreamed —

and I think it's a good trend — has an obvious mental or physical

handicap, there is more assistance for them. If somebody is obviously

blind or deaf or missing a limb or is severely physically disabled, or

they have a severe mental disability, there are special programs for

them and I say well and good. That is overdue and additional money, and

that's a good part of the budget.

But for those students who simply have trouble learning — they're

not unintelligent, they're not physically disabled, but they have

trouble learning because they don't physically see things exactly the

way you and I do; I'm not talking about opinions on matters; I'm saying

they don't see or understand things — there is no assistance for them.

I think it's quite clear that many of the young people in British

Columbia who feel disoriented, who want to drop out of school, who want

to drop out of society, are those who are not stupid but have moderate

learning disabilities. They do not come from uncaring homes or have

uncaring parents or have a bad family structure; they simply do not

have the ability to soak up the education as it is applied to them in

the classrooms they are in. They need special professional help. By the

way, if they had that, they could be every bit as productive as anyone

else in British Columbia all their lives. But in fact there is no

assistance for that.

I have no knowledge of what Mr. Sullivan — God willing he'll get

well — will report to the government when he makes his report, but I

hope that is something that he stresses very strongly in his report,

and I hope it's something the government acts on.

About the Medical Services Plan, eight years ago in the fiscal year

that ended March 1981 — it is seven years ago, but I'm comparing the

budget which runs to 1989 — the total take for Medical Services Plan

premiums in British Columbia was $180 million. Even if we allow for

inflation and an increase in population since that time, that would

still only take the Medical Services Plan premiums in British Columbia,

if they had remained the same, to $270 million. Under the budget that

we had tabled a couple of weeks ago, we're going to find it's going to

be $555 million. That's a 100 percent increase in real terms. In actual

terms it's much larger than that. But it's more than a doubling of

medical plan premiums since 1981. The costs of health care have not

been going up at.... I'm not going to go into that discussion, but they

have not been going up faster than the rest of the budget, and doctors'

incomes in British Columbia have not been going up faster than

inflation. In fact, doctors are in a way quite typical of the

overwhelming majority of British Columbians in that their real,

disposable income has been declining — with the occasional exception,

the occasional jump — for the past ten years.

A budget such as we are discussing in the chamber today here does

not do anything for the individual's personal disposable income; in

fact, it reduces people's disposable incomes even more. One of the

reasons we have so many two-income families, or so many families where

both people would like to be working if they could find work, is that

one income simply doesn't do it anymore. It isn't that people have

unreasonable standard-of-living expectations. The one income that went

far enough in the middle and late 70s simply doesn't go far enough

anymore. There have been tax increases by the provincial government

over the last few years well over and above the rate of inflation.

There have been tax increases by the federal government well over and

above the rate of inflation. We've even had tax increases at the local

level, which has not by and large been the fault of the duly elected

people at the local level; they've come because of different funding

changes at the provincial level. So people's disposable income in

British Columbia has been declining for the overwhelming majority of

British Columbians — and Stats Canada will bear that out — even without

the tax bite that's taken by the provincial government.

The long-term-care increases: some people have said they're going up

by 10 percent. Well, I know some people in long-term care. It's not

going up by 10 percent for them; it's going up by 40 percent. They used

to have 25 percent of their pension income left over after their room

and board. Now they're only going to have 15. That is a 40 percent

increase.

Some people have said: "We have to charge this amount because we don't

want people flooding into British Columbia to take advantage of the long-term-care

program." I don't know of anyone who.... What proof does the government

have? What evidence do they have to show that anybody does that? The British

Columbians in my riding who are in long-term care spent their working years here.

They spent their years in business or professions or working in British Columbia.

In many cases, they're native British Columbians. If they're not native

British Columbians, they came here as young adults or as children. They spent

all or most of their working years in British Columbia. They did not come here

from some other province to take advantage of the health care system. The government

has no proof of that whatsoever.

I find it rather empty to hear people on the government side talk

about how important senior citizens are and the pioneers of British

Columbia, and all that sort of flowery rhetoric, and then to know

what's happening to people in long-term care. Oh, I know there are

people on the government side who get up and say: "Well, but there are

a number of wealthy people in the long-term-care system, and they

should pay their share." So they should. That's why we have income tax.

And that's why we should have succession duties with a very generous

exemption level. What the government wants to do is go after, once

again, those people who can least afford to pay.

Much has been made of the budget stabilization fund, or the

so-called BS fund. British Columbians do not believe that privatization

of such things as highways maintenance is going

[ Page 3671 ]

to save money. They really don't believe that. In

fact, when they're out talking to the public, apologists for the Social

Credit government rarely claim that it's going to save money. After

all, most private sector truck drivers and maintenance workers make

more than those who work for the provincial government — even some of

the non-union ones. Nobody really believes that with the profit factor

thrown in, services are going to be maintained at the same level and

the government's going to save money. So even government apologists

have stopped really saying that. What they say when they go up there

is: "We have to sell off all these assets because the government has to

have the money." It's a budget-balancing procedure. If the only

rationale is that there is a deficit in British Columbia, you can't

really have the Finance minister come in and announce that the deficit

is $550 million less than he predicted it was going to be. So, of

course, we need a budget stabilization fund. Because without the budget

stabilization fund the rationale for selling off the assets of the

province isn't quite the same, is it, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're asking him?

MR. D'ARCY: Well, Mr. Speaker is reasonable.

There is another aspect of that. I and a number of other people on

our side of the House have been speaking about the tax increases and

fee increases and rate increases, and how they apply mostly to those in

British Columbia who can least afford to pay. Once again the government

came in and said: "The deficit is $550 million less than we said it was

going to be." How can you politically justify all the fee and rate

increases, any more than you can justify the privatization program

financially? You can't. Another reason for having the BS fund is so

that the deficit from last year would appear to be $800 million instead

of $350 million — or whatever it otherwise would have been. You can't

justify tax increases when the deficit is disappearing anyway. You

can't justify privatization when the deficit is disappearing anyway.

To repeat what has been said before, in the last year and a half

there have been 662 fee and tax increases by the Social Credit

government, all of them well beyond the level of inflation — not just

beyond, but well beyond the level of inflation.

The budget puts less money aside for highways capital at the same

time it charges people in British Columbia more for gasoline. The

gasoline tax is going up a cent a litre. I have to take a quick kick at

the federal government. I've been annoyed for a number of years at the

federal government having gasoline taxes at all, quite frankly, since

they don't put money into highways or transportation in this country;

certainly not the road system. They may have done at one time, with

grants for parts of the Trans-Canada Highway, but in recent decades

none or virtually none. But at the same time they're taxing us more for

gasoline, the Social Credit government is saying they're going to spend

less on highway improvements.

Let's talk a bit about highways capital, Mr. Speaker. Most people, especially

the city slickers — and I know you're not one, because you come from a riding

with small towns and a lot of rural people — when they think of capitalization

of highways, think of new highways or the reconstruction of old ones. But an

increasing part — and I'm sure you know this — of highways capital is simply

going into major maintenance. I don't know at exactly what point the ministry

decides that major maintenance becomes capital instead of minor betterments,

but it's usually at the point where it's so big they have to let a contract.

Just to give you an example, when I have to drive from my riding to

the Tsawwassen ferry terminal, I travel Highway 3. Those parts of

Highway 3 that have been either repaved or rebuilt in the last ten

years are generally in pretty good shape, but those parts that have not

been rebuilt or repaved in the last ten years are in embarrassingly

horrible shape, Mr. Speaker — and you know that, because you have a

substantial portion of Highway 3 in your constituency — and that is not

untypical of the highway system in British Columbia.

There has to be a major resurfacing program just to keep the

highways infrastructure in the condition it's in. There has to be a

major bridge maintenance program in British Columbia just to maintain

the bridges we have now. This is big money. I'll just give you an

example. The Columbia River bridge in Trail is costing a million

dollars — that's if there isn't an overrun, and there might well be —

simply to refinish the upper girders; no work on the piers or the

sidewalks or the deck or the main girders under the bridge, just the

upper girders — refinishing, sandblasting, painting: a million dollars.

Highways considers that capital; somebody else might say that's just

maintenance. But I would point out, as I get nearly through my

introductory remarks, that for the government to reduce spending on the

highway system of this province, one which is largely used by those

British Columbians beyond municipal limits, while at the same time

increasing gasoline taxes is simply not responsible.

[4:15]

I'm not going to support the budget. There are a number of other

things I could deal with. I suppose I will deal with them in the

estimates as we go on, but I'm not going to support the budget, because

it is very insensitive to human beings in British Columbia — to the

people who make the province tick, the people who pay the freight.

There are numerous British Columbians out there who are not

political. They just go to their place of work or their business or

their professional office and do their best, and they don't really

think about politics. They don't think about the kinds of things that

we talk about down here. They're simply trying to maintain themselves

and their families, to get ahead a bit. This budget is insensitive to

them in terms of what is being charged by government and the services

being returned by government. I hope that the people on the

government's side will be able to persuade the Treasury Board and the

minister to reconsider major aspects of this budget before it becomes

law.

MR. MERCIER: I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the

budget. In my riding I was in provincial elections in 1966 and 1972,

and finally was elected in 1986, so I have observed the government

operation for over 20 years. One of the impressions I was left with is

that it is now more efficient than I thought it was, but it could be

more efficient than it is.

The budget is heading in that direction. My purpose as an MLA is

something that I have tried to understand better in the past year, and

I have determined that my duty is mainly to speak for my riding. This

is particularly important at budget time.

In each riding special circumstances exist that must be addressed.

In my case, the percentage of single-parent families and middle-aged

and retired persons is higher than the provincial average. In the party

system, which is a democracy, it's necessary to speak to the needs of

your constituents

[ Page 3672 ]

and at the same time recognize how difficult it is

for the government to arrive at perfect solutions. So, Mr. Speaker,

please accept my thoughts as I relate them to the special people I

represent in my constituency.

Good government is a combination of leadership balanced by

consensus. Our Premier is the most dynamic, energetic promoter of this

province. We must with the budget process and other provincial matters

approach the gathering of consensus with equal energy and vigour. I am

sure all will agree that constructive comments are welcome and vital to

the conduct of the business of the province.

In that vein, I would like to make a comment on the budget process,

which I find backward and somewhat archaic. It's redundant for me to

take the time of the House to speak to a budget that will not be

amended. Notwithstanding that, in this case it is a fiscally

responsible and forward-moving budget. But were it not, we would still

have to live by its terms for the next year, so it's obvious that there

are benefits of broader input into the process.

If General Motors, IBM and MacMillan Bloedel can review and discuss

huge budgets in advance and have them finally adopted before the

commencement of the fiscal year, why shouldn't we? The process should

be more open to MLAs earlier to meet the consensus criteria, and only

certain revenue measures held private until the end of the process.

The opposition will find little to criticize in this budget, nor

would it have hurt the fundamental process to have the opposition

comments earlier. The rapid moves of an economic cycle, particularly

with a resource-based economy, require that we complete the process

earlier than we do.

The government's job is to balance the aim, to control and manage

costs with the desire of maintaining excellent standards for services

provided. We must remember that we in government — and I include the

federal and provincial representatives — are simply temporary

custodians of the public's money. Never in Canadian history have we had

so many programs under administration, and never have we had our hands

so far into the taxpayer's pocket.

The combined tax load can leave a single mother, who has three

children, a decent job and sensible spending habits, with an empty

refrigerator before payday. We must be wary of the federal government

because of the impact of federal income tax and, more importantly,

looking ahead, we should strenuously oppose their stated intention to

expand the federal sales tax, which would drain millions from our

province.

Our country is suffering under an expense-driven budget process, and

the federal government could well heed and duplicate the difficult but

necessary steps taken by this provincial government to reassess

spending, especially on duplication of services or inefficient delivery

of services. Provincially, we must proceed with caution and balance,

and show special care and concern for those on low income, those

requiring medical care, the elderly and the disabled.

Consequently, while certain fee-for-service items remain part of our

system, it should be remembered that the fairest tax in our country is

income tax. When increases to fees for services are necessary, we must

not forget the impact — a severe impact — of fixed fees on those least

able to pay.

On another matter, I must voice my concern about the intentions to

provide loan guarantees to business. For the indicated magnitude of

benefits that such programs are historically known, they are not worth

the effort. Too often the tax money of hard-working small businesses

ends up subsidizing inefficient operations that do not warrant

assistance or preservation.

Due to the process described earlier, it is difficult in the time

allotted to fully develop commentary on the budget, but this

opportunity to speak should not be wasted, hence the following random

comments.

We have $5.3 billion in direct government debt, which costs us $600

million per year. We must reduce that debt until the annual cost is an

acceptable percentage of our total budget, and consequently we would

then make available funds for government social programs.

Our long-term planning should include a formula that relates our

debt to our ability to pay back over a specified period of time. There

were governments before ours that put the government operation in the

hole. When we get out of that hole, we should have learned a lesson and

not do it again. The budget stabilization fund is an excellent way to

counter the roller-coaster ride of a resource-based economy. We must

plan so that the pain of the effect of recession on our government

employees and those served by the government is not revisited, because

when we as politicians guess wrong, those who are least able to cope

bear the brunt.

On the privatization fund, I might say that I could not support the

accumulation of huge, unallocated reserves, because the basic tenet of

taxation is to spread the tax cost among the people who, during a

period of time, benefit from the programs. This fund is not a huge

fund; it is a reasonable fund. The fund will also serve to preserve

stability, as will the stabilization fund, and it will recognize the

gains from privatization.

With respect to privatization, I wish to take a moment to express

distaste that a private citizen, Mr. Toigo, would adversely affect the

bidding process on the sale of assets of B.C. Enterprise Corporation

and comment negatively on that process to the press. As a member of the

B.C. Enterprise Corporation board, I wish to compliment the minister

responsible for B.C. Enterprise Corporation; the chairman, Mr. Brown;

the board; and particularly Mr. Kevin Murphy, chief executive officer,

and his staff on their exceptional efforts to conduct the disposal

process in a fashion that will bring the best price for the province

under the circumstances existing at this time. Mr. Toigo is perfectly

free to make public the details, including any conditions, of any offer

he has for anything that is for sale.

Now looking ahead, in my constituency the population is ageing. Let

us be sure they do so with dignity. Let us be sure we don't strip the

elderly and the infirm of their dignity by not ensuring that they have

some discretionary funds to spend. They say that in financial concerns

perfect planning is spending your last penny when you're drawing your

last breath, but I don't think we should provide our services in such a

way that people are left with no discretionary cash. We will be under

tremendous pressure, and must plan accordingly, to expand extended care

and long-term-care residences.

I ask you to remember the bulging school system of the baby boom

years. In Burnaby we had Panabode school buildings erected. They just

couldn't build the schools fast enough for the school population

resulting from the baby boom. The people of the baby boom are now

older, people like me and you, and they are now moving into the

category where they will impact next on the health care and the

seniors' residential housing system. We are expected to maintain the

services for that expanded need. We are also expected to maintain the

hospital staffs and pay them sufficiently well to maintain the spirit

and dedication required for

[ Page 3673 ]

them to remain the best. We are expected to pay

attention to our economic development, to retrain people and create

additional jobs, and by doing so reduce further the numbers on social

assistance.

One of the main things we can do in the area of economic activity is

to determine which products we can make and sell at a profit, rather

than trying to enter areas where we don't have natural advantages. By

research into those areas and concentrating on those areas, we will

help small business expand, and we will help the start of new

businesses.

My reading of the public pulse is that we have the public support

necessary to dedicate the necessary resources to all these objectives.

[4:30]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the previous

speaker for a refreshing approach to the budget process. I know that

our members on this side were listening attentively to what the member

said. In opening his comments he adopted the position that the budget

is something to be looked at critically by all of us, because it's a

document that we're going to have to go out to the people of the

province and to our constituents to defend and to explain, and if we

don't have a bit of an investment in that document — if it's presented

to the House on the day of the budget and we haven't really had any

input into that document — then we can't really expect all of the

members of this Legislature.... In fact, if only the Minister of

Finance has seen the final terms of the document, then it's very

difficult in some cases to get all the members of the government to get

out there and to do a real team approach on this budget, to really be

able to sell it to the people of the province. So I appreciate the

comments of the member as to the process involved in drawing up the

budget in the first place, and hopefully the members of the government

will pay attention to the very appropriate comments made by the member.

I'm sure that on balance the member is going to support the budget, but

I think the fact that he had some comments as to how we could improve

the process is really worthwhile and really useful for the people who

are listening in this Legislature.

I can't say the same for the member for Cowichan Malahat (Mr.

Bruce), who spoke and took exactly the other approach: "Boom-boom!

Rah-rah! I don't care what's in the budget. I'm going to stand up in a

demagogic way and support this budget." I think that those kinds of

approaches don't help either, because if you look at the comments on

this budget in the media and from people around the province who are

going to be affected in a very negative way by this budget, in general

terms, the rating of this budget has not been very high. Some people

have rated it, as the member says, as a grab in the taxpayer's pocket.

The Province 's headline on the day following the budget was: "Ouch! Socreds Sock It to You." And: "This is a budget that attacks the poor."

No question about it, Mr. Speaker, upon analysis of the budget, our

staff and members have found that this budget, in terms of taxes and

fees, takes an additional $700 out of the pockets of every single

family in the province of British Columbia. It is a tax-gouging,

tax-grabbing, fee-gouging budget, and there's no question about that.

In virtually every area of government service — and I wonder why I

should be calling it a service anymore, when this government has

established a price for next to everything it does for the citizens of

this province.... Combined with the $700 that this government took out

of the pockets of the taxpayers in last year's budget, this has been a

serious tax grab on the income of families in the province of British

Columbia.

One of the ways you can tell a demagogue.... Well, maybe I should

take this story back a little farther. I once had a professor at UBC

who advised me how to write a book. She said that in order to write a

book that's going to sell, you have to have certain components in it.

She said, first of all, it has to have a bit of love interest. So she

was going to title her book "I Had An Affair." Then that wasn't enough,

because everybody was writing books about love interests, so you had to

make it a little kinkier. So she changed her title to "I Had An Affair

With A Bear." Finally people said: "Well, that's not all that unusual

in these days of environmental understanding" — perhaps it's more

common up in Merritt. But they said you had to have some kind of

transcendental experience coming out of this thing, so she made the

title of her book "I Had An Affair With A Bear And Found God."

I think a demagogue structures his speech in very much the same way.

You find out what appeals to the public; then you inject those kinds of

appeals into the speech. When I was listening to the member for

Cowichan-Malahat, he wrapped up his speech — which was essentially a

compendium of the items in the budget speech — by talking about the

family. Well, you know, when a politician starts talking about the

family, they hope they're not pointing at your family.... But when a

politician starts talking about the family and how the government wants

to maintain a tightly knit family and how — as the member for Cowichan

said — the family unit is something that politicians don't really

appreciate because it's so intangible.... Mr. Speaker, this budget

makes families tangible. If you want to know what the word "tangible"

means, it comes from the root "they can be touched." They can be taxed;

they can be gouged; they can be drained. What this budget and this

government do is turn the family unit into a source of taxation for the

Socred government here in British Columbia. That's all it has done, and

that's all the concern that that member has for families in the

province of B.C.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

No matter where you turn in this province, you're going to get hit

by a fee for something, a fee that's constantly increased through

government budgets and legislation. When you combine that with the same

thing that's being done at the federal level by the Tory government

since 1984, families in this province are suffering decreasing incomes,

not as a result of wage settlements or changes in the standard of

living due to other causes, because, as the member for Burnaby said,

the government is constantly dipping into their pockets, constantly

increasing charges for services, constantly compounding taxes upon

taxes to drive families in this province into poverty.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That's the objective of this government, and that member doesn't even seem to care, Mr. Speaker.

Every single fee, premium and tax has been increased in this

province to the point where people are not suffering from low-income

levels; they're suffering from taxes being drained out of their

families by the government of British Columbia in collusion with the

Tory government in Ottawa.

I was watching a program on television yesterday about the high costs being imposed on court processes in British

[ Page 3674 ]

Columbia. I forget the figures — Mr. Speaker, you

can correct me if I'm wrong — but I gat