[ Page 269 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Budget Debate

Hon. Mrs. Johnston –– 269

Mr. Lovick –– 271

Hon. Mi. Brummet –– 274

Ms. A. Hagen –– 278

Mrs. Boone –– 281

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed I just want to announce that we will not be having prayers this morning. Rev. Irvine Hare will be here this afternoon, so we'll have prayers at 2 o'clock.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this morning are two individuals from my constituency of Omineca: Mr. Hugh Douglas from that great little community of Telkwa; and accompanying Hugh this morning is Mr. Richard Prokopanko, who has done such a fantastic job for Omineca in the last four months. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, and before I forget, I would like to ask leave of the House for the Committee of Selection to meet later on today while the House is sitting.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, prior to making my comments with regard to the budget, I would like to at this time extend my congratulations to the hon. member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Reynolds) on his appointment as Speaker, and to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, the first member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton). Certainly it bodes well for this House to have two such capable members in the Speaker's seat.

I would also like to extend congratulations to all members of the House and also to remind each and every one of us of the special honour that has been paid us by our constituents.

You know, if you look at the population of the province of British Columbia, and you look at how few people actually have the privilege and the opportunity to serve in this office, I think it is very important that we all reflect back on the responsibility that we assumed on October 22. It is certainly my feeling that I intend, as do most members of the House, to serve my constituents to the best of my ability.

The budget that was laid before us certainly produced a lot of changes in the outlook of the province of British Columbia and will result in a lot of changes. You know, Mr. Speaker, I don't think we could ever come up with a budget that would please each and every one of us regardless of where we take our seat in this House. There is no one who is happy to see a budget that is making provision for a deficit; there is nobody who is happy to see a budget that brings about tax increases; but I think if we're all reasonable and responsible people — and I believe we are — we will accept the fact that some of these changes, these deficits, these increases are inevitable.

I would like at this time to talk about some of the events that have been and will be taking place in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. In January the Premier called a meeting of all mayors in the province to deal with the subject of decentralization. That is a very important subject in the province and certainly has been addressed in the budget and has received wide support from mayors and elected officials, regional districts, aldermen in the province of British Columbia. The transfer of responsibility, the transfer of authority, is something that is long overdue if we truly believe in giving responsibility for local decisions to locally elected representatives.

A great deal has been said during the throne speech debate and budget debate, particularly by members of the opposition, with regard to the importance of women in this province and how for some reason the opposition feel that members on this side of the House do not take the role of women seriously. It should be pointed out — and this is a comment I'm making because it applies most directly to my ministry — that in the province of British Columbia we have 22 female mayors, and at every election the percentage of female as compared to male mayors appears to be growing. It's certainly an indication of the seriousness of the entire electorate in selecting the best candidate for the job regardless of sex.

I would like at this time to — have a drink of water. Excuse me. It's a very dry speech. I never promised you a barn-burner.

Mr. Speaker, I know that many of the highlights I'm going to bring forward have already been mentioned, but I feel they're worthy of further comment because of some of the negative attitudes that appear to be prevailing on the opposition side of the House. I think it's important that we continually point out the highlights and positive measures that are taken in this budget. If I'm being repetitious I apologize, but I think that some of the comments I'm about to make are worth repeating.

As I mentioned earlier, we're going to be looking at a deficit. Nobody's happy about that, but the estimated deficit of $850 million is down $321 million from the revised deficit for 1986-87. It's not something to be bragging about, but certainly it's something we should be looking forward to on a continuing basis — that is, the reduction of the deficit in the provincial budget. The revenue of $9.37 billion, including new revenue measures, is expected to be up 9.2 percent from the '86-87 revised forecast, and we're looking at expenditures of $10.22 billion; again, this is up 4.8 percent.

Some of the major revenue measures that have been put forward have been greeted with, I guess, displeasure, some with satisfaction. But I think that when the entire budget has been reviewed, the entire effort that has been put into this to bring about tax measures that will not affect any one particular segment can be spread across the entire province and can bring some fairness and equity to our taxation system. When this has been looked at in a serious way, I'm sure that it will be greeted with a fair degree of satisfaction. As I said earlier, nobody's happy about tax increases.

We're looking at a sales tax reduction of 1 percent. I think that's very significant, because when some of our average British Columbians, as members of the opposition refer to them on a regular basis, go to the stores to do their shopping of whatever nature, I'm sure that that 1 percent reduction is going to make a great deal of difference to their disposable income at the end of the month.

We in British Columbia are continually criticized for, and in some cases blamed for, the necessity of food banks. It was interesting to read in the Vancouver Province of March 20,

[ Page 270 ]

1987, an article out of Winnipeg that said that one out of every five Winnipeg churches is feeding the hungry; and Anglican and United Church representatives said yesterday that it was time the NDP government in Manitoba did more than talk about dignity and fairness and injected more funds into welfare. It's significant to note that the food bank situation is not a provincial problem of British Columbia; it appears to be a universal problem. I'm interested to see this type of comment coming out, not just criticizing the government of British Columbia.

The statistics that I would like to put forward today which have undoubtedly been put forward by some of my colleagues, but are worthy of repeating — are that B.C. created the second-highest number of jobs in Canada in the month of February 1987, compared to January 1987, on a seasonally adjusted basis. Did you know that B.C. created 16,000 jobs in February 1987, over January 1987, compared to 22,000 in Quebec, 1,000 in Ontario and 2,000 in Saskatchewan, on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to Statistics Canada? During the same monthly period Alberta lost 4,000 jobs and Manitoba lost 2,000 jobs.

[10:15]

The record in British Columbia is certainly not one that we need hang our heads in shame over –– 46,000 more British Columbians were working in December 1986 than in December 1985, on a seasonally adjusted basis. Once again, according to Statistics Canada, 1,274,000 British Columbians were working in December 1986, compared to 1,228,000 in December 1985.

We are continually hearing, Mr. Speaker, of the unemployed numbers. For some reason the employment figures never seem to make the headlines, and I think it's important that those figures be made known. Some 8,000 more British Columbians were working in the second and third quarters of 1986 than at the previous B.C. employment high point in 1981; 1,278,000 British Columbians were employed during the second and third quarters in 1986, compared to the same period in 1981, when 1,270,000 British Columbians were working, on a seasonally adjusted basis, according to Statistics Canada. We could go on and on with the statistics, but British Columbians far and wide are doing very well compared to the other provinces. Certainly I believe it's through the efforts of the provincial government that many of these employment statistics have a positive nature to them.

Did you know that the per capita net debt of Manitoba exceeded British Columbia's by almost 20 percent in 1985? Did you know that the average Manitoban was faced with a per capita net debt of $6,588 on March 31, 1985 compared to $5,584 for British Columbia for the same period? This net debt includes direct and guaranteed debt. Did you know that for every 4.5 persons British Columbia gained, Manitoba lost one, based on interprovincial migration statistics, from 1981 to 1986? British Columbia experienced a net population gain of 19,727 persons in the six-year period from 1981 to 1986 through interprovincial migration, while Manitoba lost 4,207 residents in the same period — this again according to Statistics Canada. British Columbia's biggest population gain was in 1981, when 19,885 persons migrated to B.C. In that year 3,621 persons left Manitoba. So if we're going to make comparisons between provincial governments and we pull out the statistics, British Columbia is doing very well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm very pleased with the program for decentralization that is going forward in my ministry. The prime examples are the recent major expansions in Sechelt and the incorporation of Metchosin and Colwood. We will be looking forward to other incorporations over the next very short period of time; they are presently in the works. A great deal of interest is being shown by a good number of communities in amalgamation and incorporation, and I think it bodes well for the entire municipal scene that this is happening.

I'm also very pleased with the major changes to the stabilization of the unconditional grant formula. Plus, of course, we were able to provide $5 million more in the way of grant money this year than was provided in 1986. Other changes: revenue-sharing grants are the means by which the province shares its revenue with the municipalities. Unconditional grants are provided to municipalities to spend as they see fit. They are geared to a formula based on the individual municipality's population, tax base and budget expenditure. This year we are zeroing in on the smaller communities. We are attempting to provide a formula of assistance that will allow flexibility in grants given to smaller communities that don't have an industrial tax base or a large tax base in general, in order that they are able to provide the needed infrastructure in their communities.

When we're talking about the presentation of the budget, I think it's important that we refer to comments made by some of the leaders in our communities, as they apply to decisions included in the budget. The Minister of Finance mentioned that we would be looking at switching the transit authority to local governments. The chairman of the Vancouver Regional Transit Commission, Mayor Bill Lewame, stated that the government move to transfer responsibility for transit systems in greater Vancouver and Victoria by April 1, 1988, is good news. "This is one of the things we have been asking for." He said the new transit body will have local autonomy and more control over transit. We had the same type of comment made by the mayor of Victoria and the mayor of Vancouver. Certainly I think it bodes well that we are addressing the concerns of the locally elected officials and attempting to work with them more closely than we have in past years to achieve transfer of responsibilities in order to better serve the constituents that we have all been elected to serve.

Another headline that I think is worthy of note is: "Universities welcome modest cash increase." The province's three universities and 19 community colleges and institutions will receive an overall increase in their base budgets of 5.8 percent, or $38.4 million, to $695 million. The University of British Columbia president, David Strangway, said that the budget reflects a really good effort by the government to improve the state of higher education.

Another story:

"Extra $20 Million Pleases the Disabled. Disabled people and their families are smiling today after extra money was earmarked for special services and job training in Thursday's provincial budget. The Social Services ministry is increasing funding to services for the disabled by 15 percent to $147.7 million, for a $19.7 million increase. The money will go to helping parents care for disabled infants, to integrate disabled children into regular day-care centres and schools, and to provide job training and community placements for disabled adults."

It goes on to quote statements made by citizens involved in the mentally handicapped association and by a young mother in Surrey who has a Down's syndrome child whom she has

[ Page 271 ]

had difficulty caring for. Certainly this is a way of assisting those people.

In fact, we are well underway on setting up the Royal Commission on Education, Mr. Speaker, and another headline that is worthy of note is: "Victoria Proclaims Measures Aimed at Protecting the Consumer."

This is a people's budget. It is one that addresses a good many problems that we have in the province, and I would hope that all members on both sides of the House would get behind it. But you know, in closing, I guess I could say that how you stand on this budget depends on where, you sit. I'll sit with the government on this budget and will certainly do my utmost to make it work.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some relish and enthusiasm to participate in this debate. I have to confess that that relish and enthusiasm is a relatively recent phenomenon, simply because up until about three days ago I had the horrible sensation, in thinking about having to respond to the comments made from the other side of the House, of having to try to nail jelly to the wall, in terms of trying to pin down what was actually coming from that side of the House.

Happily, however, the other side has now attempted to engage in debate and indeed has responded to some of the criticisms from this side, and I think that is good for everybody concerned. I want then to start my remarks by dealing, albeit briefly, with a few comments that came from the other side.

Let me just refer to the individual who just left, who obviously must be psychic; namely the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran). The first member for Langley spoke about, as part of the theme in her response to the budget and specifically to our responses to that budget speech, the fact that we were negative because we were not looking at the good things. Rather, if it was in fact a situation of unemployment in the province of some 15 percent, and if there were then 85 percent employed, what we should do, of course, is to consider the 85 percent.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

The problem with that argument, as every freshman student of logic knows, is that it is an attempt to dodge the issue. The issue is whether in fact an unemployment rate of 13 percent, 14 percent or 15 percent is acceptable, and you don't deal with that topic by dodging the question and talking about the reverse of the proposition — namely whether 86 percent, 87 percent or 85 percent are employed.

More scary than that, Madam Speaker, about that kind of argument, is the fact that such an attitude is a prescription for inaction. If you decide to focus on the fact that, well, we've had some success, some of our people are working, we've gone some way towards building a better and happier world.... If you make that your focus, what you are effectively doing is saying we really don't need to do much else. Let me suggest a motto to members on the other side of the House that perhaps ought to guide this government. The motto was provided by that great German philosopher of the nineteenth century, Goethe. I won't give you the German, because my pronunciation is bad. Instead I'll simply quote the line. It's a motto that could well serve for this House, for this government: "How little the distance we have traveled seems when we look forward and see how far we have yet to go." I would suggest that if we aren't constantly looking beyond to see how we can be better, to see how we can make life happier, more civilized, then we are failing miserably in our duties to the people of this province.

I want to refer to another comment made by the first member for Langley (Mrs. Gran), in response to our suggestion that the Pharmacare user rates for seniors were unjustified and were putting a rather onerous burden on seniors. The response we heard was a classic illustration of first-year economics textbook stuff. What we heard was this: the seniors can shop around; they can go to another drugstore and perhaps they can spend $3 per prescription for drug dispensing rather than $5. The problem with that argument is just that it may work in the economics textbook, but it doesn't correspond to the real world, because the real world is such that many seniors do not have transportation facilities to go and shop around, and even if they were able to find another store that might provide them with a lower price, it is quite conceivable that by the time they have done the looking, by the time they have driven around, they will no longer have saved any money. It's bad economic analysis, that argument.

The other problem with that argument — that seniors' shopping around at the marketplace will solve the problem — is that it assumes that every senior in this province has equal access to choice. Well, let me remind members on the other side that there is a very large part of this province which is small-town British Columbia, and there are many seniors living in small towns who are effectively served by one store and therefore don't have the opportunity to shop around. It's quite simply a silly argument.

I am sorry that the Minister of Finance is not here. I would like to look him in the eye, as it were, when I make this next point. In response to a question from this side of the House, the Minister of Finance suggested that we drop the surtax on high-income earners in order to prevent some kind of brain drain. We have to provide an incentive to people to stay in B.C. Well, Madam Speaker, by pursuing that kind of logic, guess where the most prosperous and dynamic economy in the world should be. It should be in Nassau, Bahamas. So the argument doesn't hold.

More significant, though, is the basis of that argument, because the basis of the argument is what is customarily known as the trickle-down theory: namely that you prime a pump of an economy by giving it to people who have disposable income so they will invest in the economy and thus start the engines of progress. The problem with the neoconservative approach is that it says you prime it from the top: you give it to those people who already have surplus income to encourage them to do more. That is exactly what we've been doing in this province for many years and, for that matter, throughout this country.

[10:30]

Certainly that was the point that my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) made. We have a tax system that is demonstrably skewed in favour of the wealthy. There's no question of that; every empirical study of Canada's tax system ever done demonstrates that clearly.

The point is that we on this side of the House - who have been accused by some members opposite of being bleeding hearts because we suggested that that is perhaps not a moral or an ethical approach to an economy - might be vulnerable if in fact it could be proven that the system of giving incentives to the wealthy worked. The problem, however, is that it doesn't, and we again have all the evidence in the world that it doesn't. The Minister of Finance, then, is guilty of false

[ Page 272 ]

logic, and also guilty of apparently being unable to examine the evidence presented to him.

You know, it would be very tempting for me, Mr. Speaker .... Or, Madam Speaker. Pardon me for continuing to do the hermaphroditic leap. I don't mean to do that. It would be very tempting for me, Madam Speaker, to carry on and point to a number of those people from the other side of the House— in fact, almost all — who have spoken thus far, and say that I feel rather like the kid in the candy store: I'd like to lick all those suckers. That line came to me driving down from Nanaimo the other night. I assure the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) that it wasn't contrived.

Interjections.

MR. LOVICK: I would like to suggest to those two members opposite who are apparently making murmuring sounds, which aren't entirely clear, that once again it seems to be the case that the old folk wisdom is true: indeed, the empty vessels do make the loudest sounds.

However, back to my theme. I want to say a little bit to the Provincial Secretary, given that I have heard some sounds from that direction. I want to congratulate the Provincial Secretary and offer him the first Ironist of the Week citation. This is an award that I have taken upon myself to give — and I will keep score — to the individual who makes the most ironic utterance in the House. I want to suggest to the Provincial Secretary that his utterance is the one, when he intoned: "We have to change the way we think, change the way we do business." Well, Madam Speaker, if you have paid attention to any of the debate that has gone on in this House, and if you have listened to any of the comments that have come from this side, you will know that we have demonstrated, I think, conclusively that there ain't nothin' new in the government's approach. As my colleague from Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) pointed out by quoting chapter and verse, we not only have the same ideas but also the same phraseology. How then can we talk, Mr. Provincial Secretary, about this new approach to things, about changing the way we think? There are no changes. We're dealing with the same old-fashioned economic orthodoxy, the same old stuff.

You know, my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) quite rightly pointed out that, contrary to popular belief, it is the government side of the House that has become dogmatic and ideological, much more than this side. Indeed, I want to suggest that what we're hearing from the other side of the House is reminiscent of what Jack Weldon, a professor of economics at McGill University in Montreal, once called "eighth-day adventism." Let me tell you what an "eighth-day adventist" is. The "eighth-day adventist" philosophy holds that at the end of seven days God's work was not over. Rather, God came back on the eighth day and said: "Let free enterprise be." And that, unfortunately, is precisely the kind of argument we seem to hear from the other side.

I would point out to you that it is a faith, and it's a faith in the same way that St. Paul defined faith. I think I can quote it from memory: "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Given this government's willingness to say that the private sector is the solution to our economic problems, they are certainly making a giant leap of faith, because there is no evidence to support their claim. I suspect that is the reason why from a number of members opposite the refrain we have heard is not so much, "I think," but rather, "I believe." I draw that to your attention. If anyone cares to do a close examination of Hansard, I think he'll discover those are the two most common words in the other side's case.

Let me turn now to the budget itself. Let me pursue an argument that I've already hinted at — or a metaphor, at least, namely the religious one. I want to talk about sins of omission. I also want to suggest something about sins of commission. Theologians, moralists and philosophers alike have always known that you can do bad things both by actions and inactions. I want to suggest that this government's main failing is an omission rather than a commission. The main omission of this budget, the main flaw in the budget, is simply the explicit statement that we are indeed stuck with outrageously high unemployment and there's nothing we can do about that.

Let me refer you to appendix A in the budget speech, "Economic Outlook for British Columbia" — page 55, if anybody cares to follow along. If one goes down to the third paragraph from the bottom, one discovers the following statement: "Average employment is expected to rise only 0.5 percent between 1986 and 1987. In contrast to 1986, employment growth in the service sector is expected to be weak" — given we got rid of that megaproject. "Although labour force growth will be slower than in 1986, the average unemployment rate is forecast to remain in the 13 percent range."

That is a terrible admission and an implicit omission. It's made all the more painful if you look to the top of the page where you see something stated in the second paragraph, namely this: "The Japanese unemployment rate hit a 34-year high of 3 percent in January 1987." If we know anything about the Japanese economy we know that it is not an economy left to the vicissitudes and the decisions of the so-called free market. It's a managed economy; that's what made the Japanese economic miracle.

I would point also to the following page, page 57, "British Columbia Economic Indicators." What we see there is that in 1986 the forecasted unemployment rate is 12.6 and in 1987 it is forecast to be 13.1. We're talking about an increase. Despite all those vaunted claims about getting us on to a fresh start, about getting things moving again, we're predicting or projecting an increase. I suggest to you that that is a horrible sin of omission. We ought not to be able to make that statement in this year 1987.

The second sin of omission is what I would suggest is a failure to prevent some glimmering of understanding about just what a "new economy" actually will be. Indeed the first member for Saanich and the Islands, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier), was a close runner-up for the ironist of the week award because his utterances were almost in the same league as the Provincial Secretary's. That is, he eloquently and indeed grandiloquently.... After I watch the Provincial Secretary for a while and see the convolutions of thought over there, you can understand if I have difficulty pronouncing that word.

For the Minister of Finance's statement, again let me quote from the budget introduction on page 1 — you don't have to go very far to find this kind of evidence. We see the statement thus: "Economic policies, in particular, will be tailored to the realities of the late twentieth century. Fresh approaches are needed to satisfy the hopes and aspirations of British Columbians, " blah, blah, blah.

The point I think has already been made that we don't have any fresh approaches. This is very old stuff, very old stuff indeed. I could quote some others. Perhaps I have to

[ Page 273 ]

refer you to, under the heading "Economic Challenges" on page 2: "We must have the intellectual honesty to deal directly and confidently with three major challenges. We must change labour-management attitudes, we must diversify our economy and we must enter the Pacific Rim community as full partners."

That's not bad stuff as far as it goes. The predicament, of course, is that it misses the crucial point. The crucial point that it misses — another sin of omission — is that it fails to outline what should have been the fourth major challenge, and the fourth major challenge is to talk about building a real new economy, to talk about restructuring our economy so that it gainfully employs a sufficient number of our people satisfactorily and at the same time provides for those whom we cannot employ. We don't do that in this budget; 13 percent unemployment is unacceptable. Don't for a moment, on the other side, try and pretend that we're doing something for the unemployed. We are not.

Let me just give you an example of something that, to be quite blunt about the point, Madam Speaker, galls me, offends me bitterly. My office in the Legislature, I am told, has a couch in it that belonged to Duff Pattullo, the Premier of this province in the 1930s. As an academic, as one who has some knowledge of Canadian history, I know a little bit about Duff Pattullo and what went on in the thirties. I remember that in the summer of 1938 there was a march on Victoria by single unemployed people, because they didn't get enough money. They couldn't live; they were literally starving. Those people marched down to Victoria, and what the Premier of the day said at the time was: "Well, the single people can get out and hustle for jobs." I suggest to you that this government, insofar as it has not increased the welfare rates for single persons since 1982, is effectively giving the same message as we gave in 1938. And that is an atrocity. It should not be allowed.

[10:45]

The predicament is, of course, as every economist knows and everybody who thinks about the new economy knows, we can produce more and more with fewer and fewer people. If you want to talk about a new economy, if you want to have any credibility in discussing that stuff, for heaven's sake grapple with the reality of a new economy; and it's a reality we've known for a very long time. Let me quote to you from a famous book, that I would dearly hope members opposite have read.

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: I recognize that as probably a fond hope.

I'm quoting to you from an absolute watershed study of modem democracy and the dangers and threats to it, namely Carl Becker's famous book called Modern Democracy, published in 194 1. What Becker said was that one of the threats to democracy was, of course, the nature of technology in our economy, and the impact of technology on our economy. What Becker said — and it's so obvious — is simply that the first and most obvious result of the technological revolution has been to increase the amount of wealth in the form of material things that can be produced in a given time by a given population. We've got that; that's a constant; that's given. The second result, says Becker, of the technological revolution is that as machines are perfected and become more automatic, manpower, or person power, plays a relatively less important part in the production of a given amount of wealth in a given time. The point, of course, in case it isn't obvious, is that we don't need as many people for the productive work of a society; we can't therefore employ all of our people in the old-fashioned ways. We have therefore an obligation to do something to make sure those people fit into our society. It's the same point made by a more contemporary economist, a Nobel economist like Leontief, who talked about the productivity paradox. And the paradox of our productivity is that we can produce so much more but we have fewer and fewer people required to produce, and therefore fewer and fewer people who have a place in the economy and a place in our society thereby. That's our problem.

This document, this budget speech, though it talks about a new economy — though it goes through that kind of ritual incantation, as I described it earlier — doesn't say anything about the new economy and what it will mean. There is no reference to worker displacement. There's no reference to that. The budget's failure, as I suggest, is a failure of omission.

The third sin of omission, also part and parcel of what I have called that failure to grapple with the new economy, is the budget's failure to say anything at all about what everybody recognizes as the key to economic development in the new-economy, post-industrial society: science, technology, research and development. Because they ain't there. They're not in that budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ain't?

MR. LOVICK: I wanted to make sure I appealed to all members, and thus I used that good old-fashioned eighteenth century word.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're not allowed to.

MR. LOVICK: I'm not allowed to say "ain't"? Oh, great!

Let me give you the total reference in the budget to science and technology. I love it. I think this an absolutely amazing phenomenon here.

On page 18 of the budget speech, under the heading "Diversification," the third paragraph reads: "There will also be initiatives to coordinate efforts of different groups to ensure that British Columbia gains its fair share of federal research and development funding and follows a technology development strategy that will help prime our future economy." For heaven's sake, is that all? Is that all we have to say about the new economy? Is that all we have to say about science and technology and research and development? Lord help us if that is all.

You can look to the estimates, Madam Speaker, and you'll also find very little there to back up even those muted comments about support. Science and technology policy in the province of B.C., as we all know, has been idiosyncratic, has been essentially one person's bailiwick. The trouble is that apparently when that person left, so too did the science and technology policy. There is nothing there, and, as I say, that's a horrible omission.

The question is: why should that be? This government publishes pamphlets that make all kinds of wonderful claims about science and technology. Let me quote you something from a brand new Science Council of British Columbia pamphlet, In answer to the question, "What effect does the investment in science and technology have on the province,"

[ Page 274 ]

it says: "An exhaustive study by an independent consultant carried out in 1985 showed that the overall return to the provincial economy from the projects assisted by the Science Council between 1980 and 1984 will be approximately $20 for every dollar invested." Even allowing for wildly exaggerated claims, how can anybody sitting on the other side of the House not rush out to embrace a science policy given that kind of return? That's lunacy. It's absolute lunacy. It's dereliction of duty not to endorse a science policy if indeed we have that kind of pay-back ratio.

The time seems indeed to be marching on. Therefore let me get directly to the fourth sin of omission, and let me be specific here. The fourth sin of omission is that the very specific budget speech apparently says nothing about the much promised Island Highway — nothing at all. We guestimated and estimated that that project could generate up to 3,100 person-years of employment. If we want to talk about economic stimulus in this province, surely that's the kind of policy we ought to be considering. Instead, however, we see in fact a budget cut in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, but what makes it more painful, Madam Speaker, and makes it more startling to those of us on this side, is that that budget cut — that failure to put up some money for the Island Highway project — is nevertheless accompanied by a motion on the order paper by the same Minister of Finance who doesn't deal with it in the budget suggesting that this Legislative Assembly should endorse the early and immediate project of working on that inland Island Highway. I suggest that is just hypocrisy and nothing more.

There are so many specific individual items one could talk about in this budget, and certainly it falls to my colleagues on this side of the House to draw all of them to your attention, and indeed they have done that — I think rather well. I merely want to leave the House, if I might, with this thought. We had an opportunity to do something to restore people's faith in the government of this province. Instead it seems we have once again relied on old solutions. Once again we have decided to favour the already relatively advantaged. Once again then we have fuelled the fires of cynicism. I'm sorry about that, Madam Speaker. I would dearly hope that the government would come to its senses and make some effort to change its approach to our problems.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: I'm certainly pleased to take my place in debate in the House. It's interesting to hear much of the debate. I believe the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick) concluded with the statement about "fuelling the fires of cynicism," having just gone through 30 minutes of trying to create cynicism by looking at the approach of finding specific areas that can be criticized — and there are always specific areas that can be criticized — and implicitly trying to make the point that everything is bad and everything is wrong by just zeroing in on these very specific items. I noticed during his speech and during the speeches of many of the other members that they have so far criticized increased spending; they have criticized budget cuts; they have criticized increased taxation; they have promoted more spending. Somehow or other, they don't relate these together. More spending and more investment does require some money. You cannot invest if you have no money to invest, but they don't seem to make the connection.

I think the member did say that he was an academic and took the standard, I believe, academic approach: that this is a good investment and this is a good thing to do — and I can quote you from academics from the past, and they all corroborate what I want to say — and that we can do all of these things and let someone else worry about where the money comes from. In other words, there is never a price-tag attached — that we should spend more money. Other members have said that we should definitely be spending far more money on education, that the public agrees that we should be spending far more money on education.

But let's not tell the public that there's a price-tag attached. The other members have said that the people are all in favour of spending more on education, that the polls indicate this all along. I think some members have even said that 80 percent to 90 percent of the people want more money spent on education, but Victoria should put up the money because that way it doesn't cost us anything in taxes. Yes, I believe the member, my critic in education, who, unfortunately, I think, has quite a background in education.... I would have hoped he would have been a bit more interested in education, but I guess now the role is strictly critic. When you read the Blues, picking out little isolated examples and criticizing all the way....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, we have some problems in education; we have some problems in our society. But we have a lot of good things too. The emphasis seems to be strictly on the problems, the academic approach, that you should spend more money on science; you should spend more money on schools; you should spend more money on education; you should spend more money on this; you should spend more money on that — and someone else should worry about where it comes from.

I suppose that is the academic approach — treating it as an academic exercise. It's a nice debating exercise; it has fuelled the fires of cynicism, as people say. We find that the opposition has refused to look at the budget as a total picture. There is more spending in the area of social services, and there is a price-tag attached to it. So the taxpayers have to put that up, whether they route it through Victoria or whether they route it through the local level. The budget is realistic and recognizes that.

So it's easy enough to say, as the previous speaker did, that the budget doesn't expand on a particular point; it doesn't expand far enough on that one. In the final analysis, I think what is done is what's going to be the test, not how much we say about it. Yes, I've gone to school too, and I've read a lot of reports and studies and theses. They start out with a hypothesis and they generally confirm their hypothesis. After all, you wouldn't want to start out with a hypothesis, is and then do a lot of research and find out that your hypothesis is wrong, so it tends to support it. Then you read a bit of research and it does the other thing.

[11:00]

Anyway, I think back.... What brought it to mind was a report in yesterday's Vancouver Sun about the Whistler situation. When the government decided to take a careful analysis of Whistler, we knew there were a lot of assets there that could be lost for lack of action, so the government moved and put up, I think, something like $9 million to finish the golf course, to turn that supposed arena into a convention centre and did all of that.

I can remember the flak that I took at that time: "You are just looking after the elite. You're doing all of these things

[ Page 275 ]

that are not going to work. It's ridiculous spending the taxpayers' money on that."

MR. WILLIAMS: Government on the backs of business. Good heavens!

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, yes. The member, on the one hand, says we should be creating employment. By what — hiring everybody to work for the government, or creating a situation that works? In the Whistler situation, for a relatively small investment Whistler has gone on and has boomed, and all they're looking at is $85 million worth of construction this year after $60 million last year. All of these things — 95 percent occupancy in the wintertime and 65 percent or 70 percent occupancy in the summertime, and the hotel tax, and the building, and the liquor tax, and the sales tax — that have flowed.... I would say that we have got back over and over and over again that money that we invested in Whistler. All you have to do is look at the records.

Some of the members are new and may not be aware that what we are hearing now from the opposition is.... Every program that we're trying to do to create real jobs, not just to try to put people to work.... You can't all work for government. All the programs that we did in the past to create jobs have created jobs.

MR. WILLIAMS: Two hundred thousand on UIC.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, there are people unemployed, but what about the people who are working? There are more people working in the province now than there ever were before. But that, you see, would be a positive statement for that member for Vancouver East, and he doesn't know the meaning of a positive statement.

So the people who are working at Whistler would not be working if we had listened to the opposition's advice at that time. They would not be working now, because we were condemned for that approach, that investment that said: "Let's help these people stay alive so that they can do the operation." There are hundreds of people working there.

We were told the same thing with northeast coal. And yes, there are some financial problems with northeast coal. But even that member for Vancouver East, I think, has to admit that the northeast coal project put thousands of people to work. There are still hundreds or thousands of people working there who have brought in $600 million in CN line improvements, port improvements.... A lot of those things would not exist if it hadn't been for northeast coal.

But that member just sees it as a problem, because he is geared to looking at only the negative things, He can't see that there are a lot of people and a lot of businesses that have benefited from that, and he never will, because he has to look at information and interpret it in terms of how it suits his negative, cynical position. So that's why he can't see any of the positive aspects of that.

What about Expo? Remember, it was that opposition that said: "Kill Expo, it's no good." Didn't it create jobs? Is that what they have said — it didn't create revenue to this province, it didn't increase tourism, it didn't generate the promotion that we can build on now to create future tourism, it didn't do any of those things? It certainly did, but had we listened to those same cynics at that time, we would have said that Expo shouldn't go. They even tried to intervene with the world's fair board to say: "Don't approve Expo for British Columbia."

So here again we have the same sort of things. Don't create development, just employ people. Don't tax the people any more, just spend more money. These are the sort of generalizations that we get from them, and I don't know how they can possibly put the two together. I am very convinced that the public can and will make excellent and good decisions if they are given correct information and total information.

I think that is one thing that we have to do. We just heard a criticism of the budget and some of the numbers and that sort of thing — that it was not saying all of the wonderful things that it should say; that it should say: "This is, under present circumstances, the unemployment that we face."

The other day I heard a criticism that we were cooking the books. What should we do — cook the books to say that we're only going to have 5 percent unemployment? I think that the budget presents the facts and figures accurately, realistically and truthfully, and that it is also a budget of hope that we can build up and improve on that situation. But what should we be reporting? What they would like it to report — that these problems don't exist" The budget acknowledges the problems and tries to take steps to resolve them.

I have been, in the six months since I've been in Education, trying to take the positive approach. I have met with many school boards, with many groups, with the BCTF and the BCSTA, and have said basically this: if we need to spend more money on education, then we need to have public support for that; that there is a price tag attached, and there are some problems; and that we really can.... And I happen to believe this; that is not a role I am playing. There are many good things happening, and if we build on the positive and say, "These are the good things, and we would like to make them better," then I think we have a lot better chance to get that public support.

I have gotten a very good response. It is, I think, realistic. I have gotten some reaction from districts, from places where they're saying: "Yes, we have basically a good education system. Whether you take it in subjective terms or whether you want to measure it against any objective criteria of international or national testing, our education system measures up." I have said that that has largely been accomplished because of the dedicated good work done by the teachers in this province.

Unfortunately it is hard to get any coverage. For instance, I went to Kamloops to a meeting. I spoke for about an hour and answered questions. I commended the excellent work that teachers were doing. I happen to know something about the system, because I know that no conscientious teacher in this province can work short hours, despite their work-to-rule tactics or that sort of thing; they do work long hours. It's tough work, and there are very many....The mass majority of teachers out there are dedicated and interested in kids, and they are doing an excellent job.

I answered questions accordingly. I said all of the good things. When you think of what the school system has done, despite some difficult times, in the deinstitutionalization of our special ed students, and having incorporated them into the schools and having done an excellent job with it, I think that is highly commendable. I was making comments like that. I really believe that that is the case, that there is a lot of good work going on out there, and I am saying that. After an hour of this, the reporters came in by surprise and said: "May

[ Page 276 ]

we join the meeting?" I said sure. So they set up the tape recorders and taped the whole meeting. At the end of the meeting, one gentleman stood up and said: "When are you going to give some indication that you care about the good job the teachers are doing?" After an hour of this type of commendation — because I happen to believe in it and because I happen to believe in the positive reinforcement approach; I think it works and I think we need it and it will do it — I guess in exasperation I said: "I must not be a very good communicator. I thought that's what I was talking about for the last hour. What do I have to do to make you think I care — offer to double your salaries?"

I guess as a politician one is not allowed the luxury of getting exasperated at a question like that after an hour of positive things. Having said that, I was then amazed to hear that the next day in the local paper this reporter had under the headline, "Minister Blasts Teachers," taken that comment and put it beside "He's not a good communicator," and rearranged things. Talk about distortion! For the first time in my life as a politician, I had several letters and phone calls from the people at the meeting that said: "That was not what the message was." I defy or challenge that reporter to put that tape out among his peers in the media industry and let them take a look at it and see if they could draw that story.

Unfortunately, what happened was that the story then was picked up by Canadian Press and away it goes across the province saying, "Minister Blasts Teachers," because of one exasperated remark. It's unfortunate because I.... Then other people pick that up and choose to do it as criticism. However, I guess those are the hazards of the game. I was urged to write and sue and do all kinds of things, but what's the point? It would be on page 14, a little item like that saying: "Minister Complains Again." So you can't win on that one.

I did, though, speak to teachers in Vernon, Penticton, Kelowna and Salmon Arm, and to various groups, and perhaps at least some people there get the message. But I was rather intrigued by that one, and of course that was the one that is used, I suppose, to say that despite the efforts at consultation, all the minister is interested in is confrontation.

I guess I've done more consultation and tried to find out what people want, and I have said all along, yes, there are problems there; why don't we use what we try to teach in the school system — you know, life skills which include problem-solving techniques? You gather the evidence; you do that and if you've got ten problems, you start picking away at them and you solve problems. Let's work together on that, and when we're done, even if we don't solve all ten, if we solve five we're a lot better off than if we keep throwing bricks at one another.

I think the approach is working. I think most people out there are interested in it. There are some people that, I guess, once we get into negotiations and all these sorts of things.... Then you can't say anything. For instance, on that Kamloops meeting I got several of these. It's still not, I guess, acceptable for any teacher — and these were from teachers that were at the meeting — to go publicly defending a Social Credit cabinet minister without getting into trouble, so there's no public discussion on that. But the day may come when people will also mention the good things, and I really believe that when they do, then we will have improvement in the system.

I've gone through the Blues and some of the comments even though I haven't been in all of that — and we have again this typical.... One student got kicked out of school here. One student didn't fit in here. That's out of 489,000 students. It makes it sound like the system is rotten, and the system is not rotten, because there are.... For every example of where a student has not been accommodated or they haven't been able to solve that student's problem, I can give you thousands of students that are doing well and can do.

So we're trying that. In this sense, just to refer to the budget again briefly, I think it's realistic, I think it is direct and it is predicting what is, and I think it sets the stage for a lot of improvements.

[11:15]

I'm very concerned at some of the things that are happening. For instance, in many school districts we have school boards who are having a tough time making decisions. They are having a difficult time because enrolments have decreased. Some schools are 50 percent full or less. I can sympathize with the people. Nobody wants a school closed in their neighbourhood. I guess it's one of the things of democracy that it's going to get a thrashing out, and so some schools will end up closed. I know the boards are anguishing over this. In some cases, it doesn't help when other people try to inject for partisan political purposes to make a big kafuffle out of it...because it's a difficult enough task.

I know that the boards want to act responsibly financially. They want to provide the best possible education for the people. Perhaps at times we're going to have to be at all levels a lot more honest with the people and say that if this is an important concern for us, then there may be a price-tag attached. The price-tag may be through local taxes, and there is a local cost involved then, or it may go through the province. But let's not perpetuate the illusion that if "Victoria pays for it" then it doesn't cost us any more in taxes; because really it does. People say, well, property owners are paying taxes. Some of them don't have children at school; why should they pay for the school system? Good point, but if they pay for it by sending tax money to Victoria, we don't have just parents of schoolchildren that pay sales tax or income tax or that sort of thing. Everybody is paying. It's part of our society and is a worthwhile investment in our society. I don't think we can just say that only those people who have children at school benefit from our education system. All of society benefits, and it is a good investment.

Madam Speaker, I've got a note here from someone that wanted leave to make an introduction, and if it's urgent I will wait.

MR. MOWAT: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: It's my pleasure to introduce today, at a very opportune time, when our Minister of Education is speaking, on behalf of the Hon. Grace McCarthy and myself, students from Sir Charles Tupper Secondary School, grade 8; their teacher, Bruce Dolsen; Bob Campbell, the child-care worker; and Gina Wentzell, the alternative program worker. They've come to see the House in action and to hear our Minister of Education speak. Would the House please make them welcome.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Madam Speaker, I'd like to point to some of the things that we have done in the six months since I've been Minister of Education. We made

[ Page 277 ]

grants for enrolment adjustments last fall for those districts that had lower enrolments and really couldn't react until December. We made adjustments to the textbook program, and that meant by holding back some programs in the ministry, Vancouver, the bigger districts, got most of that money. There's been very little public acknowledgement. I've had direct letters from them.

We've looked at and received a report on child abuse in the schools. We've appointed a coordinator. We've got a program, and good coordination is going on between the BCSTA, the BCTF, the ministry and other groups. For instance, there's a joint conference, I believe the weekend after this one, in Vancouver. We're pulling people together from the province. More money was put into it. Allocations were made available so districts could do that. So these things have been done in that short period of time.

We have also since announced a framework for a sex education program in the schools, and asked all of these organizations to sit in on working out the design, the organization and the implementation of the program. These things have been done.

We have appointed in this time a royal commission on education. I would hope.... I just assumed it was a public document when the order-in-council, with the terms of reference attached, was put out — that people would avail themselves of that and read it. If any of you don't have it and are interested, I'd certainly be delighted to make it available to you, because I've heard some criticism about how narrow it is and that sort of thing, All you have to do is read the terms of reference; it really covers the whole range.

I'm sorry that my Education critic yesterday made what I interpret perhaps incorrectly as derogatory remarks about Mr. Sullivan, the commissioner, and perhaps missed that in the order the commissioner has the consent to appoint clerks and stenographers as he considers necessary for conducting the inquiry and to pay them at the rate, etc., and to assist in achieving the objectives of the inquiry the commissioner may appoint or retain research assistants and professional advisers as he considers appropriate. So he's certainly not limited, and approval is given by government to pay all expenses incurred by the commissioner in the inquiry which are considered necessary by the commissioner for the proper carrying out of his duties. He was also asked to get going on it. I know there's been a question about the time frame, but that was carefully considered with all of these studies that had been done, "Let's Talk About Schools," and let's talk about the other things.

With the inquiries that are going on and commissions in other provinces, there is a lot of material already studied, and he doesn't have to reinvent the wheel by going through all of that again. The commission has the right and the power to visit every region in this province — and it will be necessary — and spend time. The commissioner has said — and it was part of the discussions — that formal and informal hearings to get as much input from all over the place as possible, to get what the public wants, not only formal presentations but also informal ones, to make that opportunity available to people throughout this province.... He is expected to and, I'm sure, will do that.

I don't know whether the time-frame is adequate. I don't really think any of us do. You can set three years, and it's inadequate. You can set two years, and it's inadequate. We have said April 1, 1988, which gives approximately a year. We know that it would be difficult to hold hearings with teachers in July and August, but there's a lot of studying and other work that can be done in that time — and that was discussed. So we discussed some of the things that we want.... We didn't want to just use the royal commission to bury things for three years. There are some things that we should be acting on without the royal commission. I'm sure that anything we do will be criticized for not waiting for the commission. On anything that we leave to the commission we will be criticized for not accepting our responsibilities. So you can't win on that one.

MR. ROSE: How did you know we were going to do that? It's a new era. We wouldn't do that.

HON MR. BRUMMET: Well, I've had a little experience, you see. A cynic is an optimist with experience, and I'm very much an optimist. But I have a feeling....

We're already getting criticisms that are completely unwarranted. The inference that he should be politically neutral. We went to a lot of trouble to try to make sure that the commission was politically neutral — we went to a lot of effort to try to make sure that the commission was going to move — that they had the resources, that they had the ability and the capacity to work. As I said at the beginning, I don't know whether one year is adequate, but in my experience, you could study education for 15 years and still be studying it.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

What we have said is that we want this commission to take a look at what has been studied, what people feel, what they believe, what should be, and put it together and make recommendations, so that government can and will act on these recommendations, to give us the direction our society wants us to go in in the future. I could point out a lot of directions myself, based on my experience and that sort of thing, and probably some of them would parallel what the commission will do, but it's not acceptable, because I'm a politician. So we have basically said that we have to put this commission together, and I'd like to give it a chance, rather than pick away. It's set, it's done. He has the right to add assessors, expertise, that sort of thing, and to put together the report. If Mr. Sullivan came in on April 1, 1988, and said, "I need a little more time to finish this, " I don't think I would shoot him; nor would 1 have the right to, because he's completely independent of me once he gets going. I would hope, though, that it isn't one of these commissions that says we need more time and more time and more time, as happens at a lot of the commissions. I'd like to just conclude very quickly, since my time is running out, with saying: let's give them a chance, let's give them support, let's give them the input — written, whatever you can do.

I would like to just say this on the independent school situation. The percentages have been used — and we can all use numbers any way that we like. Percentages can be used by any of us any way we like. It seems that the main criticism has been that we have put more money, a greater increase, into the independent schools this year than we have into the public school system. It seems that these same critics think that it's quite fair, though, in the independent school system, that last year.... You said, since it's tied to the public school system, just put more money into the public school system, and it will flow into the independent school system. Correct.

[ Page 278 ]

But it seems that it's okay and fair that every dollar you put into the public school system should only generate a 30 percent increase. It's done that for ten years. We have decided to move it up to 35 percent. That adjustment now, because of the small base, is a major percentage this year. But it's okay, 30 cents on the dollar for those guys, but it's not okay to make adjustments. Come on, gentlemen, be fair.

MS. A. HAGEN: In my remarks this morning to the budget debate, I am going to be speaking to an amendment, of which notice of motion was given at the first of this week. I shall read that amendment at the end of my comments.

The reason for this amendment coming forward at this time is that we in the New Democratic Party, as I am sure you in the government benches have been aware, have received from many people across the province — seniors, service providers, families, people working in the health field — expressions of grave concern about an item that appears in the budget that affects seniors, particularly in the health area. We've already discussed this item in a couple of question periods earlier this week. I asked questions of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) around these initiatives to add to the cost of Pharmacare and to add to the cost of supplementary services. When I asked the reasons for the government's decision to take this action, the hon. minister replied as follows:

"This item will of course be discussed fully when the House is discussing my ministry and its estimates. All I can say at this time is that the government is not singling out seniors; it's not singling out anyone. This province knows — and you know as well as we do — that the budget has skyrocketed as far as health is concerned. It's not just a British Columbia problem; it's a problem across Canada. We're seeking ways and means of cutting back on the total health budget, and rightly or wrongly we have chosen the areas you mentioned and some others."

I want to emphasize two things in the remarks of the minister. He says that they are looking for ways to cut back on the cost of health care, and that, rightly or wrongly, they have chosen the areas Pharmacare and therapeutic services for that particular initiative. My thesis this morning is that the government is wrong in this initiative, and I want to develop that with some care. I think what we are dealing with in this particular discussion is not just a couple of line items in the budget but in fact a fundamental shift in public policy. When we are dealing with shifts in public policy, we — and you — have indicated that those kinds of shifts should take place with the widest possible consultation and with the widest possible debate.

[11:30]

Let's start by identifying what I think has been the consensus of this House as public policy in regard to health care for seniors. It is my view that this consensus has held since the days when medicare was first introduced, that it goes back to the days of Premier W.A.C. Bennett, that it followed through a period of New Democrat representation and through a number of years of government by the Social Credit Party. That consensus is clearly that services for seniors in the health field should be universal, readily accessible and should encourage older people to work to take responsibility for their own care with support of the fine health program that we have.

What we have in these initiatives is the first breaking of that consensus in 20 years, and I think that that is a matter of concern to all of us. It is an issue that seniors and their service providers have identified for what it is. The actual items are punitive and nuisance items, and I want to talk about that in more detail later. In addition to the pettiness of the imposition of fees, we are in fact going counter to our way of ensuring health care for those who need it most.

A publication of the Ministry of Health, I think two or three years old, that I like very well is one called "Partners in Health." It is a very readable document and it talks about the government's philosophy and its partnerships.

As you may remember, Mr. Speaker, in my remarks on the throne speech I spoke about those partnerships and the importance that they have to good-quality, affordable health care. I would like to just read briefly a little page from this pamphlet:

"We're partners in health care: the government, the health care providers and you. The government, through the Ministry of Health, has the responsibility for distributing available funds for the various health care services and making sure those funds are well spent. The government develops programs that will provide necessary health care less expensively — programs such as home care and homemaker services — and preventive and health promotion services to help people maintain or improve their health. Doctors, nurses, technicians, administrators and other health care providers work hard to provide quality services while keeping costs under control. They too try to reduce our reliance on them by showing patients how they can improve their own well-being and prevent sickness and injuries.

"Your role" — and this is the senior that we are speaking about — "in the partnership calls for you to promote good health in your personal life, among your family and friends and in your community. A sharing of the responsibility for good health and a renewed reliance on ourselves, our families and our friends can keep costs under control and ensure that health care services will be there for us all when we really need them."

Mr. Speaker, I am wearing a button today. A number of people in my caucus have asked me about this button. It is one that I know the Minister of Health is proud of, as I am. The button reads: "I keep well." This button I received for, I think, probably the twentieth time yesterday, when I attended a gathering in my own riding to mark the end of a pilot project called Keep Well funded by your ministry, co-managed by community groups and long-term care around the issue of partnership for wellness.

At that meeting were people from the service-provider fields and about 100 seniors. To a person they spoke to me about the short-sightedness of the current initiative of government to add fees at the most basic maintenance level of care for seniors — or to be delivered or organized by the service providers. Those people know that what we are talking about with this kind of punitive fee, this kind of nuisance fee, is the very thing that will erode partnerships and, in fact, not help seniors in self-care, in their initiatives to keep themselves well.

Over the years we have developed a program of long-term care, home support, Pharmacare and low-cost, effective therapies like podiatry, physiotherapy and chiropractic, to

[ Page 279 ]

help seniors and others look after their own health needs. Now we are saying that the only user fees to be applied are to be applied in these low-cost, effective, conservative therapies — therapies that work, keep people mobile, keep them in their homes and keep them well.

Let's take a look at the profile of this senior community that we're talking about. I want to talk about it, first of all, in just a few statistical terms. Then I want to flesh that out in terms that describe that senior population as I have come to know them, working with them in my community over the last ten years. About 11 percent of the people who live in this province are 65 or older. The fastest-growing group in that particular age group are 85-plus. They're a marvellous group of survivors, with great independence, great spirit, great wisdom and, I might note, great frugality. I don't think they will appreciate the comment of the Minister of Finance, who, as he introduced his recommendations regarding health care services, remarked: "It is this government's view that responsible use of the health care system can be encouraged by modest user fees." Their perspective is that they are among the most responsible and most careful users of those services.

Let's look at the incomes of those people. I think there's a lot of confusion about that, and it's understandable. Older people have a hard time keeping up with the way in which benefits are made available to them to enable them to live independently, which is the most economic way for them to live and is where 90 percent of them do, in fact, find their shelter and their homes — in their own homes, in their own apartments. But let's look at how many of them are on very limited incomes: 140,000 — 40 percent of those people — receive some supplement from the federal government old age pension program, which has the guaranteed income supplement added to that.

Within that number, there is a group who have a very low income, and I want to stress how low that income is. I've spoken about it earlier, but I want to make the point that the people who are in receipt of provincial GAIN, the ones who will have a supplement to help them with the Pharmacare copayment.... Those people have, from any independent source at all, only $1,000 in income other than their old age pension. They have no independent income. Many of them are women; they are widowed; they are people who have worked hard and had a hard life. I know these people; I've talked to them; I know what survivors they are. We have, between that 40,000 and that 100,000, a group of others who don't differ very much from that group, and this group is now going to be faced with $125 in additional costs for their essential health care.

We have, beyond that group, many people who are very slightly over the edge where they're eligible for the supplement. Let's look at what they already pay for out of their pockets. They already pay for glasses — and most of them have glasses; they already pay for hearing aids — and many of them require that help; they already pay for the ambulance; and every time many of them go out they have to use a handyDART or a taxi because they don't drive cars and they cannot walk to wherever their therapy or their doctor or even their shopping services are. All of those are added costs on a limited budget.

I don't like to characterize people with pejorative terms, but I think I might say that there is within this group of people a genteel person who hides the fact that she or he is having a tough time making a go of it. I have talked to those people, who, I might note, Mr. Speaker, also have a very heavy burden in the rents that they pay, unless they live in social housing. We have not, as you may know, in five years raised the ceiling of rent where we provide a supplement. So many of those people are spending 40, 50 and even 60 percent of their income on shelter. These are the people who are paying rents. So when they have these other costs they are often cutting back on food, cutting back on essential kinds of nourishment for their health.

I talked to a pharmacist yesterday. She is a young woman of great warmth who works in an area where there are a lot of senior clients. She was virtually in tears about what was happening with her senior clientele, because they were talking to her about the effect of these programs on their tight budgets, and her concern to me was that they would either cut back on food, which is often the area where people do cut back, or they would begin to conserve in their medication — they would not follow the protocol of that medication. As somebody who is a counsellor and educator of those older people, who has developed programs to assist them with managing their drug therapies, who is in touch with the longterm care nurses and with the doctors about her concerns around those drug therapies, her concern was that all of that positive help around good management, around responsible care, was going to be eroded by this particular measure.

We have, then, seniors who are already picking up many extra health costs because they have chronic illnesses. If the minister were prepared...we could table studies with him. The issue around health care costs is not in these areas where in fact the total budget is so small but rather in the mega-use of health care services where we have much, much larger issues to deal with. We should not be chipping away at the conservative, easy-access therapies that deal again with those issues that the ministry encourages people to deal with: dealing with stress, making sure they stay apace with the treatments that are proposed for them, keeping up with their physiotherapy, looking for care and support from friends and neighbours to assist with the more formal medical process.

Right now what we have, then, is seniors who have had stability because of our public policy consensus over the last 20 years. They have known what their costs are. They have known what to expect. And, as they have practised all their lives, they have learned as seniors to be good managers, responsible managers, frugal managers, and they have learned to work in partnership with a community enterprise of caregivers who work together with them around managing chronic help. We cannot afford to see any of that eroded by ill thought-out and ill-considered measures such as this.

[11:45]

Let me just talk about two people and one clinic. The two people I want to talk about are people who are, as we say in the business, involuntarily separated. He is in a care facility; she is on her own. Because the care facility has some problems with staffing, she uses her bus pass every day to go to feed him and to help him with other kinds of services. She also has to pay for a number of things that are a part of his care that aren't included in the per diem. She maintains an apartment that has been their home for 20 years. And I might note that this woman looked after this man, her dear husband, until it was physically impossible for her to do that, for 20 years as the primary caregiver, the person who was in fact ensuring that the health care system was not in any way utilized beyond her — and their — most essential needs. She is having a really tough time managing, and it's stressful for her to see a loved spouse gradually fading; we all know that's

[ Page 280 ]

something that's a part of the stress that older people know and experience.

Now, because she has health needs, her sources of income are to be further eroded. She has a chronic foot ailment. She needs massage and physio, and she must go to a podiatrist. I might note that podiatry, about which I knew nothing five years ago, is deemed by the Ministry of Health to be an essential service, not just a frill, not just something that people assume might be nice to do, but something that is essential for their health and well-being.

She has figured out — she is not on GAIN — that for her drugs and therapy she is looking at costs that will probably range about $15 more a month. To us that seems so little; it seems like something anybody could manage to take out of a budget. But for my friend who is helping to keep her husband well and is helping to support him in his care facility, it is the sort of thing that leaves her despairing of whether she is going to manage to stay in her home. For her to move at this time might save her a very small number of dollars, but for the shortest period of time, and she has the stress which I fear is going to affect her health.

The other instance I want to talk about is something that came out of this Keep Well program. There are in my community a number of buildings where seniors live, and they do a lot of self-help, peer help. They have fun-and-fitness classes; they attend Keep Well workshops; they go to wellness clinics. One of the ones where people have the lowest of incomes has set up a podiatry clinic, because when Keep Well went in there to set up their fun-and-fitness clinic, they found that a lot of these people had foot problems. They couldn't walk. They were cutting their own calluses with razor blades. They were not attending to ingrown toenails. Nuts and bolts kinds of things, Mr. Speaker. But if those people have heart disease, diabetes or circulation problems, lack of care for those essential things means full-blown infections, and into the hospital those people go in New Westminster at $500 a day.

That clinic operates with seniors organizing it. A podiatrist comes into that clinic every couple of months. The appointments are set up. People have that therapy. It's regular, it's predictable and the results have been outstanding. Those people are now actively participating in walking programs in the community buildings and in Keep Well classes. A number of people who were more and more likely to be immobilized are now active in the community and with partners and with much more in a self-care model.

It sounds so simple. Let us look, Mr. Speaker, at what podiatry costs this province, with 360,000 seniors, in the course of a year. It costs — and this is for everyone, so we know that this figure is not just for those who are older who use the service — less than $5 million; it cost $4,841,219 for the fiscal year 1985-86.

We are not talking about any reform, any way of cutting our health costs, with these proposals. We are talking about penalizing the people who need services most with costs that for them are the greatest hardship. I'm quite sure, having questioned both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) on Monday and Tuesday, that they haven't even worked this out. I recognize that both of them, like me, are learning their job, and that there are a lot of things to know about the complex area of how services and supplements are delivered. There seems to be confusion about who will pay, who won't pay, and how these programs are to be delivered. In fact, there's no indication of what the administrative cost will be. In talking to pharmacists, I have had some pretty startling kinds of figures about costs. Certainly one of the costs is simply getting rid of a lot of the labels that have to go on these forms, which in one case, I know, is going to cost one drug outfit somewhere in the order of $35,000 right off the top.

We are, in proposing these measures, proposing both nuisance measures and fundamental changes. There is, in both the proposing and the implementation of these measures, a message going to seniors that we can't trust the system — we don't know what's coming next. If they're going to in fact deal with medical costs in these small areas, off our backs and off our limited budgets, can we be sure that there is going to be protection available for us? The management of health is now threatened by assaults on the pocketbook and, perhaps more important, it's also threatened by assaults on people's confidence in the system, as they plan to work with their care givers, the service-providers and the Ministry of Health in managing health costs conservatively. It's not the way to go, Mr. Speaker. It's an issue that will alienate seniors. It's one that will erode their trust in government. And it will not deal with the minister's objectives.

I would support those objectives — in fact, I do. But I want to quote one other statistic before I move to close today. In the 1985-86 budget, for preventive services there was the princely percentage of 1.95 percent. I commend the ministry on management operations; they're only 2 percent. That's marvellous, but preventive services are even less. That's the way to go. That's the way to keep well. That's the way to deal with the kinds of concerns that the minister has — valid concerns, appropriate concerns, where we need to work together to find solutions, but not on the backs of those who are chronically ill, who have pride and responsibility in how they care for themselves, and who will be partners in communities, with pharmacists, with physiotherapists, with podiatrists.

I have not spoken, Mr. Speaker, of another part of my motion, which other members of my caucus will do this afternoon: the homeowner's grant. It is also a concern to us. I'm concerned about that but, as you can see, I feel passionately about this program as it affects seniors in health care.

I would like, Mr. Speaker, to now move, seconded Mrs. Boone, that the motion "that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair" for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the words: "But this House regrets that, in the opinion of this House, the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations has sought to reduce the provincial deficit by loading dramatic property tax increases on the backs of the elderly, and by imposing Pharmacare dispensing fees and user fees for each visit to physiotherapists, chiropractors and podiatrists, thereby threatening the basic universality principle of medicare."

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair notes that your motion is seconded by the member for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone). We also thank you, hon. member, for giving the Chair advance notice of this motion. The motion is in order.

[ Page 281 ]

We would ask that you file a copy with the Clerks as soon as possible.

Now if you'd like to proceed to debate....

On the amendment.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to rise to second this motion, but due to the time, I'd like to ask for adjournment, and I will continue my remarks after.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.