[ Page 283 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Budget taxation measures. Mr. Clark –– 284

Small business tax. Ms. Edwards –– 284

Budget income tax changes. Mr. Stupich –– 285

Gas and oil industry incentives. Mr. Weisgerber –– 286

Strathcona Park. Mr. Gabelmann –– 286

Tabling Documents –– 286

Budget Debate

On the amendment

Mrs. Boone –– 286

Mr. Bruce –– 289

Ms. Edwards –– 291

Hon. Mr. Savage –– 292

Mr. Blencoe –– 292

Mr. Hewitt –– 295

Mr. G. Hanson –– 296

Mr. Serwa –– 298

Mr. Miller –– 299

Mr. Chalmers –– 300

Mr. Clark –– 302

Mr. Sihota –– 303

Division –– 305

On the main motion

Mr. Serwa –– 305

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. VANT: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a very happy day, for this is the first time in this session that my partner MLA, the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), has taken his seat. I know the whole.... [Applause.] Without even saying it, I knew the House would royally welcome him. The first member for Cariboo has endured since last June no less than 11 operations. He feels fine, and we all agree he certainly looks very good today. He regrets that he will not be able to speak for a while, only whisper. He wanted me to say, as his partner MLA for the Cariboo, that he's very happy to be back, and he has some advice for the new members of the House, on both sides of the House.

He says that the first ten years as MLA are the toughest; after ten years, it's a breeze. Of course, Alex has been the longest continuous sitting member of the Social Credit Party in this Legislature, so he is the senior member of our caucus. Also, of course, when he was elected last October, I am sure he is the only member on either of this House who got elected without any empty, hollow rhetoric, without any buzzwords. He got elected, in fact, without saying one word, and that's unique.

Also, while I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I'm indeed very pleased to introduce the woman who for many, many years — for decades — has been behind the first member for Cariboo. She's here in the members' gallery: Gertrude Fraser. I know the House welcomes her.

MR. ROSE: I think that the House and visitors will note the amount of applause genuinely and generously given the first member for Cariboo. So we too would like to welcome him back.

Sometimes around here debates get raucous and personal and bitter, and sometimes there's a bit of heavy breathing. I can't recall anybody on this side of the House, or the other for that matter, ever but having the highest regard and praise for the first member for Cariboo. I think one of the reasons for it was his lack of rancour, his lack of partisanship — although he was a believer in what he did — but also the fact that he stayed in the House. He was one of the few people who liked this room. Although he had a big, heavy portfolio, and hundreds of things to do and miles of highway to blacktop — especially in the Cariboo [laughter] — he could leave his bulldozers long enough to come in and sit with us. We liked that and appreciated that from him. He was decent. He answered questions. We're sure glad to have him back, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PARKER: I've several guests today that I'd like to introduce to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House.

I'd like to introduce Ray Brady, mayor, and Dave Morris, manager, of the district of Kitimat, and ask the House to bid them welcome; and two young men from Terrace: Manbir Prihar, attending the University of Victoria, and Sean Vanderfluit, attending the University of British Columbia. Sean is the leader of the opposition for the Western Canada Youth Parliament to be held May 15-18 this year at the University of Victoria. I ask the House to bid them welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: On behalf of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who is away attending the first ministers' conference in Ottawa today, I'd like to welcome, on behalf of his constituency and the city of Port Alberni, a number of visiting students and teachers from the twin city of Port Alberni, which is Abashiri, Japan. I would like to bid them a hearty welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are friends of yours: first, retired Major-General David Adamson, a long-standing friend of yours from the RCAF and the Canadian Armed Forces, with his wife Marjorie; and also either your daughter or your wife — I'm not sure which, Mr. Speaker. Please bid them welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure today to rise in this House and welcome a person who has stood by my side for over 27 ½ years. Faithfully and together we have proceeded through life and, in all endeavours, done everything together. I'd like you to welcome my good wife, Margaret. She's a pillar of strength.

MR. RABBITT: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce a guest in the gallery, a former resident of ours in Yale-Lillooet, presently a professional stuntman in our province, in our Hollywood of the north. I'd like the House to give a warm welcome to J.J. Makaro.

MR. LOENEN: We have some very special visitors with us, Mr. Speaker: some Inuit students from Arctic Bay. They are the visitors of and are being hosted by a school from my constituency of Richmond, the Cambie School. I would like the House to make them feel welcome.

[2:15]

MR. CHALMERS: I'm pleased to say that today we have three visitors from the sunny Okanagan, the great riding of Okanagan South. I'd like you to welcome, please, Mr. Jona Emke, his wife Edna, and friend Ed Pavlakovic. Please make them welcome.

MR. BRUCE: There are a few people in the House today in the gallery and I think it would do well if this House would join with me in welcoming them. I won't name them all but there are a few I would like to mention.

You will recall that at the time of my maiden speech I made a few introductions, and I made mention that my brother wasn't here. Well, today he is. The president of Bruce's Grocery of Canada, the biggest little home-grown supermarket in Duncan, my brother Garry; my cousin and campaign manager in a number of elections, both municipal and provincial, Byron Hudson; a very dear friend of our family whose husband worked for us many years in the enormous operation of Bruce's Grocery, Mrs. Annie Philpot; a former candidate in Oak Bay and certainly in Cowichan Malahat on several occasions, Dr. Charles Ennals and his wife Jill; a customer and long-time friend of Bruce's Grocery who has been coming into the store some 42 years of our 50-year operation, known as the bull of the woods, Jim and Dorothy Kerrone; and, ladies and gentlemen, one of the past

[ Page 284 ]

presidents of the Chemainus-Crofton Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Frank Thurston. I would ask that you would bid them all a very warm welcome, and the many other friends that have come down here today.

MR. JACOBSEN: We have with us today Gordon and Gregory Gardner from Dewdney, and with them is Mr. Peter Funk from Abbotsford and Mr. Lyle Wicks from Victoria. Would you please welcome them.

MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to this House two members of the B.C. grain growers' association, Mr. Ron Scobie, the vice-president, and Dennis Torkelson, a director. Please make them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon are two very special ladies. We have Maria McNulty, who is visiting us today from Belfast, Ireland, and Betty Anderson, who runs the best bed-and-breakfast operation in Surrey. I would ask the House to please welcome them.

MRS. GRAN: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today we have, from the constituency of Alberni, Audrey and Ed Bayley. They are the parents of Robin Bayley, one of the legislative interns working for the Social Credit caucus. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. R. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to the House today one of the most important people any constituency could have, and that would be a voter. Would the House kindly make welcome Margaret Ketcheson.

Oral Questions

BUDGET TAXATION MEASURES

MR. CLARK: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Finance. The minister's budget speech claimed that his tax measures would improve fairness, yet user fees for drugs under Pharmacare have been levied on seniors to raise $18 million, while the surtax on wealthy individuals that was removed raised about $21 million. Is this what the minister means by fair taxation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry I have to bring to your attention that this particular line of questioning was ruled out of order yesterday by our Speaker, in view of the fact that we're dealing with the budget in the House. Sorry about that.

MR. CLARK: No questions on the budget?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you like to rephrase that question?

MR. CLARK: How can the minister justify his political rhetoric in the budget speech with the reality of what he's doing? Is that out of order?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's still out of order, hon. member.

SMALL BUSINESS TAX

MS. EDWARDS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance as well. It deals with the small business tax that was introduced in the budget. The combined federal-provincial small business tax right now stands at 26 percent, which is the highest in the country. What are the measures the minister has in mind that would offset the loss of jobs that will result from the 37.5 percent increase in the small business tax?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, as contained in the budget speech itself, I thought it was adequately explained. Certainly it has been understood, to the best of my knowledge, in the small business community itself. I'm surprised that the members across the floor haven't had the wit to grasp the written word. The explanation, Mr. Speaker, is that we must maintain the relativity between the personal income tax rate and the small business income tax rate. Failure to do so would result in many professionals who are traditionally in the income bracket where they might choose to minimize their tax risk. Failure to do so would result in those individuals incorporating for the purpose of avoiding tax. The relativity between the personal income tax rate and that small business tax rate has always been maintained, and in my judgment and in the judgment of the government must be in order to maintain the credibility and fairness of the tax system.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it should also be understood that this government and our previous government in this province instituted a series of programs to assist industry in their endeavours to create employment and maintain their economic health. In the honouring of those agreements, Mr. Speaker, the cumulative dollar cost is approximately $600 million. I make the claim that this government certainly cannot be characterized as being insensitive to the needs of the business community, and certainly is always alert to any opportunity to create jobs as a consequence. We have in the past, and we are now and we will in the future, continue to place our greatest reliance on the private sector for job creation and for returning some strength and vitality to our economic system. As a matter of philosophy, Mr. Speaker, this government does not believe that it is up to government to provide all the jobs in the communities. It's up to the community leaders and it's up to the private sector, and we believe our legislative package puts in place the kind of devices that will allow that to occur.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair appreciates the detail with which the minister provided his answer, but we should remind everyone once again that one of the requirements of question period is that both questions and answers be concise and to the point.

MS. EDWARDS: My supplementary question is on the basis that two to one of these new private small business generators will be women. Considering the fact that access to capital is the major problem mentioned by women starting small businesses, would the minister tell me what measures will be in place to help these women, who use –– 70 percent of them –– their own personal finances to take the place of that 37.5 percent increase that will no longer be able to go back into their small businesses for reinvestment?

[ Page 285 ]

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I am delighted to have the question put to me. I was fortunate to have listened to the presentation of some of the other speakers during this budget debate, and I was particularly struck with the comments by my colleague from Langley, who spoke very pointedly to the question of women. Dealing with the question of women is difficult for a person of my gender, because immediately we are suspected of being somewhat insensitive to the problem. I suspect that if there are to be any points made in the interests of women and their welfare –– this government's attitude towards women –– those kinds of expressions of feelings should come from a woman herself. I was delighted to have heard the comments by my colleague in that respect.

BUDGET INCOME TAX CHANGES

MR. STUPICH: A question to the Minister of Finance. The minister reduced the amount of income tax payable by those in the highest brackets and increased it for those in the lower and lowest income tax brackets, knowing full well that those in the higher bracket are inclined to spend a higher proportion of their money outside of our economy, while those in the lower bracket spend it inside our economy. I'm wondering what studies the minister has done to determine the effect of these changes in our own economy.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Another excellent question for which I am delighted to give an answer. There are some misperceptions rampant surrounding that issue, being fed, I suspect, by individuals in this House. First of all, it should be understood that for a person with a taxable income of $10,000, they would have paid a tax prior to the budget of $765. They will be paying $830 post-budget, an increase of $65. In the province of Ontario, which is frequently mooted as a leader in the field and one of our principal competitors for skills and talent and investment capital, they would pay $735; and in pre-budget Alberta, $300. For a person earning $20,000, the similar figures –– if you've got a pencil –– are $1,725 and $1,865, a $140 increase; compared to Ontario's $1,785 and Alberta's $1,270. Continuing on, for a taxable income of $40,000....

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, the minister is not going to continue on without a procedural fight on this. He has abused the House consistently. He thinks....

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, you yourself referred to the section dealing with oral questions, 47A(b): "Questions and answers shall be brief and precise." There were certain questions that were not brief and concise, but the last one from the hon. first member for Nanaimo was brief and precise. It's the answer that was discursive. He's giving a speech, and that's certainly out of bounds for question period.

MR. HEWITT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I too was going to rise on section 47A and deal with the other side of the coin, which is the questions that are being asked. If we all recognize that question period is for those questions that are urgent and important, they are the only ones that shall be permitted. What we've heard from across the floor today, addressed to the Minister of Finance, are questions that are really debate on the budget and the budget speech. The questions are out of order. Questions in question period should deal with those issues that are urgent, and those questions that deal with the budget should be properly raised during the debate on the budget. I can only say that if the opposition is not prepared to come in here for question period, then let's move on to the budget debate.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Just sit for a moment please, hon. members. I think there's very little doubt that this is becoming somewhat out of hand. I would suggest, having listened carefully to both questions and answers, that if there is abuse –– and I don't think that's a particularly good word; it's not a very good parliamentary word –– it has occurred on both sides. So I would suggest that we proceed, bearing in mind the rules that are laid down for question period.

[2:30]

MR. STUPICH: There was nothing wrong with the question and there was nothing wrong with the answer, but it was the wrong answer for that question. He got his notes mixed up. Precisely, my question was, with all of the background left out: what studies did the minister have taken to measure the effect of these changes on our economy? That was the question. You've got the wrong notes.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Well, I tried to answer and I was cut off. I wonder whether they are really interested in the answer or whether they're more interested in hearing themselves put the question to us. I think that we have, and I suggest that it should have been evident to all.... I had the information in front of me; I was attempting to convey it. But in any event, I have before me a comparison of taxation levels for different income categories. I think also I have with me the average per person tax increase in various jurisdictions, all of which portray B.C. in a very good light.

One of the basic theses of a budget presentation, vis-à-vis the reduction in sales tax, vis-à-vis the elimination of restaurant meals tax, was to inject more revenue into the system so that it could start to prime its own pump. The very basis of the whole budget presentation was to find devices that would put more money in the hands of the buying public, the person who needs the help. That's where we put the money, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH: Well, had I wanted to know what was happening in other provinces, I would have asked. If I had wanted to know averages, I would have asked. But I asked whether or not the minister had any studies taken or whether he is simply gambling that something he has done may help the economy by taking more money out of the economy.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm not reading from handwritten notes; I'm reading from a lot of budget material that was prepared in the preparation of the budget speech. It should be obvious that there were studies done and staff work completed on a project. I'm trying to convey them, if only I was given the opportunity.

[ Page 286 ]

GAS AND OIL INDUSTRY INCENTIVES

MR. WEISGERBER: A question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. In this morning's papers there was an article regarding a billion dollar drilling incentive for the Canadian gas and oil industry. How will British Columbians benefit from this billion dollar federal program?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The announcement was made yesterday by the federal energy minister. It's good news for British Columbia, particularly for small companies engaged in exploration and development in the Peace River area. There should be, for example, a 50 percent increase in drilling activity in the Peace River area beginning this fall as a result of that important announcement.

STRATHCONA PARK

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Parks. In the recent boundary changes to Strathcona, a recommendation was made that the Elk Mountain area be added to the park. B.C. Forest Products has the rights to cut the timber on that particular mountain and does not want to cut the timber because it is an entrance to the park. The parks branch is encouraging B.C. Forest Products to cut the timber on that mountain before the land is transferred to the park. Would the minister put a stop to that immediately and enter into negotiations with B.C. Forest Products to provide alternative timber supplies to them so that Elk Mountain can be put into the park and have its timber remain?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, it is not really a question, it is a suggestion, but one which I will take as notice.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The bell ends question period.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, probably for the benefit of both sides of the House with respect to question period and because it really did get a little bit out of hand, I think, we should also be apprised of standing order 47A(e): "points of order arising during oral question period may, at the discretion of Mr. Speaker, be deferred until question period has been completed." I would commend that to both sides of the House, because it would allow more time for the members to carry on in question period, and of course time is critical. It is only 15 minutes in this House, and one hates to see that time taken away.

Hon. Mr. Couvelier tabled the annual report of the Critical Industries Commission for the year ended December 31, 1986.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to present a motion pursuant to the reappointment of the acting auditor-general.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I move an agreement that pursuant to provisions of the Auditor General Act, this assembly recommends to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council that Mr. Robert J. Hayward be reappointed as acting auditor-general upon termination pursuant to the said act of his present appointment to the office of auditor-general.

Motion approved.

ON THE BUDGET
(continued debate)

On the amendment.

MRS. BOONE: Mr. Speaker, I guess I'm pleased to rise in support of this motion. I'm really displeased that it's necessary to do so. I think the province in general has had a little bit of disillusionment with what has taken place in this House in the last few months –– few weeks; it seems like months to me, I guess; disillusionment with a government that professes strong religious and moral values –– and we've certainly heard those through the speeches in the last few weeks; which professes a concern for the people; a government that professes to be in touch with the grass roots. Yet I've seen this government right now attacking the very roots of this society –– the elderly, those people you and I have depended on for many years, who built this country and this province into what we've got now. And we are attacking them, Mr. Speaker.

The issues that we have right now are really dear to the heart of most British Columbians, and over the past few days I've received numerous calls, not just in my constituency office but in my office here in Victoria. People have been calling, not just the elderly, not just the seniors, but citizens who are outraged that this government is choosing to take the burden of the debt of this province and put it on the backs of the seniors.

I'd like to address my remarks first of all to the Pharmacare dispensing fee. It's very clever of the government to make it a percentage. This automatically indexes itself. The budget speech indicates that it will be probably less than $5 on a usual basis. However, each year or every time a company chooses to increase its dispensing fee, that amount will go up. It's automatically indexing the amount that will be charged to the seniors.

I've heard a number of different reasons to justify these increases and they sound good at times, they sound really good, until you look beneath the surface. They say that costs over $125 will be reimbursed –– that's if you happen to be below the amount that the ministry here or the government says you are allowed; that GAIN increases will be increased $125 so people will automatically be reimbursed on those things. It's not bad if you think in terms of $5 a month. You might think that any senior citizen out there could handle a charge of $5 a month. However, if you speak to many of them, those who have chronic illness such as heart disease, they're looking at perhaps an amount as much as $40 a month. To have to pay that amount out and then have that reimbursed later on is a hardship. It is a real hardship to people.

We have done some calculations here, Mr. Speaker, and they really put into perspective what is going to be affecting the seniors of this province. A single senior person on old age pension and with the GAIN supplement would be getting

[ Page 287 ]

approximately $650 a month. Bank interest –– if they had any savings –– they'd get about $100 per month. This brings their income to the vast amount of $750 per month. I don't think there's anybody in this room who would even try to exist on $750 a month and say that they were living adequately, that they were living comfortably, that they were able to eat properly, that they were able to supply all of their needs on that $750 a month. And yet this is what we expect our senior citizens to do.

This comes to the mass amount of $9,000 –– again, not an awful lot when you think in terms of what they have to pay out. They have to pay their shelter, their clothing and their medical needs.

Now when I was campaigning in October I went to the seniors and many of them I found were comfortable. But many of them I found were having tremendous problems. If they had a hearing problem, they were reduced to paying $600 for a hearing aid. If they had any kind of special dental problems, they were also having to pay those things; and I had people telling me that they weren't having those things done, that they were suffering without proper dental care, that they were suffering without having the proper hearing aids. Is this what we want for the seniors? I don't think that's what we want and I don't think that this is the fairness that this government should be speaking about, or the fairness that this budget should be speaking about.

Mr. Speaker, we've also done a rough estimate of some of the charges that would be called on. I'll deal with that a little bit later, though, because it's something else.

The GAIN increases that we mentioned will cover $125. That is for all those people who already have GAIN. However, there are –– and these are the people I pointed out to you –– approximately 120,000 seniors in this province who will not be able to get the GAIN supplement, who will not be of the amount where they can have this paid for, and yet these people will be having to put out these amounts in addition to what they have already. How would you like that for your parents? How would you like that for any friend of yours? I don't think that's what we want for our elderly in this province.

We've also heard them say things like: "It will encourage seniors to shop around." I found that to be one of the most distasteful things that I heard in all of the debates on the budget. Encouraging the seniors to shop around! When you're talking in terms of shopping around, do you mean that they are expected to go from place to place to find a store that's going to give them a dispensing fee that is maybe a dollar less? Are you talking in terms of those who are in wheelchairs, who are crippled, who are house-ridden, getting out and trying to find a place that's going to give them their dispensing fee for less? Are you talking in terms of people trying to transport themselves around?

I come from an area where the climate gets pretty desperate in the wintertime. In 40-below weather, do you expect my seniors to go out into the streets to shop around for a proper dispensing fee that's less than someone down the road? That is not only ridiculous; it is absolutely disgusting to even think in those terms.

[2:45]

We have small communities. Where are those small communities going to get the ability to shop around for a deal on dispensing? It is just impossible, and it is totally ridiculous that our seniors should be put in such a situation. We are also being told that our seniors are using too many drugs. I haven't seen many drug-addicted seniors out there, and I think it's a shame that people are talking in terms of our seniors....

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: If there are those who are, in the terms of some people that have been talking, popping too many pills –– using too many prescription drugs –– then why not deal with the people who are prescribing those drugs? Because those drugs come from doctors, and they are not, I presume, if we really endorse our medical profession, prescribing drugs to seniors unless they require them. If they are, then deal with those doctors who are prescribing drugs without properly dealing with it. Do not deal with the people who are supposedly using them and supposedly abusing the system. They cannot abuse that system of prescription drugs unless they have the action of the doctors to do so.

Now the user fees. I'm going back to my little list here, where we've done a little rundown; again, it's a very discriminatory user fee. We've done a little rundown here, and we've got our increased cost for pharmacy. If a person went 13 times per year to a pharmacy, which is a little over one per month, which is not a lot for a senior citizen who may have many ailments, including arthritis, that would be about $65 per year for a single person.

Physiotherapy. If that person went once per week for physiotherapy at a $5 fee per visit, that would be $240.

Podiatrists –– and you heard the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen) so eloquently describing the need for podiatry and how much it assists the elderly in her community: once per month, a $5 fee for a visit, another $60.

Chiropractor. If they went twice per month, with a $5 fee, it would be $120. And then, of course, you've got thrown on top of that your wonderful property tax, which you've increased to $100 regardless of what their income is, and that's a $99 increase. So they would have, on top of all of these things, out of their massive income of $9,000 per year an additional $584 per year. This is for those who would not be available for any assistance, who would not be able to get any GAIN, who would not be able to claim any of this back from the government.

User fees. Again, there is a misconception out there, and I've had a lot of people.... I've had to check on this because I wasn't quite sure when I originally heard it either, but they say that they're increasing the fees to those in those professions by $5; that's not so. In actual fact what you are doing is reducing the amount that is being collected by the province. For example, a chiropractor gets $11.20 per visit; they would be collecting $5 from their patient and receiving $6.20 from the province. Now the things I have been hearing from my chiropractors and from my physios are....

They are really upset. They're upset about their patients, they're upset about their practices, and in many cases they're saying that they have to close their doors. They've got additional accounting costs. They've got additional charges that they have to try to collect from people. They are telling me that in many cases seniors that come to their place will not be able to pay this, so they will be absorbing the cost, because they do not have the heart to charge them the $5 fee, and that they will only be getting $6.20. Many of these people –– in particular, I know, the chiropractors –– have gone since 1981 without an increase. They're having a rough time staying open as it is. Many have come to me in the last few months saying they need increases. They have not had an increase,

[ Page 288 ]

not to just increase their income but just so they can keep their doors open, just so they can pay their rent and pay their bills. If we reduce their income further, I am sure that we will be seeing a further reduction of chiropractors, a further reduction of physios and podiatrists in this province.

For a government that professes to be in tune with free enterprise and to be concerned about the private sector, this does not seem the way to increase those in the free enterprise system or to encourage the private sector. I hardly think this is going to do anything for the business community.

Another thing that we found out is that home-care physios must also collect that $5. Now I can't quite understand how they are going to do this. Home-care nurses are government employees. Are they going to go along with receipt books and pick up the $5 from each of the people that they go to? How they are going to do this, I don't know, but it doesn't make sense to me. I don't see how they can do it. The physios that go to the homes –– there is not a person in the medical profession that will not tell you that those physios and the nurses that go out on home care, that go into the homes, keep those people out of the hospitals; they keep them in their homes. They provide a service to the people there that saves this government money. The money that is saved by home care is tremendous, because they do not have to go into acute care beds; they are not taking up spaces in our hospitals.

A visit to a physio in the hospital costs approximately $50 per visit. What we are told is that these people who are currently going to private physios will more than likely not put out that $5 in their user fee and will be going to the hospitals. There is a one-to-six-week wait to get into the hospital. Fifty dollars per visit. What are the savings in that? What are the savings to the government? What are the savings in terms of dollars? What are the savings in terms of human beings? We need to keep our seniors mobile. We need to keep them active. We need to give them the services so that they can stay out of those hospitals, stay in their homes and remain active in our communities. Our seniors serve as a very worthwhile part of this community, of our province. We can't afford to let them go down the drain.

A survey that one of the institutions here did showed that 24 percent of the people that they serviced in their physiotherapy were retired; 33 percent of those were middle income. Ninety percent of them, when asked what they felt was the effect that their therapy had on them, felt that it had an extensive use, that it helped them get better faster, that it helped them stay at home, and made them recover and stay in the community longer. That is the sort of thing that we need.

Why are we picking on those people who have no ability to help themselves? Why are we picking on those areas that have not had increases for many years? Why are we picking on these people? To me, there seems to be a hidden agenda, and that hidden agenda seems to be looking towards reducing the numbers that are going to physiotherapy. As you know, we've had a shortage of physiotherapists in this province that has been a tremendous pressure. Surely there's an agenda there and that agenda is to reduce the numbers that are going to physios and thereby reduce the pressures to try to bring more physios in and train them. We need our physios. We need our chiropractors. We need all of those types of medicine so that our people can be worthwhile people in this area.

There is no doubt that many seniors can afford these fees. There's no doubt in my mind that if I go out in the street and ask a good portion of the people, they will say: "Yes, I can afford them. Yes, I am comfortable." My concern, Mr. Speaker, is not for those people. My concern is for those who cannot afford it. If there are 33 percent, or if there are 120,000 that are suffering, or if there are 100 senior citizens out there that are suffering from this, Mr. Speaker, that should be a concern of this government's and not just the opposition's.

There are alternatives. We're always accused of suggesting that we spend more money and that we never provide any alternatives. I'm providing some alternatives to you. Fair taxation, so that those people, our seniors, are not paying for the reduced taxation that those earning over $100,000 are going to get, would save our seniors.

Look at changing your attitude, at putting more money into prevention. I've spoken to the medical people in my city, and they have indicated that we could put some money into educating people about government costs, into educating the doctors as to how much money it costs for each and every operation they perform; how much money it costs each time they send somebody for a B scan; how much money it costs when they send somebody for unnecessary blood tests or xrays. There are many times when these things are necessary, but I think there are many times when they are abused by the profession; and by the people too, because they don't know how much it costs. Let's educate the patients, so that each time they ask for a B scan or a blood test they know that it is going to cost some money, that that money is coming out of the government and that that's increasing our debt. Let's start to educate our people to become responsible citizens. We can't become responsible citizens unless we know the costs involved in each and every one of these things.

Let's work towards wellness. Let's work towards a better lifestyle. I'm pleased to see that in the past some of the efforts to reduce smoking have worked. There seem to be fewer smokers around now than ever before, and as a non-smoker, I'm certainly glad to see that. Let's work towards improving our environment, making sure that our companies out there do not pollute rivers and the air so that we have constant problems in our health as a result of these things. Let's work towards safety in the workplace. These are things we could do that are preventive things that would save us money.

I'm going to suggest something a little radical now. Let's shake up your ministry, Mr. Minister. That's something unheard of, isn't it? Let's go into that ministry and look at the bureaucracy and see who's building little empires. I think each minister here could do that. Let's see who the empire builders are out there. Take a look at those places and see where the money can be saved. Look at your priorities. I've spoken to many people in different areas within the ministry, and they all say that there is money that can be saved there.

Let's keep our people at home as long as possible. Let's keep them out of the hospitals. Look at improving home care services and long-term care. Let's look at improving hospices. You're dragging your feet a little bit on hospices. You don't see too much action on those things. Let's get our people into hospices, so that they are not in hospitals, taking up acute-care beds.

Let's look at something really different. Let's dare to be a little different. Look at something like community clinics — clinics with group practices, six salaries for doctors. That's a radical position, isn't it? It's the Medical Services Plan that is increasing. Why take it out on the seniors? Look at the other areas.

Take a look at the Ontario system, where they have health service organizations. The group is paid by the provincial

[ Page 289 ]

plan a lump-sum fee for every patient enrolled, regardless of the number of times that patient receives treatment. After paying their joint expenses, this group then shares the balance of this money. The only way to increase their income is to take more patients. They also receive a bonus for keeping people out of the hospitals, and money from that goes into preventive care. In those areas where they are paid on a salary basis, where they are not paid on a fee-for-service basis, where there is some incentive to keep people well, the doctors are 20 percent more successful in keeping people out of hospital than fee-for-service doctors are.

There's no doubt that this will be opposed by most doctors. But dare to challenge it. Dare to look at something.... maybe something like a combination of the two: fees for services, but put in some other areas that are salaried. Dare to be different.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

May I remind this government of the pension power that came when they tried to de-index the pensions in the federal government. I don't think our senior citizens are going to stand by and quietly take this. You are taking from them with each and every fee-for-service that you put on, each Pharmacare deduction that comes out. Our seniors are not going to stand for it and, Madam Speaker, I don't think other British Columbians are going to stand for this either. The rest of British Columbians feel that our seniors have rights, that our seniors should be taken care of Our seniors have given their lives to this province; some have profited well, others have not done so well, but no senior in this province should be treated any differently, medically-wise, than any other senior. We shall not stand by and allow our seniors to have their medical services decimated on the backs of increases to corporations.

[3:00]

MR. BRUCE: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the seniors of this province. I rise to speak in support of the youth of this province. I rise to speak in support of the average British Columbian. I rise to speak in support of the ordinary British Columbian, whoever the ordinary British Columbian may be. I realize that the term "ordinary" is one that is used from time to time by the opposition. The word "ordinary" talks about regular, normal, customary, usual, not exceptional, not above the usual, commonplace. Well, I happen to think that the people of British Columbia are more than ordinary. I think that the people of British Columbia have some entrepreneurial spirit and are prepared to move ahead. I don't think they're ordinary at all.

As I've sat and listened to the debate in respect of the budget, and now the amendment, it's interesting to listen to what's going on. Indeed, it almost sounds like all we're really talking about is more a headline speech than a budget speech when the actual debate comes from the other side of the House.

It was interesting to hear the statistics from the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) on the great stream of people that are leaving Manitoba. You could see those massive headlines today: "Manitobans Stream From the Socialists and Head For Freedom Road in British Columbia." But, Madam Speaker....

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, I believe we're addressing the amendment. The member is clearly off in Manitoba, not dealing with the amendment which deals with the plight of seniors in British Columbia with respect to this budget.

MR. BRUCE: Madam Speaker, it's a point being made that we really should deal with the fact — and I appreciate what the member for Vancouver East has risen to say — and that is just the point. These great headline statements that are made from that side of the House are really not what we're here to talk about. We're here to talk about the budget. We're here to talk about the amendment to that budget.

It's been interesting to hear the amendment that was presented here this morning — and now debated here this afternoon — and the concerns that are expressed with respect to the aspect that this budget and the deficit reduction is on the backs of the seniors and the backs of the low-income earners. I d like to lead through that a little bit and touch on a few items and come back and show why that is not the case.

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

Interjection.

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

We come to the aspect of forestry and we take a look at the fact and we hear from many members on this side of the House that what has been spent in forestry is not enough, that it needs to be more.

MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, the member clearly has some other speech that he planned on giving. The issue before the House is the amendment, not forestry or any of the other issues that the hon. member wants to address.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken, hon. member. Perhaps you could relate your speech to the amendment.

MR. BRUCE: Well, Madam Speaker, as has been the case and has been said here, if you're going to speak on the amendment, and the amendment is that the deficit is being carried on the backs of the poor and the backs of the seniors, one must look at the other aspects of the budget as well to discuss that item, because it's truly not the case.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: You may proceed, hon. member.

MR. BRUCE: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I thought my point would be understood.

When we talk about that forestry aspect, and as I listen to the opposition in regards to more money for the forestry budget itself, I too, as an individual, would concur....

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to do this to the hon. member because I know he's new here, but I think that all of us should understand that when there is an amendment put to a budget speech, while we don't have to be rigid about it — not extremely rigid about it .... It does deal with seniors and various items of user fees and those sorts of things. So my advice to the hon. member is to get on with his speech to the amendment, leave out forestry and stop beating around the bush.

[ Page 290 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think what I'd like to suggest is that the members listen to the speech and then decide whether or not it's out of order.

MR. BRUCE: The point is, Madam Speaker, that there are only so many dollars within the provincial treasury, and they only come from so many sources. Yet we hear on the one hand that the opposition says we should have more and more and more in a variety of ministries, and then at the same time they say that what they're trying to do is to reduce the deficit on the backs of the poor and the seniors. I think it's important that we look at the total aspect of that budget as it relates to the deficit reduction and the amendment that's being proposed here this afternoon.

It would be foolish for us to debate this issue in only the very, very small aspect of that which the resolution has presented. You've talked about forestry, and I'll come back to that. You should know better than any, the member for Vancouver East, who has been on his feet many times talking about forestry and the fact that more dollars are required. And more dollars are required, and more dollars this year are going into that budget. I think that that's extremely important and we must keep that in mind. We must understand that it is through those investments, within forestry of course, that we can derive a greater income, derive a greater return, and by so doing offset some of those costs that are being applied to the....

MR. WILLIAMS: I draw your attention, Madam Speaker, to the continuing speech on forestry when the member should be addressing the amendment.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has gone to great lengths to try to relate his speech to the amendment, and I would ask the member to continue with his speech.

MR. BRUCE: Madam Speaker, I mentioned that I would rise and I speak, too, in support of the seniors. It is important that we look after our seniors, and the people of this province of British Columbia and the governments of this province of British Columbia have been looking after the interests of the seniors. When you go through the whole aspect of the amendment that has been proposed and you look at the fact that we are talking about the dollars that are available and the dollars that are not available, it is that consideration which we must follow through with.

We've heard that this whole budget is built on the backs of the poor and on the backs of the seniors, and that is why the opposition has presented this amendment. But it's not true. Let's look at it for a moment. Let's look at the fact that there is an increase to the income assistance program. I, too, would like to see it more, and so would the hon. members on both sides of this House. But there are only so many dollars available.

We talk about the shelter increase; there is an increase in that allowance. There was one in October, there is one coming in December, which again will help the low income and the elderly. We talk about the sales tax reduction, which again will help those of low income and will help the elderly. It's important that we understand and we see those measures.

Then as we talk in very great self-righteous indignation about the fact that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, let us look at the property tax. Let us look at that aspect, the property tax. that has been instituted, the fact that this government has very clearly analyzed that aspect of the property tax. When you take a look at the fact that people who would be purchasing a $300,000, a $200,000, a $400,000 house, they as individuals are hardly your low income or are hardly your middle income. But the tax that they will pay is some $5,000 to $6,000 on that particular transaction. That is income to the province; that is revenue to the province. The deficit and the deficit reduction is not being borne by the elderly, is not being home by the low income in this province.

All one then needs to take a look at, taking that one step further, are the property flips and transactions of apartment buildings and the like on which some people have enjoyed tax relief because of the different setups that have been available. Again, those people on some of those transactions will result in paying $20,000 to $30,000 to $40,000 in taxes to the provincial coffers. That is not on the backs of the poor; that is not on the backs of the elderly.

We've heard time and time again from the opposition about the need for increases in education, the need for increases in health, and much of what's being talked about here right now is those health measures.

MR. JONES: Madam Speaker, I wonder if we could have the amendment read at this point.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply be amended by adding the words: "That this House regrets that, in the opinion of this House, the hon. Minister of Finance has sought to reduce the provincial deficit by loading dramatic property tax increases on the backs of the elderly by imposing Pharmacare dispensing fees and user fees for each visit to physiotherapists, chiropractors and podiatrists, thereby threatening the basic universality principle of medicare."

MR. BRUCE: Madam Speaker, I hope that everybody took note of the amendment.

When you look at that aspect, the opposition calling for greater increases in health care.... That's what this amendment speaks to in the one sense, calling for greater increases in health care. What in fact has this government done? They've gone and increased health care, by golly.

[3:15]

You can't have it both ways, Madam Speaker. On the one hand the opposition, so self-righteously at times — only some — stand up and talk about these expenditures; they talk about the fact that these costs are ever-creeping. But on the other hand, when action is taken and clearly taken at the upper tax level, they are yet to come with us and support the motions and the initiatives that this government is undertaking.

I appreciate the spirit of this amendment for what it is the concern that is being offered for the seniors of this province in regard to those charges that are there that one will have to take into account. But clearly, when one looks at the total spectrum of what is being provided for, when one looks at the total spectrum of the budget relative to this amendment that has been proposed, the amendment clearly does not deal with the issue of the deficit and how that deficit is being reduced.

As I think I have enunciated here, I would have to speak clearly in opposition to this amendment, because it does not

[ Page 291 ]

fully appreciate the total aspect of what the budgetary process is about in the province of British Columbia.

MS. EDWARDS: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I want to talk in particular about the issue of the minimum $100 tax that seniors are going to have to pay if they happen to be in their own homes and if they are paying tax. Of course, they will be paying taxes.

Now seniors should stay in their own homes. No one seems to doubt that that is the case. We want them to be there. It is more healthy for them; it creates a better situation vis-a-vis taxation and everything else. One of the major programs that the government has come up with that helps to keep seniors in their homes is the homemaker program. This homemaker program has been a bit of a football back and forth because of the numbers that have gone up and down. But the government is quite proud of the program, and they have indicated that they will continue with it. In fact, in a press release of February 7, 1986, the Minister of Health indicated that homemaker services are currently provided to nearly 29,000 British Columbians compared with 25,000 three years ago, and he continued to talk about the increases in that program, which provides practical aid such as cooking, laundry, housecleaning and shopping as well as assistance with personal needs such as bathing and grooming.

This service is generally recognized, as I said before, and has been recognized by the Home Support Association of British Columbia. Care at home maintains client independence and is the preferred mode of health care for the elderly and the disabled. It takes note that care at home offers considerable cost savings over institutional care. The Home Support Association of British Columbia said in a release of September 1986 that more than 40,000 elderly, handicapped, disabled and families in crisis currently receive home support service. Current projections indicate that the population group over 65 years will double by the year 2006. And in fact, the release urges the Premier to enlarge the portion of the health care pie for community-based home health care due to the rapidly escalating elderly population, which will ultimately result in a decreased need to construct hospital facilities and will result in long-term cost savings to the province.

Well, put all these things together, and you want to see how this home-care service is working to keep seniors in their homes. In fact, we've found that in another study that was completed in March of this year — just this very month — by the Home Support Association of British Columbia, of a survey that they took of seven member agencies in five regions in September 1986 they identified that the province saved more than $162 million over the year in 1986 by using home support services instead of institutionalizing the people they had identified as people who would be in these institutions if they were not staying at home. They found in fact that across the province there would be 2,080 people who should have personal care, were they not being attended by these home-care people. There were 4,230 people who would be in intermediate care 1; 2,013 in intermediate care 2; and 693 in intermediate care 3, and 979 of these seniors would be in extended-care facilities in institutional care were they not in their own homes. To extrapolate some of the figures, this is a saving of $15,600 for each of the seniors who are kept in their homes instead of being put into an institution. The question, Madam Speaker, is whether or not these seniors are going to be able to stay in their homes. They in fact are there, some of them, on an income which is not even reaching $700 a month. That's the minimum amount that anybody has, less than $700 a month — it's their Canada Pension Plan, plus their GIS, plus their GAIN payment. It's not very much money, but some people are staying in their homes and continuing to pay their taxes and to support themselves and to stay out of institutional care because they have owned their homes for a long time.

What I want to talk about today, Madam Speaker, is a situation that exists in the town of Sparwood. This town is fairly typical of a number of small towns in British Columbia because it is a small town with no transit system, it is a small town with no postal delivery, it sometimes has taxi service, it hasn't many apartment buildings and none with any elevators in them — which means that seniors find that they are limited to the amount of apartment space they can take. Within the town of Sparwood there are approximately 60 clients in the home-care service organization. Fifteen of them live in an apartment building that has been set aside for seniors, and that's approximately it for apartment accommodation, so we could probably safely say there are about 40 of those people living in their own homes in Sparwood, and that's about 1 percent of the population.

Now the serious problem of seniors, as we all know, is poverty. It's the most serious problem that our seniors face, and you can see any number of figures that support that. These seniors have been asking for more home-care services, and I say this not to stress the fact of the home-care service shortage right now — except for the fact of knowing it's there — but the fact that the minister and various other members of the government side have said that $12 a month for a $100 payment of taxes is not much. Well, that doesn't seem to be so, according to the kinds of petitions that I have here, Madam Speaker, that I have to present a little later this week. There are letters from all of these people and I'd like to put a couple of these in....

"I am a 67-year-old widow with arthritis that affects my back and shoulders. I depend on the homemaker service to help me out in keeping my house clean. I'm very disappointed that the yard work was cut from the program, because it's the one thing that's getting too hard for me to do. It's fine to say I could move to an apartment and leave the house. I thought of that since my husband passed away two and a half years ago. But this has become a depressed area and houses don't sell, so what am I to do?"

Madam Speaker, those kinds of things go on. All these people who were in their own houses. This one says: "I'm older and have bad legs. I have been cut to two hours a week.... If I could get my 15 hours a month and yard boy back I would be happy. I can't afford to pay for yard work with what I get. I just make ends meet and still pay the mortgage on my home." There are various people who go through talking about the kinds of problems they're having with home-care service that is now cut down to only doing laundry every other week perhaps once a month — doing vacuuming once every three weeks perhaps. As one woman says, her living room doesn't get vacuumed except once every three weeks or every month, and she spends all her time there. The fridge is cleaned about once in three months, they don't wash walls, they don't wash windows, they don't iron and they don't clean ovens unless they're a fire hazard.

This kind of service, which is the way it is for whatever reasons that we want to talk about, is a major problem for

[ Page 292 ]

seniors. There are not just single seniors, although certainly there are some more serious problems with single seniors, but there are couples. Sometimes one of them is a client of the homemaker service; sometimes both of them are. They give quotations like: "We find the cut in service almost impossible to cope with." Well, this is, as I say, a matter of a petition by the people in Sparwood who are living in that situation. They indicate very clearly that there is no possible way that they're going to be able to raise $12 a month more. They don't have very many choices. I don't know what they're going to do.

Some of them can't get to their therapy anymore because they can't have enough hours with their home-care worker. Besides that, now they would have to pay an extra $5 for some of the therapy that they've been ordered to have. Now I'll grant you that some of it would be in hospital in Sparwood, but some of it is not; some of it has to be taken at the regional hospital, which is 75 miles away.

So these people will not be able to stay in their homes if we put an added burden onto them. As I say, they live in these areas with no buses, no postal delivery, and all of those things that I mentioned before. They are going to have another burden, and that is that they will be put on waiting-lists to get into intermediate care. There is no intermediate care; there's no facility open right now that they could get into. They are sitting there right now with very few apartments, a long waiting-list for intermediate care, the homemaker service reduced, and all of these things that have been put on with the budget that has just been brought down.

With all of these added burdens on these senior citizens, even $100 in a full year will create stress, will create hardship. I think that under the circumstances there is no possible way that we should be putting that $100 onto the backs of the senior citizens and pushing them out of their homes and putting them into our already overstressed intermediate-care facilities — if there is room for them to be there. I would definitely support the amendment, Madam Speaker.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in the House today. Firstly, may I take the opportunity to offer my congratulations to the Speaker, and certainly to the Premier, and of course to all the elected representatives within this assembly. May I also congratulate the Deputy Speaker on his appointment. If I may, I would like to provide a few statements before getting into the budget about the district that I represent, my constituency, namely the municipality of Delta. Since this is my maiden speech, it's the first time I've had the opportunity to rise in this House and talk a little bit about the district.

I might say that the first settlers in Delta were known as the Tsawwassen Indians, and that is a band of the Coast Salish. Tsawwassen at one time was an island. Many years ago the Indians of Tsawwassen used to traverse the water up the Fraser River to an area where the present Alex Fraser Bridge is constructed. Midden dug from remains show that this was several hundred years ago.

The village of Ladner was first settled by two brothers who had returned from the Cariboo gold rush of 1858. Thomas and William Ladner arrived in the district in 1868. They saw the potential for agriculture, and each pre-empted 160 acres for farming. By 1879 Ladner had been staked out and granted municipal status. A number of crops were grown by those two first settlers. They started out with grain and grasses, converting to hay to feed animals. As the years progressed through the later 1800s, many more residents would come to settle in Delta, most of them being farmers. Following the farmers came a number of fishermen and business people. From those early days Delta has grown to become a much-sought-after location for people to establish their homes and, certainly, to raise their families. The municipality encompasses a total area of some 18,677 acres; of these....

MR. BLENCOE: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I recognize this may be the first time the minister has spoken, an inaugural speech, but I would draw to the attention of the Chair that we are speaking to the amendment proposed by the member for New Westminster. I would like to bring that to the attention of the Chair.

[3:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. The second member for Victoria has some experience in this House and, no doubt, has been listening. He should realize that some latitude is allowed for new members during budget and throne speeches. I'll draw to the member's attention the fact that the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) spoke at some length on home care and intermediate care, neither of which are included in the amendment. Some latitude was allowed that member. I would submit, Your Honour, that the same latitude will be allowed the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The point of order is well taken. The latitude was allowed. The member will be allowed to continue with his speech.

MR. BLENCOE: On a further point of order, the House Leader for the government makes a point that the member for Kootenay spoke on issues that relate to senior citizens. I would put it to the Chair that the minister is not speaking to issues relating to seniors at all. The amendment is extremely important to this side of the House, and we want the government to speak to seniors and defend their policies for seniors.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The amendment is specific. If the member wants a lecture on relevancy, I'll give him one. But it says: "...tax increases...Pharmacare dispensing fees and user fees for each visit to physiotherapists, chiropractors and podiatrists...." There is nothing about home care and nothing about intermediate care, which the member for Kootenay, well-intended, addressed totally in her remarks.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: A great deal of latitude has been allowed in both the throne and the budget speech. I'm going to ask the minister to continue with his speech.

MR. ROSE: I wonder if I could rise on the same point of order. I think the rules of relevancy and standing order 43 can be applied either with some degree of generosity or very rigorously, as we did with the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). I understand that this is the Minister of Agriculture's maiden speech in the House, and I think we should accord him the courtesy of that maiden speech and allow him to continue, admitting full well that according to the narrow guidelines alluded to by my honourable friend, the second

[ Page 293 ]

member for Victoria, he is out of order, but with unanimous consent we can all be out of order at any time in this House.

MR. REE: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The amendment is in addition to the original motion, not a change of the original motion. If one is speaking on the original motion, they would then be both speaking against possibly the amendment as such. To speak on the original motion without specific reference to the amendment during the budget speech debate — which we are on, Madam Member; under the standing orders we are still on the budget speech debate with this amendment added in.... Speaking on the budget speech would not be out of order.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: The municipality encompasses a total area of 18,677 acres. Of these acreages, agriculture represents the major use, comprising 7,916 acres, or 42 percent of the total area of the municipality of Delta.

The district is made up of three distinct communities, namely Ladner, Tsawwassen and North Delta.

Delta's economic and population growth has been consistent with regional projections for the past two decades. This follows a phenomenal 17 percent growth rate that followed the opening of the George Massey Tunnel in 1959. Employment in Delta is approximately 20,000 people, with major concentrations in the service and manufacturing sectors. This figure is expected to increase by 50 percent by the turn of the century.

Delta is also the home of the massive Roberts Bank Superport. The port has been expanded recently and offers great potential for future shipments to areas such as the Pacific Rim. Delta is also the mainland terminus of the Vancouver-Victoria portion of the B.C. Ferry Corporation service. This routing has seen many people come through our municipality, some of whom, I might say, stop over to enjoy Delta on their way to or on their way back from the Vancouver Island area. This service also employs a number of Delta residents.

Madam Speaker, on a very important event that is happening in Delta this year, it is with great pride that the people of Delta host this year's B.C. Summer Games. The response from the communities within Delta has been nothing short of fantastic. There is a great deal of enthusiasm and commitment by the residents and the business sectors, who have all offered or volunteered their time to make sure that we are in fact superhosts in Delta for the B.C. Summer Games. May I say, Madam Speaker, that I will commit every effort possible on behalf of those people and the constituents of Delta to ensure these games are a success.

I am very pleased and proud to be part of this thirty-fourth parliament of British Columbia. I wish to thank the electorate of Delta for the faith extended to me to serve on their behalf in this government. We as the representatives of the people of this great province are charged with the responsibility of providing good, sound government on their behalf.

We must always deal with the concerns of the people in an honest and credible way. The goal of this government should be in every way possible to enhance and to work towards better opportunities for ourselves, our families and our own futures.

The throne speech delivered on opening day, March 9, clearly identifies the commitment to a fresh start. We have promised open and accessible government, and I am proud to be part of that promise. The fact that the Premier has committed his government to being open and frank bodes well for the future of all British Columbia's residents.

It has been said many times, but bears repeating, that the people in this province are in fact our single greatest resource. I know that my colleagues are willing to give their utmost to ensure a good future for all of us.

I would like to say a few words about my portfolio, namely Agriculture and Fisheries. I am very pleased and delighted to serve as the minister responsible for this portfolio. The opportunities that have been extended to my family through four generations of farming in Delta — which, incidentally, goes back over 100 years — have been immense and rewarding. Through my years of active involvement in many producer and farm organizations, I have been afforded the opportunity to learn at first hand some of the problems that are faced by not only British Columbia's farmers but also those across the country and around this world. I fully appreciate the work that has to be done on their behalf. Farmers in British Columbia have faced difficult times in the past, but probably none so severe as what they are facing today. I think the opposition leader recognized that Tuesday.

If I may refer to the grain sector, which is having the most difficulty at this time, we have seen many families put under severe financial and social stress because of the world trade war on the grain sectors. Marketing policies from outside forces — and I underline outside forces — have caused grain prices to tumble in real dollars to a level equal to that of the 1930s. Compounding these low market prices has been an indebtedness problem faced by producers who borrowed capital when interest rates climbed in the early 1980s.

Another serious blow was declining land values that substantially reduced asset values. In the Peace River area of B.C., the ability of the farmers to have a positive impact on the economy is certainly very limited.

Madam Speaker, I feel it is far more important to target funding to the areas of greatest need for the province's farmers. I want to achieve fair and equitable treatment from the federal government on programs that are offered to other provinces. I feel it is only right that when we share in revenues from Ottawa, we should be dealt fairly and equitably in the return of those dollars.

It is also very important to recognize the role agriculture plays in the economy of this province. We employ over 34,000 people directly in the primary resource, and when you get to the end of the line at the food store or the counters of the restaurants, it adds up to 172,000 people. It is a very large contributor to the employment sector. The farmgate value of British Columbia-produced products — and I say farmgate value; that's directly off the farm — amounts to over $1 billion.

Another important part of my portfolio is that of fisheries. The importance of this sector is not often referred to, but it does play a major role in employment as an economic generator. Fisheries employ approximately 25,000 people directly and another 25,000 people indirectly in associated industry and business. The value of the fisheries sector exceeds for all added values $725 million.

There is also a great potential for growth in the relatively new venture on the B.C. coast, and that is aquaculture. There is potential for this sector to expand relatively quickly and also to be a positive economic generator, but in this expansion we must never lose sight of the fact that we must keep an ever-

[ Page 294 ]

watchful eye on how we establish these aquaculture operations as they relate to the other sectors.

Madam Speaker, it is often taken for granted that one should never lose sight of the fact — and I underline this statement — that food is the energy of life. It is not very often thought of, but that is the case. Without a plentiful supply of nutritious food, it is not possible to live a healthy life.

In speaking in favour of the provincial budget presented by our Minister of Finance, I believe that a number of new initiatives have been well thought out by the minister and his staff. I would like to congratulate him for his untiring efforts. I strongly support the commitment to reduce the deficit.

In addressing this problem, we will be able to support more programs for people, rather than money being used to pay the interest costs of our indebtedness. It is with this positive, optimistic look ahead by our Finance minister that we as British Columbians will have a greater future.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I look forward as one of the members of this Legislative Assembly to working on behalf of all British Columbians.

MR. BLENCOE: Madam Speaker, the reason we put the amendment forward I think is well-founded. Our deep concern is that the implications of this budget, and particularly the areas outlined in the amendment, are going to have a dramatic impact upon our senior citizens in the province of British Columbia.

One of my concerns is that there was no indication by the government during the election as to what they were going to do to the senior citizens of British Columbia. Once again this government, this party, decided not to tell the people of British Columbia they were going to impose dramatic tax changes, user fees on our seniors in British Columbia. They were not candid with the seniors of British Columbia. That is grossly unfair, grossly unfair.

The seniors of British Columbia, I know in my riding, have been consistently hit by all sorts of increases. Every time, for instance, there is an improvement in their federal pensions, their daily rates in their long-term care facilities are increased. When they start to get ahead, just start to get ahead, what happens to them? A budget comes in that dramatically increases the charges upon them.

[3:45]

You know, Madam Speaker, one of the things that is starting to happen — not starting to happen; it is happening in the province of British Columbia — is a basic lack of belief in what governments are telling people. I tell you, there's a deep cynicism in our seniors population when governments refuse to be honest with people about what they're going to do. During the campaign the Premier and this government, members running for the Social Credit Party, did not tell people what they were going to do: "No, we won't raise taxes; we won't impact upon user fees." The Minister of Finance said he didn't expect any increases at all. But what happens under this so-called "fresh start"? Well, within a matter of months it's the old system back in place again. Those who have the least ability to pay for the financial incompetence of this government over the last ten years are going to pay for that incompetence. Boy, are they going to pay!

The 75 percent on Pharmacare is $22 million out of our senior citizens to eliminate the deficit, to eliminate the gross mistakes of this government over the last ten years — on the backs of our senior citizens. That's deplorable, shameful, and we cannot accept that on this side of the House, Madam Speaker. Those citizens, those seniors, have the least ability to pay for these increases. And I can tell you.... I'm sure you've heard from those senior citizens, and they're asking: "What did we do wrong? Why are the Finance minister and the Premier of this province, who promised a fresh start, making us pay for their mistakes? Why are they doing it? What did we do to deserve such treatment? What did, we do to see our Pharmacare dramatically impacted upon? What did we do to deserve an increase in property taxes? What did we do to deserve a user fee on chiropractic and physiotherapy services? What did we do so wrong, as citizens of British Columbia and Canada?" They're proud citizens, Madam Speaker, who have served this province in many respects, in many professions and in many institutions, and they deserve, at the end of their days, some respect and some understanding for their financial predicament. They're asking today, once again, what they did wrong, that they must pay for the Social Credit deficit and financial mismanagement over the last ten years.

It's going to come right out of their pockets. Personal income tax is up 9 percent for the average senior citizen, and for those with high incomes, about 3 percent — on the backs of senior citizens. This is very reminiscent of the Mulroney government that wanted to de-index senior citizens' pensions in this country. This budget is the equivalent of that Mulroney move, and boy, did that bring hostile rebuke from the seniors of this country — and deservedly so. You are going to get your just deserts in terms of the hostility of the senior citizens of British Columbia, when you try to pay for your incompetence on their backs.

There are 160,000 senior citizens in the province of British Columbia who are below the poverty line. Thousands and thousands more, Madam Speaker, are just making it, just getting by, just able to stay in their homes. And now you up their real property taxes from $1 to $100. They struggle; they try to keep their homes intact; they try to participate; they try to understand why a government would do this to them, when food and housing costs are going up and their SAFER or shelter allowance hasn't been increased — no mention in the budget, no increase at all. It's totally unacceptable.

When you take a look at the budget in terms of the cuts for those on high income — the surcharge eliminated — what do you think those senior citizens must think? It entrenches the cynicism that this government and other conservative, rightwing governments don't care about senior citizens. Twenty-two million dollars just on Pharmacare increases — right out of the pockets of our elderly and our old folk. That's right, that's what you're doing — $22 million right out of their pockets.

In my riding in the greater Victoria area, there are 42,000 senior citizens; that's 16 percent of the population. In the riding of Victoria, approximately 19 percent or over are senior citizens. Over 10,000 of those seniors living in greater Victoria are below the poverty line, and what are you doing to them? You're raising all these user fees; you're hitting them right where it hurts. Governments are measured by how they treat those less fortunate or those on lower income or those on fixed income. They are measured on how they treat those people in our society.

I can only say that those senior citizens are asking why you didn't tell them. Why weren't you honest with them? Why didn't you tell the people of British Columbia that you were going to pay for your fiscal incompetency on the backs of senior citizens? Why didn't you tell us that? Because, like

[ Page 295 ]

the Bennett regime, this government didn't have the guts to be honest with the people of British Columbia — no guts at all. Now we have the result — 160,000 senior citizens below the poverty line in the province of British Columbia.

We asked the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) to table the studies showing the impact on senior citizens in the areas that we are concerned about in the amendment. Have we seen the studies? Have we seen the analysis of what this will do to our seniors? Of course we haven't; there are no studies. It is a blind government that is desperate to make up for its gross mistakes, and they are not going to take on those in the high income level who should be paying a far greater amount of money to the people of British Columbia, and they hurt those who have the least ability to fight back.

It's a sad, sad day again in the province when we have a budget that is grossly unfair to our seniors. We ask this government to reconsider its position, to think very clearly about what it's doing to the senior citizens and to think about the impact of what those seniors are thinking. "Why to us?" Why pay for your problems at their expense? No, we can't accept this. I certainly can't accept it in this great city of Victoria. I've talked to many over the last few days who are really deeply offended and hurt and feel betrayed once again, betrayed by a Social Credit government that wouldn't tell what they were going to do. Pharmacare hurt dramatically — $22 million; user fees on chiropractors and physiotherapists.

We once again ask this government in its wisdom to reconsider its position, to think about those senior citizens, most of whom have contributed to this province, who have worked for this province, who have been part of the fabric of our communities — an important fabric, an important part — and allow them to live in a high degree of decency, to be able to pay for things that make life a little more enjoyable. Huge increases for our senior citizens, and we say on this side of the House that it's shameful. This House should unanimously endorse this amendment and say to the seniors of British Columbia that they have a place, a decent place, in our province, in our communities.

MR. HEWITT: Madam Speaker, for the benefit of those who are new in the House, if you check Hansard you'll find that after every budget speech, every motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair always has an amendment put forward by the opposition. This is nothing unique. However, in dealing with the motion, I think it's fair to say that any government, any party in office as government, recognizes the contribution that seniors have made to this province, and any politician understands that there are those who are less fortunate who must be looked after by government, and that social programs should be structured to assist those in need.

It's true that the budget addresses a few programs, and the opposition of course identifies those and says: "This is a terrible thing that you've done in loading down the senior citizens and increasing taxes such as the senior citizens' minimum tax on property and the Pharmacare user fee." But we've got to think of the rationale behind providing social services to people — to those in need. I think the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) talks about 160,000 people below the poverty line. I won't question those figures; I assume he's done his research and they are correct. But the social programs available — many of them put in place by this government — address that question and ensure that those people who are in need are given proper assistance. And the federal government does the same thing.

[4:00]

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

In the time that I was sitting here getting ready to speak on this motion and speak against it, I started to look at a number of the programs available. We all know that seniors have the old age pension. We know that those who don't have any other income then receive the guaranteed income supplement from the federal government. We also know that this government put into place the GAIN program — guaranteed assistance for individuals in need, I think, is what the letters stand for — which provides an amount of money each month to allow them a reasonable standard of living.

We also addressed those people who wanted to stay in their own apartments. I think the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) stated that seniors should be able to stay in their own homes, and that's quite true. That's why we brought in the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters; it's why we put into place a few years ago the opportunity for those who own their own homes to stay in their homes by deferring the property tax on their properties, so those who are going to pay a minimum of $100 and stay in their own home have the ability to defer the cost so it doesn't take food out of their mouths or it doesn't reduce their standard of living if they wish to go that way.

The Pharmacare program has been addressed, and addressed very well I think, by the minister responsible, in that those who are under the GAIN program will be reimbursed the amount of money they contribute toward Pharmacare in the form of the user fee — the $125 would go to them. So I don't see that as loading on the backs of the individual senior citizen.

We have the transit fares for seniors in which we recognize that we want to give our seniors the opportunity to be able move freely throughout the communities, so we give them assistance and allow them to move on our transportation systems.

We have provided, of course, subsidized housing for seniors in this province. I think our record is probably second to none. We have the federal government under CMHC and the provincial government with a program that says that you can live in these government-funded apartments and I think you pay only up to 25 percent of your income. The homeowner grant we've identified to $680 for seniors, which is $300 more, I think, than for anybody under age 65. That's to give them assistance and allow them to stay in their own homes. All we've done is raise the minimum from $1 to $100.

We also recognized that we wanted the seniors to have mobility, and as a result we gave them a reduction in automobile insurance — not that party when it was in power, but this government — to allow our seniors to be mobile and to operate their own cars as long as they're able to.

So, Mr. Speaker, the amendment, which talks about making an effort to reduce the provincial debt by loading dramatic property tax increases on the backs of the elderly, is incorrect and wrong. The imposing of the Pharmacare dispensing fees is incorrect and wrong, because the money is refunded for those who are truly in need. Those seniors who, through hard work and good investments, etc., have sufficient in their old age to live above the limits required for GAIN assistance are, I'm quite confident, not crying that they've been loaded down with additional taxes, because I

[ Page 296 ]

think that as they've done in their youth they will do in their advanced years. They're pleased and proud and want to be part of the community and want to be part of those of us who are able to pay into government coffers in order that public services, people services, are maintained in health and in education and in social assistance.

So I think that the amendment is the normal amendment — well, I don't think; I know — that the opposition puts forward.

Interjection.

MR. HEWITT: Well, the reason, Mr. Member, is that the seniors you quote all the time are the ones that you enjoy stirring up, because you just want to make sure that everybody knows that this is a terrible thing that is being done by the government of this province. But you see, I've been now into my fourth session in this House, and the same motion comes up. And it's amazing, you know; every time an election comes up it seems that we win. Now that must tell the opposition something. I think it probably tells them that there are a lot of seniors out there who just don't accept some of the comments that are made by the opposition, because they recognize we all have responsibilities in our society in British Columbia.

One last thing that I think seniors as well as the rest of us recognize is that we cannot continually go further and further into debt as a province. I was just looking into the budget, and I find that when we addressed the question of the budget and the cost, the debt-servicing estimated for 1987-88 is $530 million. It's costing us.... Mr. Speaker, that's up substantially from previous years, and we recognize there is a need to run at a deficit when the economy can't afford to pay the way, because we also recognize there is a need to provide people services in health, in education and in social assistance. The seniors of this province also recognize there is a need for the government to collect taxes to cover these costs, and also the government must be prepared to run at a deficit. I'm confident that the seniors, come the next election, will do the same as they have done in previous elections: that is, keep those people out of office, because they'll only bankrupt this province. I vote against this motion.

MR. G. HANSON: The amendment states that this House regrets that in the opinion of this House the hon. Minister of Finance has sought to reduce the provincial deficit by loading dramatic property tax increases on the backs of the elderly by imposing Pharmacare dispensing fees and user fees for each visit to physiotherapists, chiropractors and podiatrists, thereby threatening the basic universality principle of medicare.

There are many other things that could have been included in that motion, about the increase of property tax. It's fine and dandy, you know, for that member for Boundary Similkameen to talk about seniors having no difficulty at all paying that additional $100 per annum in property tax. But you know there is a long-standing tradition in this province that that particular $1 in addition to the home owner grant was really saying to the seniors of this province: "You have paid your income taxes over the years, you have paid your property taxes, you have made your contribution, and in recognition of that we symbolically take $1 from you, and we appreciate the effort you have made on behalf of the citizens of this province." Because, you know, it's not just the $100 — and that $100 is onerous. Seventy-one percent of all the seniors in Canada live below the poverty line. The retirement community of Victoria — and it is a retirement community.... The studies that have been done at the University of Victoria indicate that one-quarter of all of the seniors here in the city of Victoria live below the poverty line. Largely they are unattached women, over the age of 65. More often than not they do have their own homes; they perhaps don't have a mortgage. But you know, the costs of living on this island, to heat their homes, to feed themselves, to look after their health needs, and so on, on the modest federal pension.... Is not a lot of money.

The Minister of Finance the other day said it’s just another $8 a month — you know, chicken feed. To people that are coming into our community office for help, many not feeding themselves adequately and not caring for themselves adequately, this is a burden to their basic subsistence.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, that is not mentioned in the rationale for this tax increase.... We hear from the other side: where's the money coming from? Everybody's got to pull their weight in retiring the deficit. The seniors of British Columbia and the seniors of my community are being asked to pay for the idiotic economic decisions that have been made over the last few years. The question is always posed: where's the money coming from? If they hadn't been so actively dumping all the tax dollars into holes in northeast coal, the seniors of this province wouldn't be asked to pick up this tab.

One beacon in health care used to exist here in the city of Victoria; it was called the James Bay Health Centre and Community Resources Board. That's been changed. They still function under a society. But they never received the support from this government after the change of government, and gradually the present Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) in her previous portfolio rescinded the legislation and took away the health and human resource board. But we learned a lot of things about seniors and their needs here in the city of Victoria.

We learned from the doctors that one of the most serious things facing seniors here was loneliness — loneliness and its medical complications. People didn't look after themselves in terms of nutrition. Sometimes they found themselves, because of loneliness, overmedicated. There are various kinds of social implications to being alienated and isolated in the community. What the health and human resource board did, rather than just acting as a physician, was deal also in conjunction with social workers and people that were looking at their life, not just whether they had a sore foot or they had arthritis or they had a cataract or whether they had some medical difficulty.

Those doctors said: "Mr. or Mrs. Retired Person, what is your situation? Where do you live? What is your income? What is your life circumstance? Do you have surviving children?" What they were able to do was connect these seniors into the resource board network. So people started being grandparents to children that didn't have grandparents. They started being active in their own organizations. They started being active in their own political organizations. Do you know, the James Bay New Horizons Society and the Community Resources Board were among the vanguard in leading the fight when Mulroney tried to de-index their pensions and take away their future income. Do you know, that member for Boundary-Similkameen tried to suggest in this House that it was the opposition that was stirring up the seniors. Mr.

[ Page 297 ]

Speaker, the seniors in this province can think for themselves, and they're not happy with what the government is doing to them.

We've had earlier today discussions about fairness: fairness in access to health care, fairness in access to services entitlements. Mr. Speaker, when you put user fees on therapeutic services, such as chiropractic, massage therapy, podiatry, and so on, things that can help people be functional in their own homes, help them to be more mobile, help them to function in a way that they want to.... What has this government got against the aging process anyway? We're all on this glacier. We're all moving along. What has the Socred government got against the aging process?

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: If it wasn't so tragic, it would be humorous.

For a government to scapegoat seniors, to scapegoat the most disadvantaged in our society as a group, is really just about the most bullying tactic that I can imagine.

[4:15]

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: What absolute rubbish!

MR. G. HANSON: I invite the Minister of Municipal Affairs to meet with me and the seniors' organizations and defend these fee increases around the city of Victoria. We will go and visit the various organizations here in the city of Victoria, and we'll hold hearings and let that minister be aware of the feelings and the needs. What this government....

Interjections.

MR. G. HANSON: You know, Mr. Speaker, election after election we see the pattern. The pattern is fluff and puff and pink balloons before the election, and a hammer after the election. They think it's funny but, you know, the doctors who are phoning the MLAs now — and they're phoning them no matter what party they represent in this House — are saying that those fees, even if they're $5, are an obstacle to a large percentage of their clientele, their patients, and that when you take that $5 fee it discourages a person from seeking the help they need. What happens — this is the false economy of it — is that rather than a person feeling that they are entitled to go 12 or 13 times a year for a particular service, they don't go. You know what happens, Mr. Speaker? They end up in an acute-care bed in the hospital at a cost of $300 or $400, when they could have gone and had a regular therapeutic treatment that would have kept them out of that institution. What kind of false economy is that?

On this side of the House we support preventive medicine. We support making the dollar work in the best possible way, and the services being provided. When you deny a person a service because of an obstacle such as a user fee, we pay as a society. We pay because our acute-care beds will fill up with people who could have been in their own homes, functional and mobile, but because they didn't get help, they're ending up at high cost in an acute-care bed. So I'm wondering, Mr. Speaker, why the seniors in this province are having to suffer because of the bad economic decisions that were previously made and continue to be made by this government.

I've also pointed out that I think the seniors recognize that this budget is just the start of tapping that revenue. That's the way it's seen by the Minister of Finance. It's gone from $1 to $100. Next budget or the budget after that we just may see $150. We may see half of the homeowner grant; we may see that just continue to increase, and seniors recognize that.

Mr. Speaker, it would be wise of the government to reconsider this and to withdraw this from the budget. They would have the consent of this side of the House if they would withdraw those fees immediately from the budget, and then we could expedite the bills that would be necessary to put people to work in this province and do more productive things.

Mr. Speaker, I've indicated that 75 percent of women over the age of 65 have an income of less than $8,000 a year. Did all members of the House hear that statistic? I'd like all members to reflect upon that: 75 percent of all women over the age of 65 have an income of less than $8,000 per year. And the emphasis of the Minister of Finance was to increase the income tax of people whose income is under $10,000 a year by approximately 8.5 percent — I think it's 8.4 percent. Why take from the poorest? Why take from those who don't have an income, who are less able to protect themselves?

You know, it was incredible when I heard the comment the other day about the reason for the tax breaks being given to the wealthy and to the higher incomes — because that was the brain drain. What an absurd notion! You tax those who are able to pay; that's what a graduated income tax is all about. It's a fair tax; the percentage increases as the income increases. This is just the reverse. This is the reverse of Robin Hood; it's Robin Hood on his head.

Mr. Speaker, I know talking to this government is really like talking to a stump. I've been around long enough to know that, because the government does not take the suggestions made in this House seriously, and modify their proposals. I think we can show very clearly that these user fees for medical services, the income tax on low incomes and the added property tax are a severe impost on those who have the least income, so it's grossly unfair We can demonstrate it empirically. We can demonstrate it with force of argument, with studies, so will you listen?

I extend the invitation to the Minister of Municipal Affairs to come with me to the seniors' groups around the city of Victoria and we will listen to the people there about their concerns, and if the concerns that come forward support her budget, if they support those fees and support the additional property tax and support the higher charges, then I will certainly...

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: Will you resign?

MR. G. HANSON: ...withdraw my remarks. I will apologize to her. But if the seniors want those withdrawn, would she resign? So the invitation is there.

We know from medical services utilization in British Columbia, by age of patient and by sex of patient from 1984 to 1985, that as people get older they use the medical services more often. We all know that. As I had indicated, as age increases utilization of the medical services increases and there are all sorts of reports to indicate that. So why would the government want to single out seniors and ask them to come forward with funds that they don't have because they're in the poverty groups by population? Why would they do that?

[ Page 298 ]

The only conclusion that I can reach is that the decisions such as northeast coal, the expenditures around the megaprojects, their restraint program which continues to paralyze the economy in terms of not having a consumer-led recovery here in the province of British Columbia.... We seem to be in this economic back eddy where people don't have the confidence to get into big-ticket items, to feel good about their future, to spend money, to feel secure. It appears to me that this budget is just another version of taxing those who can't afford it, allowing those who have funds special privilege in our society; and in the end the low- and middle-income people who continue to work pay the burden because in the long run these seniors will be in hospitals more frequently than they would ordinarily. They will be more stressed, and why should that be done?

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great honour to rise and speak in opposition to the amendment. I would like to read a portion of the amendment: "...the Hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations has sought to reduce the provincial deficit by loading dramatic property tax increases on the backs of the elderly and by imposing Pharmacare dispensing fees and user fees for each visit...."

Let's take a look at this in perspective. First of all there are approximately 355,000 seniors in British Columbia. The total of the 1987-88 budget for services to seniors is estimated at $1.3 billion. I'm going to go through some of the programs to bring this matter into perspective.

First of all we have the GAIN program for senior supplements. This provides a guaranteed minimum income to those seniors in receipt of the federal government's old age security, guaranteed income supplement and spouse's allowance. The 1987-88 budget amounts to $21.2 million for this program. There are estimated to be 45,000 participants; the benefit per participant is $471. Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters provides assistance to offset rental costs to old age security recipients living in rental accommodation — in the current budget, $7.4 million; estimated participants, 9,000; the benefit per participant is $822. Bus pass program: provides subsidized bus passes to help and encourage the mobility of eligible low-income senior citizens and recipients of GAIN for the Handicapped benefits. Again the current budget, 1987-88, $6.9 million; estimated participants, 33,000; benefit per participant, $209.

Pharmacare provides prescription drugs to senior citizens, residents of long-term care facilities and income assistance recipients. Seniors are now required to pay 75 percent of the dispensing fee. The average of that 75 percent will amount to $5 per person per prescription, up to a total annual deductible amount of $125. The 1987-88 budget is $98.5 million for Pharmacare; estimated participants, 310,000 — a very high percentage of the seniors in British Columbia; the benefit per participant is $318.

Senior housing. The government encourages the provision of housing for senior citizens through locally sponsored non-profit societies and private sector participation. The 1987-88 budget amount is $1.5 million; an estimated 10,000 participants; benefit per participant, $150. The land tax deferment program enables elderly citizens, widows, widowers and certain handicapped persons to defer property taxes on their ordinary place of residence; estimated participants, 3,000.

[4:30]

Now let's look at the health programs. These are all allied to our senior citizens. While senior citizens constitute only 12 percent of British Columbia's population, it is estimated that approximately 37 percent of the total health budget in 1987-88 will be spent on seniors. The acute-care bed utilization is 40 percent for seniors. The estimated cost for that is $531 million. Extended care: 85 percent for seniors, estimated cost $221 million. Continuing care: 85 percent for seniors; estimated cost, $272 million. Medical Services Plan: 20 percent utilization by seniors; estimated cost, $108 million. Emergency health services: 40 percent utilization by seniors; estimated cost, $22 million. Mental health: 15 percent utilization by seniors; estimated cost, $18 million. The total of this for the 1987-88 budget is $1.172 billion. The average benefit per participant is $3,301.

What I'm trying to do is get everything into perspective. We've mentioned, in the motion that I'm speaking in opposition to, a dramatic reduction. We have a total budget of $10.2 billion. We have a deficit of $850 million. What we are looking for is a differential of $321 million that we're saving over the deficit of last year. The change in property tax from $1 to $100 is deemed to affect 60,000 homeowners. This particular tax will account for $6 million in additional revenue to the province.

The seniors' Pharmacare dispensing fee. I think it's long been recognized by all people that things that are given for nothing are often not truly appreciated and often abused — abused not simply by the consumer but also by those who dispense the service. In our medical health services we have a very explosive type of budget. Over the last five years there's been an approximately 20 percent per year increase in Pharmacare costs. What we have to face and recognize is that we can't maintain this level of participation. We're all aware of what is going to occur by the year 2000, when the baby boomers reach senior citizen age. What we have to do is convey more responsibility to the consumer. I believe that the budget, as presented, is going to do precisely that. It will convey a very small percentage of responsibility to consumers, and I think their approach will be more responsible.

We do have GAIN supplements, which we talked about, and they currently provide benefits for 43,000 seniors. These benefits will be increased by $125 per year for those currently receiving benefits, and an additional 5,000 seniors will qualify for some assistance.

Basically, user fees are very similar in nature. As a matter of fact, I differ from the federal position and frankly believe that user fees throughout the medical health services would be an admirable goal. I think that financial participation by the consumer encourages prudence. Presently, user fees for all people in British Columbia cost $15 million. This is the proposed cost of the 1987-88 budget — they would return approximately $15 million to the province — and the elimination of the hospital tax reduces the cost by $40 million.

I think that what we have here is a recognition that our senior citizens, generally, are the people who worked hard to build this country. I don't dispute that. They have a richness in quality that is admirable and certainly a goal for our young people to aspire to reach. I know many seniors who live in their own homes. As a matter of fact, I believe only 9 percent of our senior citizens are in extended-care, personal-care or long-term care facilities. I know many of these people who have their own homes grow large gardens and even provide vegetables for their children. They're independent individuals whose cost of living — at least in Okanagan South — is

[ Page 299 ]

perhaps dramatically different from that in some of the more urban areas in the lower mainland. Nevertheless, I feel that they have pride; they have got to where they've reached by, basically, their own efforts — no guarantees; no securities. I think they have the ability, like the rest of us, to recognize that some requirement is there on their part to pay for part of the services I was talking about; and, the total cost, at $1.3 billion, is very, very high.

So I speak in opposition to the motion. I think that I've shown figures in perspective to substantiate my stand. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MILLER: Well, the debate so far has, I think, bogged down in a kind of dry recital of statistics relating to the plight of seniors, and some, I suppose, citing those statistics in evidence that they're really not that badly off and can afford these increases; I don't think that's the case. But I want to add a couple of dimensions to the debate about seniors.

I'll start by telling a story about a friend of mine in Prince Rupert who had celebrated his fiftieth wedding anniversary. He was a pretty healthy-looking guy. Of course I asked him: "What's the secret of this long successful marriage, and obviously your health?" He said: "We agreed a long time ago that we wouldn't argue. I would go outside if we were going to have an argument. You might say I've led kind of an outdoor life."

AN HON. MEMBER: Ha, ha.

MR. MILLER: I tried. I'm going to blame my colleague who gave me that joke. I may not have told it well enough for the opposite side to laugh — or maybe they don't have a sense of humour, I don't know — but I want to tie that in, first of all, to the whole subject of dealing with seniors. I perhaps feel a bit of discomfort, having been referred to by a very popular and astute political columnist in this city as a "young man," but I do find some difficulty in dealing with seniors as a group, in classifying a group of people in our society as "seniors." You're old. I know that I got in trouble in Prince Rupert when I was an alderman because I successfully brought in a motion that in effect gave seniors in that community free transportation on our bus system. A couple of those people came after me and really gave me heck for doing that. What they were saying was: "We don't need handouts." I think that that plays a large part in the thinking of seniors.

I just want to correct the first member for Boundary Similkameen (Mr. Hewitt). He talked about measures that were introduced into legislation allowing seniors to in effect defer their property taxes, first of all by pointing out that that legislation was brought in during the administration of 1972-75, and secondly by pointing out that it wasn't all that popular. The reason, I think, is that seniors tend to be a very individualistic group of people who have worked hard to get where they are, and they resent being singled out for handouts. They also believe in paying for value received. They don't believe in running up large debts or anything else. For that reason I suspect that probably at least some of them are swallowing these latest increases and saying: "Well, I'll just have to pay them." But that's unfortunate, because I don't think it's necessary.

There are some seniors, in particular an old gentleman whom I want to refer to in my constituency in Port Simpson who is well into his eighties and yet who every year takes a small boat across the Skeena River and runs a trap line. Here's a fellow who obviously doesn't worry about medicine, drugs, hospitals or anything else, because he is still active and full of life. But when we talk about all the statistics relating to seniors, I think it's worthwhile if we look at some of the realities. I was in a little store over here in James Bay — and I may be pointing in the wrong direction, but.... It's easy to get confused in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, as to which direction you're going. But nonetheless, I got in a lineup behind some people going through the check stand, and in front of me was an elderly woman who discovered when she had her purchases rung up that she didn't have enough money. I don't know how often many of us find ourselves in that position, but it's quite embarrassing. "Oh, I don't have enough money here." The lineup's behind you. People are muttering that they want to get out. And here's this elderly woman trying to pick out the purchases that she needed to have and trying to relate it to the amount of money she had. That's a reality; that's not a statistic. Maybe we forget that from time to time.

We're not, at least in my own mind, dealing with seniors — although I don't want to stray from the amendment — we're dealing with a group of people in our society who are generally in a certain income bracket. We're dealing with poverty and wealth. The question we are really asking ourselves, or the question this amendment strikes at, in my opinion, is whether it is fair and equitable to extract the additional amount of wealth out of the pockets of this particular group. You know, nothing could be clearer, despite the denials on the opposite side that they're not trying to reduce the deficit on the backs of seniors, than the comments of the first member for Boundary-Similkameen, who clearly tied his remarks to the fact that the cost of the deficit was some $500-odd million a year. Clearly that was his rationale for opposing the amendment: "We need the money, and we're going to have to take it out of the pockets of seniors."

Previous speakers in this House have chastised the opposition for not putting forward alternative ways in which wealth can be drawn out of our society for necessary government services. I think my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) very clearly spelled out how additional revenue could be raised in this province — quite a substantial amount of revenue — in terms of a kind of tax system that was equitable and that was fair. In putting forward his arguments, he used statistics that are irrefutable, and he showed quite clearly that there are people in this province who are very wealthy indeed and who do not pay very much in taxes.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

That's the argument that we're trying to make here, without much success, I'm afraid. It's not just an argument being put forward by the opposition; it's an argument being put forward by groups out there in British Columbia who may represent seniors — who have no particular axe to grind, who are comprised of people who obviously must be Social Crediters and NDPers and Liberals and Conservatives and who knows what else. They don't have an axe to grind, but they're trying to get the message across to this government. I guess if the amendment fails, the conclusion that we must come to is that the government has simply rejected the argument, and if that's the case we would think it would have to be based on some solid, substantial reasoning.

[ Page 300 ]

[4:45]

This afternoon we posed some questions in terms of the kinds of studies that have been done to substantiate the imposition of more fees on seniors. We asked specific questions: where are the studies? There was no answer. We can only conclude that the studies weren't done, so that the government in blind faith is saying: "We think the money is there; we've got to put in some deterrent fees; these people are using the medical services to too high a degree and these fees will not only deter them from that but will also sweeten up the coffers of the government and somehow bring down this $500 million cost to service the debt."

Certainly the revenue potential that exists in this province is far, far greater than is being considered by the government. In fact, if the revenue potential was fully tapped — and we hopefully will outline additional sources of revenue that can be used in this province — there would be enough money to bring down the rate of unemployment in this province, to implement a kind of industrial strategy that we need here to get rid of the long-term unemployment and to eventually get rid of that deficit. You know, this amendment says that you don't need to take more money from seniors; the money is available from other identifiable sources.

This amendment provides the opportunity to take a second look to show that the government has the capacity to change their position and cancel these extra impositions on senior citizens. I urge all members on the government side to consider that very, very carefully and vote in support of this amendment.

MR. CHALMERS: Madam Speaker, as one of the members for Okanagan South I am pleased to rise and speak in opposition to the amendment. I would like to begin by offering my congratulations to the Minister of Finance for the hard work and dedicated effort that he put into putting together the budget. I know the long hours that he spent, many evenings working very late, to put the budget together, and I commend him for that.

I'm particularly pleased with the emphasis on health, education, student assistance, social assistance and job training. I'm proud to be part of this Social Credit government. It's a government that cares about the people of this province. British Columbians have placed their trust in this party in all elections but one since 1952.

Interjection.

MR. CHALMERS: No, I don't think they're gullible. I wouldn't say that about the people of British Columbia, and I don't think you would either.

I'm confident that we will continue to win elections, because we have a caring and responsible government. This is a large province, a province with wonderful diversity of people and, as a result, a diversity of needs and concerns.

Locally, in the Okanagan, I have served for five terms on the economic development commission, and I served as president of the Kelowna Chamber of Commerce, so I speak with some experience when I say that it's often the people at the local level who are the ones most aware of the local issues. Our Social Credit government is listening to local governments. We are following through on the promise made in the throne speech to decentralize government. The budget reinforces this government's belief that smaller governments tend to be more efficient and cost-conscious than larger ones. As I have said before in this House, I firmly believe that less government is the best government.

The Premier's provincial-municipal conference on decentralization this past January was a positive step in that direction. Fifty-one proposals were presented and discussed with 400 local government representatives. This conference is an excellent example of this government's commitment to consultation. The government will continue to encourage participation by many groups and individuals and to determine direction. Both the provincial and local government representatives felt that changes are needed, and we will work together to develop a strategy for that change. A provincial-municipal joint committee was created, which will determine the issues for immediate legislative action during this session and examine proposals for future initiatives. I am pleased that we will be examining the role of local government at the provincial level. I am sure that there are areas of responsibility which should be transferred from the provincial level to municipalities and to regional districts. I'm confident that the provincial-municipal joint committee will come up with sound recommendations for change.

Cities such as Kelowna have been faced with increasing difficulty in obtaining liability insurance and meeting the high premiums being demanded by insurers. We will be working with the Union of B.C. Municipalities to pursue self-insurance options for the communities of this province, so the taxpayers are not burdened with the increasingly outrageous cost of liability insurance.

I firmly believe that by investing in our educational system we are investing in our future. Our government wants to ensure that our young people have the opportunity to acquire a top-quality education and to develop their individual potential to the fullest. A lot has been said in the House of late about the education system that we have. I had the opportunity just yesterday, Madam Speaker, to visit....

MR. BLENCOE: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, we in this House have put this amendment forward very seriously, and the government are treating it with contempt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BLENCOE: Contempt!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the point of order is well taken. I wonder if the member would speak to the amendment.

MR. CHALMERS: Then you're not prepared to talk about education today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Seniors.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. First of all, a point of order need not be argumentative; as a matter of fact, it shouldn't be. That's a comment made to the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe). Secondly, Madam Speaker, you will recall earlier this afternoon that there has been a lot of latitude allowed to members debating this amendment, including members of Her Majesty's official opposition.

[ Page 301 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, it was. So I think that same latitude should be allowed the second member for Okanagan South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Totally irrelevant.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, if you think that the member for Kootenay's (Ms. Edward's) speech was irrelevant, that's your opinion. I thought it was well intended, although it was totally outside the amendment. We have agreed to offer some latitude this afternoon, and I would ask that that latitude be continued.

MR. MILLER: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you state your point of order.

MR. MILLER: I think it was agreed by all in this House earlier that members giving their maiden speech were allowed a fair degree of latitude. As a new member myself, I believe that my comments were fairly restricted to the amendment, and I think that should apply to all speakers except those on their maiden speech.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair is trying to assist all members. Would the member please continue with his speech.

MR. CHALMERS: As I was saying, Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure yesterday to visit a school out in the Sooke area. I took part in the judging of a science fair that was held there yesterday, and I was pleased to watch some 100 young students very enthusiastically involved in what they were doing within the school system.

Interjection.

MR. CHALMERS: I need some direction, Madam Speaker.

Interjections.

MR. CHALMERS: All I can say is, if I ever catch on, they're in trouble.

Interjections.

MR. CHALMERS: Yes. Well, all of those people I met with yesterday will be seniors one day too. I was pleased indeed to see how the people within the school system were very positive about what they were doing. We've heard a lot of negative things said of late in this House by the members opposite about the education system. We've read some in the media that have not been too flattering to the system, but it's a pleasure to get out and to actually mingle with the people who are involved with it and talk to the schoolteachers, and to see how pleased and positive they are about what they're doing.

We're moving from an industrial age to an information age. This is an age of rapid technological change, and we must encourage new skills, with knowledge and ideas, in order to build a strong economic future for British Columbia.

Our educational system will be ready to meet the needs of tomorrow. Our province offers excellent public schools, independent schools, colleges, institutes, universities, a world-class distance education system and a variety of postsecondary institutions.

The variety and quality of programs and facilities available allow our children to pursue their educational goals for the future, whether they live in my constituency of Okanagan South or in Atlin.

MR. WILLIAMS: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the member please state his point of order.

MR. WILLIAMS: We have an amendment before the House dealing with seniors. The member is continuing to stray, and there has been considerable latitude, but it's excessive. Maybe the Speaker could advise the House in terms of this problem we have.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you state your point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: It's clear to me, Madam Speaker, that the member is speaking about schoolchildren, all of whom have grandparents who are seniors. That makes it relevant.

MR. BLENCOE: Point of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would you state your point of order, please.

MR. BLENCOE: My point of order, Madam Speaker, is that while we might be treating this lightly, and while we might be allowing a high degree of latitude, this amendment is put forth very seriously by the opposition. We are fighting for seniors in the province of British Columbia. That's what we're fighting for, and we want the government to defend its policies in terms of senior citizens. Madam Speaker, I ask you to bring this member to order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Your point of order is well taken, hon. member. I think the member for Okanagan South may not really understand what the amendment means.

MR. CHALMERS: I may not understand completely the process we're going through, and I would apologize to all if that's true; but I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that I understand one thing very well, and that is that this government does care about our seniors in this province. Many things are being done by this government and have been done by previous Social Credit governments and will continue to be done by the Social Credit government to care for those seniors. In my riding alone we have many, many seniors — and we have had for some time — who have continually over the years supported the Social Credit government, and will continue to do so many years from now. We will have no difficulty in supporting the policies of this government when it comes to seniors.

[5:00]

[ Page 302 ]

MR. CLARK: I am tempted to say, as my colleague from Coquitlam said, that it is hard to engage in intellectual debate with an unarmed man, but we'll try. It takes a while.

Madam Speaker, there are 350,000 senior citizens in British Columbia, and 160,000 live below the poverty line; 51 percent live below the poverty line in British Columbia. That fact in itself is really scandalous. But in my riding the seniors are really among the poorest in British Columbia — at least 50 percent of them are. In my riding we have one of the highest percentages of seniors in the province; that fact is not generally understood, because most of them live in their homes. They don't live in towers; they don't live in senior citizens' homes. They live in the homes that they purchased when they were younger; they still live there.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

As I traveled throughout the riding this weekend in particular, I talked to many of them who are fearful of the kind of impact that this budget will have on them. It really is that the government has singled out seniors to pay more than their share in terms of taxes, in terms of the burden that is being placed on them in this province. What has the government done? It has raised the minimum property tax for seniors 100 percent, a significant impact on those who are on a fixed income.

It has changed user fees for physiotherapists. It charges $5 now for physiotherapists and for chiropractors. Now surely $5 doesn't sound like much, but seniors go an average of five or ten times a year. That adds up to a significant amount over a year, and of course seniors are on fixed incomes. It really attacks those who can least afford it, and the government says that, well, they are giving a credit for people on GAIN. But of those 160,000 senior citizens who live below the poverty line, only 43,000 seniors are on GAIN, so that means there are 120,000 senior citizens in this province who live below the poverty line who are not getting any government assistance when it comes to dealing with these extra charges.

Look at some of the other statistics on seniors; they go on and on and on. Seventy-five percent of women over the age of 65 have an income of less than $8,000 a year. Many of the seniors, certainly in my riding, are single women who are older, who live in their own home, who try desperately to keep up their family home, and now this kind of tax could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I heard the stories over and over again this weekend, and I know the government is hearing them, because our phones are ringing off the hook — everybody on this side of the House. It is simply unacceptable, and I think the kind of thing that happened when the federal government attempted to erode the purchasing power of seniors is going to happen in this province again. It is going to happen this time, directed at that side.

The people on that side of the House say they plead poverty: they've got to bear their share, and seniors are happy to pay to reduce the deficit. We've heard from speaker after speaker after speaker that that's the reason they are charging fees for Pharmacare; that's the reason they are charging for physiotherapy and for chiropractic services; that's the reason they have to raise the property tax. It's because we can't afford it as a government that we have to pay for all of these services, and those are the people who have to pay.

But let's look. What did the same budget do? It dropped the tax on wealthy individuals that raised roughly $21 million. It dropped the tax on those most wealthy in British Columbia, and it cost the government $21 million, and at the same time it is charging $5 for Pharmacare, which is only going to raise $22 million. It is very clear: cut the tax on those who are wealthy and raise it on those who can least afford it. That's the strategy. I haven't heard anybody who can plead poverty when there are that many people — over 1,300 in this province — who pay no tax. The surtax that was there — and it was very modest — has been removed.

What else has it done? It's cut corporate income tax to 14 percent. It's cut them from 16 percent to 15 percent and now to 14 percent. It is costing the government money. Every time you cut tax on corporations, you have to raise it somewhere else. Where have they done it? They've raised it on seniors again. They can't plead poverty when corporations aren't paying very much tax. In British Columbia, what happens in terms of corporate taxes? Only a quarter to a third of the corporations, in this province pay any tax at all. So they're not paying anything. But seniors have to pay, and they have to pay not just across the board, but time and again they have to pay chippy little taxes that mean a lot to them.

What about other business taxes? Well, we saw that the Bennett government had a plan. It was to reduce business taxes by $600 million over three years. Two years went by under Bennett and we had a new government. I would have thought, with this fresh start, they would have been rethinking the kind of economic strategy we had under Bill Bennett. But no, here it is again: the third year of the Bennett program implemented by this government — $600 million in taxes cut to businesses and bragged about by this government.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On a point of order, it has been brought to our attention that the debate is dealing with the amendment, with property taxes on the backs of the elderly and Pharmacare; it doesn't say anything about small business.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Chair thanks the government House Leader for bringing that to our attention. The member will continue with his speech.

MR. CLARK: Six hundred million dollars of business taxes cut, and the money is being raised on the backs of seniors in this province. That's what the amendment says. It's clear. You can't get around it. Time and again they've raised taxes, in different ways, on seniors in, the province, at the same time cutting taxes to business. We've seen it all across the board. You can't plead poverty when there are people not paying any tax in British Columbia, at the same time that you're charging seniors on fixed incomes money for services that were free before. This is a rich province. We can afford to treat our seniors far better than we have.

I'm happy to speak in favour of this amendment. I think it clearly outlines the differences between this party and that on the other side. It clearly outlines our priorities if we were government. It should pass. I hope the other side will see the light and realize that everybody has to pay their share of taxes in this province, not just seniors, and that in fact those who can afford it should pay more. Seniors should pay less. Please vote in favour of this amendment.

[ Page 303 ]

MR. SIHOTA: I'm amazed that nobody on the other side wants to stand up and debate this motion at this juncture. Actually, I'm not really amazed. It's to be expected: an uncaring government, an uncaring attitude towards seniors in the budget, total dereliction of their responsibility as it relates to seniors; now reinforced by the fact that nobody on the opposite side at this stage of the day is willing to debate the motion or to defend the record of the government on the motion.

MR. BLENCOE: They're hiding their heads in shame.

MR. SIHOTA: Of course they are. They're hiding their heads in shame because the record is indeed shameful. I'm sure they've been receiving the same telephone messages that I've been receiving. I want the members opposite to know that on Friday last week my constituency office received 114 telephone calls from seniors who were upset.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I find that comment from across the floor a little objectionable, saying that it was my family. One hundred and fourteen seniors in my riding are upset over what the government has done.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The member opposite says it's big enough. Multiply 114 in my riding by 69 ridings across the province — that's a lot of people. But the members opposite want us to believe that they received no calls, that they heard nothing, that all their constituents were not at all upset over the changes in the budget that punish the seniors community in this province. They want us to believe that there's total silence in all those Social Credit ridings in the province; that the only ones complaining reside on southern Vancouver Island, in Victoria and in ridings like the fine riding that I represent; that everybody else in those other 47 ridings is sitting there and saying: "Do it to me more. Five dollars — that's nothing. A hundred and twenty-five dollars — let's increase the cap." Come on! Everybody knows.

If I'm receiving 114 calls then some of the members opposite, including the Minister of Finance, must have been receiving calls from seniors in their ridings, and that's why the Minister of Finance had his phone off the hook this weekend, so the member tells me. The fact of the matter is that the seniors' community in this province....

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I can't believe what I'm hearing.

MR. SIHOTA: The Minister of Finance doesn't want to believe anything he hears. He doesn't want to believe that people in this province are unemployed. He doesn't want to believe this budget does nothing for you. He doesn't want to believe that seniors are upset. That's the basic problem. We have a government opposite that says, Mr. Minister of Finance: "We'll listen. We care." Well, they didn't listen, and what's in this budget is uncaring — absolutely uncaring. The Minister of Finance sits there and smiles, just smiles and institutes the program.

The fact of the matter is that seniors are upset. On Saturday afternoon, I'll have you know, I went to the meeting of the Active Mobile Homeowners' Association, and the association....

MR. WEISGERBER: On a point of order, I'm having trouble understanding how the Mobile Homeowners' Association has got anything to do with the amendment to the budget.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I suggest that the hon. member who is speaking is going to connect this with the proceedings.

[5:15]

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I see the member opposite has trouble understanding a lot of things. The point I was trying to make here was that the majority of people in attendance at that meeting were seniors. Seniors find themselves looking for affordable housing because they are on limited incomes. At the meeting of the Mobile Homeowners' Association we discussed the budget. Unprompted — I didn't ask for it — the seniors there circulated a petition. There were approximately 45 or 50 seniors there, and 41 of them signed the petition. Now it was unasked for. They were upset. I see that the member for Langley is here, and I know her parents were there at that time, and I'm sure that she heard from them as well as I did. Indeed, those seniors that reside....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: There goes her rent. No, I'm not going to cast any further aspersions now; I don't think that would be fair.

In any event, there you have it. We were at this meeting 50 seniors, 41 of whom signed the petition objecting to the increases in the property taxes. For a lot of these seniors.... Fine, they're paying $1 and now it's going to go up to $100. The Minister of Finance tells us that's only $8 a month — anybody can afford it. It's easy to say that when you're on a ministerial salary, but when you're talking to people who have monthly incomes of $400 or $500....

MR. G. HANSON: The minister's making $8,000 a month.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister is making $8,000 a month, give or take a few dollars, or so I'm advised. It's easy to extract $8 out of a monthly cheque of $8,000. But one senior was receiving a monthly pension of $437 a month. That $8 on top of $5 for prescription fees and $5 for the user fees....  At some point it becomes onerous.

You bet they were upset. They were really upset that they are going to have to pay $100 on their mobile-home pads. They fought the landlord when the landlord was trying to increase their rents, with success. We took the matter to the rentalsman and won. They fought with success again when the landlord tried to pass an increase in assessed values on to the tenants of mobile-home pads. We won that one, and we'll win this one as well, because there will be seniors going after the members opposite, and we'll be with them in every effort and every time and making every move that we can to try to convince the government to do away with the $99 increase in taxes.

[ Page 304 ]

I'd like the members of the House to hear this. I received a letter today from Hilda Ewen, who lives in my riding, and this it what it says:

"Dear Mr. Sihota:

"This letter is to inform you of my extreme opposition to the proposed property tax increase of $99 for those over the age of 65, in effect an increase of one million percent."

[Laughter.] Well, you can laugh about it, but it's a lady 65 years of age, and if you don't want to agree with the percentages that's your prerogative. The point is:

"As a Canadian taxpayer for 64 years, I feel I have given more than enough to the revenue for this province and, upon reaching 65, I should be entitled to some benefit from my substantial contribution."

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Look, if you want to sit there and criticize the lady for something like that, that's your prerogative. What I'm trying to get at is that the seniors of this province created and contributed to the wealth of this province. Now they're in need, and perhaps the government....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, there's a rule in this House that when we engage in debate we do not engage in debate with members on the floor. Speak through the Chair, please.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I apologize for that, but some of those comments would agitate anybody with a little bit of sense. The point is that at this stage in their lives they ought to have the opportunity to benefit from the wealth that they created, not be forced to contribute more to the wealth.

The letter goes on as follows:

"It is appalling that our government has singled out senior citizens upon whom to impose this hardship, a majority of whom are forced to cope on fixed income. I implore you to persuade the Premier to reconsider."

Of course he's not here today. He wasn't here on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday either.

"The very quality of life enjoyed by the founders of our great province will be drastically affected if this unjust increase is allowed."

That is from a resident in my riding.

The next one, unlike the first one, was not addressed to me but was addressed to the Minister of Finance. I'm not too sure if the Minister of Finance has had the opportunity to read the letter, but maybe I'll read it into the record now since he's here — listening, I hope.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going to table it?

MR. SIHOTA: I'd be more than pleased to table the letter, and of course I would be delighted to see the government members, and particularly the Minister of Finance, table some of the studies that were relied on in coming up with the budget and these despicable increases to senior citizens. But, yes, I have no reason to hide tabling his letter, Mr. Speaker, as the members opposite have asked.

"Dear Sir,

"I am writing to you with the greatest of concern about your proposed increase in taxes on manufactured homes owned by senior citizens. From $1 to $100 is most unfair. Are you aware that we are also going to be taxed on the land which we do not own?"

Of course this is something that's peculiar to the people who own manufactured homes.

"After having paid $50,000 for my home, I must pay $205 pad rent per month. Multiply that by 12 months comes to $2,460, plus $100, plus land taxes per year. Utilities are not included. If I owned a conventional home I would not be paying one-quarter of the above."

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll get to that comment from the member in a second.

"The dispensing fee for prescriptions and the user fee for physiotherapy is just another way of demeaning us."

I'm having trouble reading the comment here, but it's something like: "Mr. Couvelier, I can only feel that when you reach the golden age you will be with us as well."

That's from Margaret Williams on Cooper Road in Victoria. Those are just two letters and, as I say, 114 phone calls.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: It just amazes me, Mr. Speaker, to hear the chortling that comes from the other side, and the chuckling that flows from the other side in the course of this debate, because this is a serious matter. These people are upset, and somehow it's treated as if it's a frivolous, trivial kind of a concern.

I see the Minister of Finance has disappeared again, as he often does during the course of these debates when things get hot, but the fact of the matter is that I....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, he's got his problems, I guess. I don't know.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the point is that we know the GAIN rates in British Columbia have not increased since 1976 — that's about 11 years now. And at the same time let's just take a look at what's happened to some of the other utilities and costs associated with owning a manufactured home or a house for seniors. The price of fuel, water and electricity has increased by 103 percent from 1977 to 1982. That has exceeded by 63 percent the cost of living over that time period. The cost of household operations has gone up 80 percent; home insurance premiums have gone up by 61 percent; repair costs have gone up 54 percent during that five-year period between 1977 and 1982. And what has happened with the GAIN rates? Silence on the other side again. It's not a skill-testing question, Mr. Speaker, I'm simply asking the members opposite what has happened.

AN HON. MEMBER: That explains it.

[ Page 305 ]

MR. SIHOTA: Maybe it is a skill-testing question for the members opposite. Maybe that's what it is.

Well, my information is that there has been no increase in GAIN rates since 1976, so we've seen a 103 percent increase in fuel, water and electricity, we've seen an 80 percent increase in home insurance premiums, we've seen a 61 percent increase in repair costs during that five-year period, and yet the government has done nothing to match those increases to the provision of additional funds in GAIN rates. If that wasn't punishing enough, we have not seen at the same time an increase in SAFER allowance so that seniors will have some assistance in meeting the increases in rent that they experience each year.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: It's funny how the members opposite are very quick to point out what is or isn't included in the motion, and I trust that they have....

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I'll tell you where I've been today — I've been talking to seniors on the phone all day long, and they're upset; that's where I've been. I've been listening to the seniors in my riding, and I would only hope that some of the members opposite would spend a little bit of time listening to the seniors in their ridings. In fact, I would hope that the members opposite will have listened to the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization, and in particular Jo Arland, who is the first vice-president. She has described the $125 drug dispensing fee as being chintzy. That's how she describes the approach taken by the government with respect to the drug dispensing fee. I can certainly think of other and far stronger terms. I would think that the members opposite should pay a little bit of attention to the B.C. Old Age Pensioners' Organization and, indeed, listen to what they've got to say in their reaction to it.

But there is also a warning in what she is saying. She says that her group's participation in a successful protest against federal plans to de-index old age pensions is something they haven't forgotten. They realize that they won then, and certainly they are going to be endeavouring to win again on this issue.

There are, as she has pointed out, an ever-increasing number of senior citizens who live below the poverty line. I know some of the members opposite would like to pretend that there are no seniors living below the poverty line. They would like to pretend that there is no poverty in this province. They would like to pretend that women, in particular, who are seniors are not faced with abject poverty. The point is that they are. The increases that are part and parcel of the budget, the provisions that accompany the budget, only drive them further into poverty. No sensitivity, no caring and no compassion.

So I want to encourage the government members, first of all and most importantly, to do exactly what they were elected to do: listen to the concerns of their constituents and react to those concerns — and to react to those concerns this time, I say, by representing their views for a change. Represent them today by embracing the motion that we have introduced, by supporting it in the same way that I will. Mr. Speaker, the members opposite promised a caring government. The budget failed to deliver it. But there is still time to change it, and I would suggest that one of the ways in which to begin that change is to support this motion.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Pursuant to standing order 45, the Chair is calling the vote on the amendment, which reads as follows: "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, by imposing Pharmacare dispensing fees and user fees for each visit to physiotherapists, chiropractors and podiatrists, thereby threatening the basic universality principle of medicare."'

[5:30]

Amendment negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 17

NAYS — 29

MR. ROSE: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could have leave of the House to make an announcement.

Leave granted.

MR. ROSE: I would like to announce that today is a very important day for one of our very valuable new MLAs, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore). I won't ask the member for Nanaimo to sing at all. It's his birthday, so we offer him congratulations.

On the main motion.

MR. SERWA: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in this House to participate in the budget debate. As the first e s t member for Okanagan South, I would like to speak in favour of this innovative and courageous budget. I congratulate the Minister of Finance on the initiative he has taken in properly addressing the social and fiscal responsibilities facing our province. I congratulate the Premier for the leadership he has taken and for the positive course he has set in both the throne speech and budget speech. His approach is based on compassion and concern for all British Columbians.

[ Page 306 ]

I believe that our government is moving the province in a positive direction. The attitude and determination of the Premier are fast becoming the attitude and determination of the people of British Columbia. His strong leadership, coupled with his dedication and commitment to a new style of government, has inspired all British Columbians.

I would like to restate the principles that were utilized by the Minister of Finance in producing the first budget of our new Social Credit government. I am doing this because it is my firm conviction that the soundness of the principles forms the strongest of foundations for this budget.

"We believe in open and fair government which is responsive to the rights and requirements of the individuals in our society and which is not subject to domination by special interest groups. We believe government's role is to create a healthy climate for growth and development, leaving business decisions to the private sector. We believe in encouraging development that is responsive to the long-term needs and welfare of the community at large, at both the local and provincial level.

"We believe the taxpayers' money should be used carefully, that government should be affordable and that our goal must be to reduce and eliminate the deficit so today's bills will not be left for tomorrow's generation. We believe in providing help and opportunities so that the disadvantaged in our society can become full participants in our development. We believe we must invest in our best resource, our people, because they are our most valuable asset. We believe that the provision of services in our society must relate to our ability to fund them, and that users must bear a degree of responsibility in paying for the services that are provided."

The budget clearly states the economic challenges facing British Columbians. I would now like to briefly discuss what I consider to be the three most important challenges facing the provincial economy.

Labour relations. Our government's decision to hold hearings throughout the province on the state of labour relations is a key step in improving the labour climate in our province. These hearings will, over time, lead to legislation which will improve labour relations in our province and improve investor confidence. A positive relationship between government, business and labour will ensure that our province remains competitive in the world economy.

Industrial diversification. We are in the midst of major technological change. The skills we have today, may not be the skills we require tomorrow. As a result, I am very pleased to see that our government is committed to diversifying our province's economy. We can no longer afford to remain dependent solely on our resource industries. The $10 million that is being made available to the Ministry of Economic Development to undertake initiatives to assist the business community is a tremendous idea. By diversifying we will be well prepared to deal with the rapidly changing economy. Our educational system is the vehicle by which we will be able to prepare our children for the changing demands of our economy. I believe that our educational system is meeting that challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of my six children, Brad, Tanya, Kevin, Peter, Susan and David. I want to say that I believe that each one has received an excellent education in our province's school system. I want to thank the caring teachers in our school system who are responsible for the quality education which my children receive. I know that the educational opportunities offered in Okanagan South, both the grade 1 to grade 12 level and the college level, are second to none in this province.

Not all children are born with the same abilities and, aptitudes. Mr. Speaker, I believe that not enough is said about the way in which our schools meet the needs of all of our children, including those with special needs. We live in a multicultural society, and over the years we have had many children entering our school system with a limited knowledge of our language. It is amazing how quickly these children adapt, because of the English-as-a-second-language program offered in our schools. I believe that these children help to enrich our schools and our lives by sharing their culture with us.

[5:45]

In some societies children with mental and physical handicaps are hidden away and ostracized from the "normal" children. I am proud of the way we mainstream our children with special needs. We offer trained staff and special classes, and those children who need help receive help. We do not ignore the needs of those children.

I am pleased that the ministry operations in support of public schools, including the child abuse prevention program, equipment for the hearing-impaired and examination development, will receive an 11 percent funding increase. Our schools prepare our children for the future by producing well-rounded individuals. They do not learn just reading, writing and arithmetic, but skills which will enable them to participate fully in our society as adults. I applaud our courses in family life skills, cooking, construction, marketing and many other areas.

I believe that our educational system is doing a fine job in preparing our children to meet the challenges of the future, a future which is placing increasing demands on our children and on our school system.

Our government's commitment to the children of this province is demonstrated by the fact that the Ministry of Education's budget will be increased by $139.1 million, or 11.3 percent. The quality education programs offered in our schools are placing an increased demand on the taxpayers of this province. I believe that this money is well invested. The provincial contribution to public schools has been increased by $87.1 million, or 13.5 percent, to $732.4 million. In order to meet our children's and society's changing needs, we must constantly re-evaluate and develop new programs. I am pleased that a $40.3 million investment will be made available in the next fiscal year to fund special initiatives in our schools.

I am very proud of the quality post-secondary education available at Okanagan College. I believe that Okanagan College is a top-notch institution which is attracting students from throughout the interior. As I have mentioned previously, I believe that the Kelowna campus of Okanagan College should be given degree-granting status. This would enable students from the interior to complete their education without facing the higher costs of living elsewhere on the mainland.

I am pleased that the colleges and institutes base budget will be increased by 6 percent this year to $345.5 million. Many of our young people from the Okanagan travel to one of our province's fine universities to complete their education. I am encouraged by the fact that the universities base budget has been increased by 5.6 percent this year to $348.6 million.

[ Page 307 ]

Attending a post-secondary institution can result in financial hardship for our students. I strongly support our government's decision to increase financial assistance by more than 50 percent. I am also pleased that we will be helping students to help themselves by providing incentives for part-time and summer jobs.

Our distant education system is enabling people throughout the province to fulfil their educational goals. Distant education is attracting more and more students, and I am pleased that $9.5 million has been allocated to support the university-level distance-based program.

I believe that the Okanagan is the finest place in British Columbia in which to live. I would like to be able to see my children raise their families there. We must diversify our economy so that there will be economic opportunities for our children. The creation of the community economic development program is a welcomed move. I am pleased to see that our government is taking initiatives to ensure that local entrepreneurs play an important role in our economy. The $3 million in the program will benefit all parts of British Columbia. I urge interested parties to take advantage of this creative program.

Expansion of trade relations with Pacific Rim countries. I am very pleased to see that our government is moving to expand our economic relationship with the Pacific Rim countries. In ten years the percentage of British Columbia's exports going to Pacific Rim countries has increased from 24 percent to 32 percent. I am confident that because of the initiatives of our government this figure of 32 percent will increase even further in the future,

On tourism, Mr. Speaker, Okanagan South is a major year-round tourist destination. We are proud of our facilities, scenery, and the activities which we have to offer. I am pleased that the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture will receive additional funding for a $15 million marketing program. Marketing is the key to the growth of our tourist industry. Our marketing is paying off. More and more people are recognizing British Columbia as an excellent and affordable vacation destination. The American Bus Association has recognized the Okanagan Wine Festival, which takes place in October, as one of the 1987 top 100 events in North America.

In 1986 we welcomed the world to British Columbia, and I am confident that the hospitality and beauty of British Columbia will bring many of these people back. We are going to work hard to convince these people to experience a vacation adventure in Okanagan South.

Formidable challenges, exciting opportunities. Ours is a province of tremendous potential. This is an exciting time in our province's history. We have many challenges to face. I am confident that our government and our province will successfully meet this challenge. This budget was developed in order to meet these challenges. The budget is increased in spending and emphasizes this government's commitment to health, education and social services and housing. This budget is a realistic budget based on the needs of British Columbians.

While recognizing the needs of our citizens, this budget at the same time is based on fiscal responsibility. The determination of this government to reduce the outstanding debt of this province is clearly evident in this budget. As today's decisions-makers we cannot pass on our public debt to future generations. The existence of a large public debt, if left unchecked, will cause serious economic problems. Consequently a decrease in the deficit by $321 million, or just over 27 percent, is a measure I strongly applaud.

I support our government's efforts to ensure that British Columbia is a full economic partner in Confederation. I am very pleased to see that, as a result of meetings between our Premier and the Prime Minister of Canada, a council of ministers has been established. This council will play a major role in dealing with matters of interest and concern affecting both levels of government. I am confident that this council will ensure that we as a province receive our fair share of federal contracts and procurements. As well, I believe this council will help to ensure that our province is fairly represented on federal boards, agencies and other institutional structures.

In closing, I would like to point out that I believe this budget presented by the Minister of Finance represents solid economic and social principles of good government — good, solid Social Credit government.

Mr. Serwa moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON MR. STRACHAN: Before moving adjournment I'd like to advise the House of our agenda for next week. On Monday, of course, by standing orders, we will call the question on the budget debate at 15 minutes to adjournment. Tuesday a.m. we will not sit in order that we can have a photograph taken of the Legislative Assembly. Tuesday afternoon we will sit and we will be entering into the estimates of the Minister of Social Services and Housing. Then we'll carry on for the rest of the week — we will sit Wednesday — or maybe shorter or longer, whatever. We will sit Wednesday afternoon, hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.