[ Page 3657 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions –– 3657

Oral Questions

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

BCEC board. Mr. Williams –– 3657

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

Pharmacare and AZT. Mr. Harcourt –– 3658

Budget Debate

Mr. Chalmers –– 3659

Ms. A. Hagen –– 3662

Mr. Bruce –– 3665

Mr. D'Arcy –– 3668

Mr. Mercier –– 3671

Mr. Skelly –– 3673

Mr. Peterson –– 3676

Mrs. Boone –– 3678

Mr. R. Fraser –– 3681

The House met at 2:02 p.m.

Presenting Petitions

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

Leave granted.

MS. SMALLWOOD: This petition is made up of 17,528 names, give or take one or two. The petition and the petitioners ask: (1) that this House immediately establish throughout the province community health care clinics that would provide abortion services; (2) that the government of British Columbia uphold the Supreme Court of Canada's decision and ensure that the decision to terminate a pregnancy remains solely between a woman and her physician; and (3) that all abortion services and facilities be completely funded by the Ministry of Health and the medical insurance plan of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

SALE OF B.C. PLACE

MR. WILLIAMS: To the Minister of Economic Development. Mr. Toigo is quoted as saying: "I'm not interested in purchasing public assets under a cloak of secrecy and hidden agendas." Could the minister advise if she agrees with that view?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think the member is asking me to make a comment on a news release put out by a private citizen, and I would have no comment on that.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister confirm that they considered a bid proposal from this person after bids were closed and they had entertained bids from other parties on the B.C. Place land?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, the board of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation, or I as minister, have not received a bid from Mr. Toigo. Mr. Toigo's proposal letter, which was not accompanied by a bid, as I understand, was received in the Premier's office.

MR. WILLIAMS: Could the minister confirm that the proposal from Mr. Toigo was indeed a proposal that involved all of the lands of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation and other assets?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I believe Mr. Toigo himself has confirmed that, and that proposal could not be considered in terms of the B.C. Place lands, because the B.C. Place lands were already in the tendering process.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say what the cabinet considers at any time, and I know the member knows that full well.

MR. WILLIAMS: The Premier has confirmed that, so we accept that. Has the minister established that Mr. Toigo has the kind of money that would be necessary to deal with these assets'?

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

BCEC BOARD

MR. WILLIAMS: No, indeed, Madam Minister. Could the minister confirm that she has a split board in the Enterprise Corporation? Could the minister confirm that Mr. Poole, the Premier's principal secretary and deputy, was appointed in her absence?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In answer to the second part of the question, no. That appointment was not made in my absence, if it will make the hon. member for Vancouver East feel any better.

In answer to the first part of the question, I think you asked something about a split board. Mr. Speaker, I would like you and the House to know — and particularly the member for Vancouver East — that I have really one of the best volunteer boards that I could have in the B.C. Enterprise Corporation.

I am really proud of the work they have accomplished in a very short time. In nine months they have achieved a great deal, and I am particularly pleased with the work they have done. Any aspersions that they have been split in their decision-making or anything else are just that, and frankly I think they are mischievous aspersions, because that board has been a very hard-working board. They've been very committed and are a very good team.

MR. WILLIAMS: That's rather weak support for the minister who lost her majority on the board recently. Could the minister confirm that Mr. Couvelier signed the appointment of Mr. Poole — and not herself?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: No, I couldn't confirm that, because I didn't see the order, Mr. Speaker. And the member would know that orders get signed by all of us and that we don't sign our own orders for appointments to boards.

SENIOR COUPLES IN LONG-TERM CARE

MS. A. HAGEN: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Given that new rates for the elderly in British Columbia living in long-term care facilities place an especially heavy burden on married couples. and given that some of these couples will soon be paying more than 100 percent of their basic income for room and board, has the Minister of Health decided to review these excessive rates so that senior couples may receive fair treatment?

HON. MR. DUECK: The question asked is wrong in that the elderly or anyone will pay more than they receive, because anyone under the minimum income, as far as the government assistance is concerned, can now apply for GAIN. Furthermore, we're treating all couples the same as singles. That will be looked after.

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

[ Page 3658 ]

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

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

MS. A. HAGEN: I would note that those married couples, in fact, may have something in the order of $15 disposable income, on the basis of their guaranteed income supplement, once these new rates go into effect. Seniors in long-term care facilities will soon be charged 85 percent of their basic income for room and board. The accepted standard percentage of income in Canada for basic shelter and food is 60 percent. What studies has the Minister of Health done to justify leaving old people with only 15 percent of basic income for all the other necessities of life?

HON. MR. DUECK: The government is taking the line of action that if someone can afford to pay, they will pay the extra; however, the ones who cannot afford to pay will in fact be looked after, because they can now apply for GAIN, which was not possible before. So when you say that someone will not be able to cover the charges and will have to pay out of his own pocket, this is not true. This is false.

MS. A. HAGEN: I would note that the charges we are talking about are basic costs of room and board. That's 85 percent of everyone's income in long-term care facilities. Could the minister please explain how he expects older people to live on 15 percent of income, which will leave most of them with under $100 a month to pay for every other aspect of their life needs? Would the minister please explain how seniors are to do that?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to explain, and maybe I didn't do it too well. The question was asked how these people can live on 15 percent when they have everything else paid for. What I'm saying is that if people do not qualify for GAIN, they obviously have some other income. If they qualify for GAIN, the minimum will be approximately $159 a month.

MS. A. HAGEN: One final question to the minister, whose figures in fact reflect a very small number of the 23,000 older people in the community, perhaps as few as 2,000, who will be in receipt of GAIN. Is it the intent of the Minister of Health and this government to repeat the goal of last year, quoting the minister's own words, to reduce the deficit with the hard-won dollars of older people? In fact, will the punitive rates that this government is now imposing on long-term care residents be the funds that will finance the rainy-day funds of this government?

HON. MR. DUECK: I would like the member to repeat that I made that statement, because I'm not aware of having made a statement of that kind, nor do I believe that I ever would. I would very much like that verified in this House so that we have the record, because I would not make a statement of that kind.

PHARMACARE AND AZT

MR. HARCOURT: I have a question for the Premier, but first of all I'd like to say that British Columbians were happy to see the government rethink its policy in regard to cyclosporin, and we'd like to compliment the government for admitting the unfairness of its previous policies and for recognizing that B.C.'s health care services are not complete without the inclusion of that particular drug in Pharmacare without a user fee. So I have a compliment to start the remarks with.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

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

I do have a question to the Premier with respect to the serious threat of AIDS, specifically the treatment of AIDS. I'd like to ask the Premier if the government, recognizing the importance of the drug AZT to the treatment of AIDS victims, will now include AZT in Pharmacare and not charge AIDS patients for this drug.

[2:15]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: First of all, we have probably the most generous Pharmacare program anywhere in the country. We provide many prescription drugs for various illnesses, and all of these are dealt with on the basis of the government — the taxpayers — contributing 80 percent and the recipient of the drug paying a minimum of $300, or 20 percent, to a maximum of $2,000. It is a very generous program, and it has grown from when it was first introduced — I believe it was somewhere near $12 million — to where it's now $175 million.

We've also seen, in more recent times, new drugs come onto the market — very sophisticated drugs, which certainly are very helpful for many ailments but are also extremely expensive. Again, these programs are dealt with under the Pharmacare program.

The cyclosporin is different, in the sense that it's an extension of the transplant program. It is therefore being provided to those who have received a transplant and are continuing to receive the drugs. It's part of that program.

The Pharmacare program, like all other programs, gets reviewed from time to time. I gather the opposition would have it that we should act as they might and immediately say: "Whatever the drug, or however experimental, or whatever its status, we'll now immediately require taxpayers to pick up the tab for all things holy; and those who can contribute should somehow avoid having to contribute." That's not the position of this government. This government takes the position that if people who can contribute do contribute, then obviously there's more for those who are truly in need of something they can't provide for themselves.

It's the view of our government, as opposed to the opposition, that we can't simply jump in from day to day and suddenly adopt another program which will cost millions of dollars and will need to be picked up again by the taxpayers. So I believe we're dealing with this very responsibly. I'm very proud of what this government is doing and very proud of the Pharmacare program.

MR. HARCOURT: We're not very proud of the Premier's attitude in this whole question, because his government's policies are based on inconsistencies which essentially go back to his own personal biases and prejudices. In this case,

[ Page 3659 ]

the government's user fee policy is based on the Premier's homophobic attitude. That's what it's based on, isn't it, Mr. Premier? If you'd like an interpretation of that, if you haven't heard the word, it means fear of homosexuals. Isn't that the basis of it? There's no rationale for it except your homophobic attitude.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: No, as a matter of fact, I want to clarify this immediately. The only statement I have made on that particular issue, the issue of homophobia, is that I did not agree with a member of the NDP federally making the statements that were made. I made that statement. If the NDP takes exception to that, too bad.

MR. HARCOURT: What we take exception to is that British Columbia is the only province in this country that does not make this drug available for those suffering from it. The reason is the Premier's biased attitude in this whole area.

Just to show that, I'd like to point out another inconsistency in the government's approach to health care, which is the charging of families for the growth hormone drugs that are needed for the normal physical development of children. Will the government recognize the unfairness of this policy and stop charging families and children for this necessary treatment, or do you think they're all going to want to move to British Columbia too?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As I said, and I repeat, where someone is in need of a particular drug — and there are many of them in the Pharmacare program — and they can't pay for the drug, we provide, as taxpayers, for all of the cost. We pick up the whole of the tab. Where people can contribute a portion of the cost, we expect that they should or could and would contribute a part of the cost. For the most part, most British Columbians are very supportive of that approach because it preserves the programs for future days and for people who are truly in need. It means that all of us — and that includes those here — if we can contribute, should; and for someone sitting in this Legislature earning the sort of money we do, to not contribute when we can I don't think would be a responsible approach.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before proceeding to orders of the day, I'll advise the assembly that pursuant to standing order 2.2, the Legislative Assembly will be sitting tomorrow.

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

Budget Debate

(continued)

MR. CHALMERS: Prior to adjournment today, I was talking about some of the positive things that are happening in British Columbia, and doing so in support, of course, of the budget.

To be certain, Mr. Speaker — to continue my comments — British Columbia is a beautiful place to live. Such beauty and variety of geography and climate means that people of imagination and vision will be attracted to this province. People in this province are free to pursue the various endeavours, be it in business, in science or in the arts. The natural wealth of this province also makes for enhanced opportunities.

But government policies must be designed to capitalize on these positive attributes. Government must create the necessary climate for individuals to pursue their own goals. By creating a climate that allows for opportunity and for those who seek to strive for excellence, all of society will indeed benefit. Our government places faith in the individual initiative. We believe all citizens of this province must have the opportunity to pursue excellence, be it in business, science, research or in the arts, without undue government interference.

The question becomes practical at this point. To be exact, what sort of policy should a government pursue in order to achieve the goal of excellence through individual initiative? In fact, Mr. Speaker, I have a firm belief that excellence can only be achieved through individual initiative. It does not require much analysis to realize that, while the citizens of a province or country may strive for excellence, the misguided application of government policies — especially in relation to tax measures — can destroy the incentive of the individual. A society will not advance solely on the intrinsic merits of natural splendour and an informed population. Such factors must be supported by proper government policies.

This, I maintain, is the major practical philosophical difference between the members of the government and those in the opposition. We believe in the spirit of the individual and that the individual is best left on his or her own to pursue excellence in business, science or the arts. The New Democratic Party opposition, on the other hand, believes that government must always take the lead. Taxation policies and government programs should not be designed to tell people what to do, but rather to assist people in doing what they think is best for themselves or for society. To put it another way, our government does not view its role as substituting the initiative of individuals with some edict issued by government.

I have not elaborated on the growing diversity of the economy of British Columbia and the necessary link between individual initiative and government policies for some quaint academic reason. I don't believe that any of us was elected to this Legislature to count angels on the head of a pin, so to speak. Rather, I bring these concerns to the forefront for very real reasons.

As mentioned at the outset of my speech, the global economic recession of the early 1980s did not escape this province. In fact, this province, because of its then economic base, had to shoulder a very large burden. But as I also stated, this province in the past ten years has made great strides in seeking to diversify its economic base. This has been in spite of the economic constraints imposed by a very real and very severe recession. In other words, this province made great strides in economic diversification when the economic times apparently least afforded such gains. Many would question: how could this be achieved? But it was achieved for the reasons I have stated.

MR. BLENCOE: Give us some examples.

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

This government maintains a firm belief in the same ethic of individual initiative as did the past government. Our programs and policies exhibit this. Our government is not a government of subsidy and handout. But let it be made certain that our government will create the climate and the infrastructure for individual enterprise. Only this approach will ensure continued economic growth, personal freedom and enhanced social services.

[ Page 3660 ]

While we have made great strides, much remains to be done. In a real way, economic diversification is only in its initial stages in this province, and we cannot lose momentum, for to lose momentum is to lose the future. I firmly believe that our government's budget reflects this reality. It is indeed a budget that capitalizes on past economic diversification initiatives. It is a budget that looks to the future with an emphasis on improving the competitive position of British Columbia business in the emerging global economy. It's enhancing social services and continued responsible fiscal management.

A sound economic base, diversified not only in terms of industry and products but also in terms of markets, is essential to even out the economic cycle in this province. The budget addresses these concerns specifically and builds upon past achievements in this area.

To begin with, tax levels are very important in establishing a diversified economic base. To put it another way, tax levels are crucial to competitiveness, both in terms of allowing new industries to establish in this province and maintaining the competitive selling edge of those already doing business in British Columbia. As such, our government, as of January 31 this year, reduced the general corporation tax rate from 15 percent to 14 percent. This was a commitment announced by our government in the '86 and '87 budgets and will reduce the taxes paid by British Columbia businesses by $25 million during 1988 and 1989.

Further, Mr. Speaker, our government realizes the increasing importance that small businesses have in economic diversification and employment creation. Accordingly, the small business income tax is being reduced from 11 percent to 9 percent. This will save small businesses $18 million during 1988-89 and $30 million during 1989-90.

We must not forget that forestry and mining continue to be cornerstones of our economy. Our government is committed to ensuring that British Columbians receive a fair return from all natural resources and that renewable resources are indeed renewed. However, our government must be cautious that policies reflect the competitive taxation position of these very important industries. Therefore our government has reduced the mineral resource tax rate from 17.5 percent to 15 percent and the mining tax rate from 15 percent to 12.5 percent, effective July 1, 1988.

[2:30]

Our government also realizes that forestry and mining are unique sectors deserving of special attention in the areas of renewal and infrastructure. Our government is committed to the renewal of our provincial forest resource. New policies by our government require that companies harvesting Crown land timber must replace cut trees that they harvest. This simple variation on a user fee, if you will, means that spending on timber renewal by the forest industry will increase fivefold over the next five years. As well, our government will spend more than $210 million on silviculture programs during the 1988-89 fiscal year. Our government is very serious about ensuring renewal of the province's most valuable resource.

Our government is also very serious about making sure the citizens of the province receive a fair return on what are quite properly viewed as public resources. In my opinion, the new stumpage appraisal system guarantees such a fair return.

In addition, our government realizes that investment in research in the natural resource sector infrastructure is very important in maintaining our competitive position. That is why our government will provide $4 million towards the construction of a new forest research facility at the University of British Columbia to house Forintek and the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. An additional $4 million in Crown land will be made available for research purposes.

To assist the mining sector, additional sums will be spent on geological mapping, an extension of the power grid to Stewart and the recently announced $25 million loan guarantee to help the Cassiar Mining Corp. develop new asbestos deposits known as the McDame deposit. This assistance will ensure that the Cassiar mine's life and the life of the community of Cassiar will be extended up to 20 years beyond 1991. This will allow not only for the continued development of the Cassiar mine, but it will also provide that very important infrastructure for other mines in that area or the ones that will be created in the future.

As I mentioned earlier, tourism is an important growth industry. Tourism has not gone unnoticed in this budget. The unique and very successful marketing programs of Tourism B.C. will continue to play an important role in attracting out-of-province visitors and indeed encourage British Columbians to travel within their own province. This year there will be an emphasis on cooperating with regional tourist associations and the private sector. A very important development is the opening of the Pacific Rim Institute for Tourism. Funded jointly by the provincial and federal governments, this institute will lead to employment and promotional opportunities for British Columbians interested in this growing area. Our government is also committed to enhancing the operation of the traditional sector of the province's tourist industry; that is, the seasonal tourist accommodation sector.

Effective for the 1989 property taxation year, there will be a new deduction of 50 percent of the assessed value of all tourist accommodation to a maximum deduction of $150,000. This will help small seasonal tourist operators, as they will no longer face sharply higher property taxes resulting from the elimination of the class 8 recreational property designation. This change to the recreational property assessment will certainly be well received in the constituency of Okanagan South, where tourism contributes substantially to the local economy. It's an area, I would add, where there are more hours of sunshine than in the state of Hawaii.

The grape-growing and tree-fruit sectors are an important part of the constituency of Okanagan South. When one speaks of agriculture in the Okanagan, it is synonymous with the fruit industry of British Columbia. Quite understandably, many people involved in Okanagan grape and tree fruit industries are expressing concerns about the impact of the Canada-America free trade agreement and the recent GATT ruling involving provincial liquor distribution practices. But it must be remembered that as part of the deal to secure a free trade agreement, the grape and fruit industries were afforded protection from the ten-year gradual removal of tariffs with the inclusion of the 20-year tariff snapback provision. The 20-year snapback allows for temporary application of tariffs to protect grape and fruit producers against important surges caused by depressed market conditions.

As well, it should be noted that our government has committed itself to a long-term strategy to develop new markets and products in the provincial agricultural sector. As a member from Okanagan South, I welcome this commitment. The vulnerability of relying too heavily on a single market for British Columbia tree fruits was illustrated last fall

[ Page 3661 ]

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

The grape-growing and wine sectors have expressed particular concern over both the free trade agreement and the recent GATT rulings. I share these concerns. Our government is committed to assisting the sectors that will be affected by the free trade agreement. I will do all I can to monitor the situation closely and will continue to do my very best to ensure that the adjustment assistance forthcoming adequately addresses the needs of the long-term viability of the grape and wine sectors in this province. I do, however, want to emphasize that long-term planning and assistance with marketing, adjustment assistance and a better use of funds derived from government funding programs all hold great promise to assist the grape and tree fruit industries.

On the topic of better use of funds derived from government programs, our government is committed to reshaping all business assistance programs. A main consideration will be a shift from outright grants and loans to loan guarantees and equity participation. I do not believe it wise or advisable that government should be in the business of making unconditional grants to industry. Such a process tends to distort the market forces and leads to the establishment of industries that otherwise would not be viable and probably never will be viable short of what, in effect, amounts to continued government subsidization.

An added complicating factor is that the use of government grants leads to needless and wasteful competition among various provinces in Canada. In the long run, and in many cases in the short run, such industries collapse because of simple inefficiency. Thus I welcome our government's move to shift the emphasis of business assistance to loan guarantees and equity participation. The hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations has stated that an important reason for this change is that the dollar commitment can be levered four times. However, more importantly, the money will be committed to industries that have a proper game plan for the future. This in itself will mean a more viable and diversified economic base.

I am, however, willing to concede that the unique economics of the agriculture sector necessitate continued marketing systems and farm income stabilization programs. Such programs are not affected by the free trade agreement, and I will continue to support them, especially in relation to the Okanagan grape and tree fruit industries.

I have dealt at some length with the practical workings of the provincial economy. I have shown how initiatives of this government and the previous government helped diversify our economic base. I have shown that in an export-oriented economy like that of British Columbia, being competitive in a global setting is the key to economic survival. Indeed, without a strong, innovative and adaptable economy the economic pie will shrink and, along with it, the government of the day's ability to fund health and social services. This is not some idle economic theory; it's an economic reality.

In essence, industry has had to reassess traditional ways of doing business since the advent of the most recent prolonged recession. To the credit of British Columbia industries, I believe to a large extent they have been very successful. They have maintained their competitive edge in the world marketplace.

But there is another important aspect to maintaining a competitive edge in the economy, and that is the cost of government. Currently the provincial debt incurred for government is forecast to reach about $5.3 billion at March 31, 1989. We in this province fare very well in relation to other provinces, especially in relation to the impact of the recent recession upon this province. However, it still must be acknowledged that debt incurred in the everyday operation of government, especially incurred on a sustained basis, will seriously erode the ability to provide service for British Columbians. Money that should go to social programs instead goes to service the dead weight of debt. Because of that, we all suffer.

An associated and very important factor is that when the cost of government becomes exorbitant, it directly affects other players in the economy. Taxes have to rise to pay for the dead weight of debt and debt-servicing. Industry soon loses its competitive edge. All sectors compete for scarcer dollars, bidding up the cost of borrowing. Again as the economic pie shrinks, so does the standard of living and the level of social services for the citizens of this province.

For these very real reasons, I support our government's initiatives to reduce and eliminate the debt associated with provincial government operations. Some maintain that the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations is attacking the problem too soon. I firmly believe that the problem of the provincial debt can never be dealt with too soon. Government must always find ways to live within its means, as a normal family household must. Of course, the cyclical nature of the economy of British Columbia has not always allowed us to do this. The proposals put forward by the hon. Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations will, I believe, achieve this goal.

The new budget stabilization fund is a most welcome move. The concept is straightforward. In good times the government puts a little away for the rainy days. On the rainy days, the money is then used to avoid cutting back on very important social programs. This seems to be a practical approach to evening out the effects of the business cycles in this province.

However, the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) referred to the budget stabilization fund by its acronym the other day in this House — as I recall, it's something to do with the bovine species. While the first member for Nanaimo was attempting, I am sure, to be witty, the record of the New Democratic Party government elected in this province for that short period between '72 and '75, a government of which the first member for Nanaimo served as Finance minister, is far from funny. In fact. it was downright sad.

I could stand to be corrected, but the speech of the first member for Nanaimo left the distinct impression that the New Democratic government between 1972 and 1975 had an excellent record of fiscal management, and in fact left office with a budget surplus.

MR. SKELLY: Read Public Accounts.

MR. CHALMERS: We have read the public accounts. I'm told that the relevant years of the public accounts of British Columbia came to — guess what — very much the opposite conclusion. In fact, the New Democratic Party government managed to spend itself into a deficit position within its very short tenure. In the 1975-76 fiscal year, when the voters of this province wisely decided that they had had enough of the New Democratic Party as government, I'm told the deficit was $405 million. Remember, the figure in 1976 was at a time when revenues flowed much more easily to government than they have since 1982.

[ Page 3662 ]

I can sympathize with the first member for Nanaimo to a point. After all, was it not that member who was summoned by the then New Democratic Premier and Minister of Finance to take over the Finance portfolio to deal with the dangerously depleted provincial Treasury — that was heading for an obvious deficit — and to address such questions as the well-known $100 million clerical-error overrun in the then Human Resources ministry? I guess that explains the apparent confusion.

[2:45]

MR. SKELLY: What about the revenue overrun?

MR. CHALMERS: What about it?

There are also rumours floating around about the tenure of the Leader of the Opposition as mayor of the city of Vancouver. Indeed, the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Harcourt) is reputed to have handled the finances of the city in a most correct way. There were no deficits during his term, or so the story goes. Section 200 of the Vancouver Charter expressly states that the city must keep expenditures within estimates. How then could the first member for Vancouver Centre fail to balance the city budget? In fact, during his term as mayor the Leader of the Opposition adopted a practice that sounds quite familiar. When revenue was not anticipated to match projected estimates, funds were transferred from the city's property endowment fund to help balance the books. That's according to the Vancouver Sun, so maybe I should be checking other sources. Maybe the opposition can help me with that. I wonder what the member for Nanaimo would have called that practice.

The wise and judicious use of the funds that will result from the government's privatization initiative is also most welcome. Moneys derived from privatization will not be used in an expedient fashion, but will slowly be capitalized to benefit future generations. Only income earned from the privatization benefits fund will be transferred to general revenue, initially to reduce the deficit and then to contribute to general revenue.

On another matter, I'm extremely pleased that the third phase of the Coquihalla Highway is to proceed as planned. It is self-evident that transportation is crucial to the economic and social needs of the citizens of this province. This is especially true for those regions outside the lower mainland. It is estimated that some 600 workers will be employed within the region for the duration of the project. A market of 250,000 people will be created by connecting the Okanagan, Nicola and Thompson Valleys to a cohesive whole. Distances will be a one-and-a-half-hour drive apart.

I have many more comments I would like to make, but as time is running out I would simply sum up by saying that the policies that have been set forth by this government and talked about by the Minister of Finance in his budget speech are all ones that I can support wholeheartedly, and I would ask that everyone in the House do the same.

MS. A. HAGEN: This is the second budget of the current administration, and I suppose we could consider it a sequel to last year. As I have reviewed the budget — a fascinating document — the sequel is like a drama unfolding. The audience is in fact the citizenry of our province, and for them the budget that is unfolding is taking on elements of tragedy. It's a tragedy for our hard-working pioneers, and it's a tragedy for many struggling families and young people.

The Minister of Finance has flippantly talked about nickel and diming people with this budget. In fact, those nickels and dimes are going to add up to millions of dollars that have been robbed from the pockets of the neediest and the oldest people in our province.

So bad is this budget that it has been criticized from a surprisingly wide range of quarters. Who are the critics? The critics are in fact economists, business people, people who are established in their field of work and have secure incomes. They are asking, and asking vigorously: where is this budget leading us? Where is this government taking us with its current budget? And they ask with the insight of knowledge. They ask with the insight of knowledge of the reality of the lives of their parents, their older spouses or their children who are establishing themselves in their homes and in their communities with their young families. They ask: how can the economy remain buoyant when what this budget does is make people fearful — fearful for their future when there is uncertainty about how much more deeply this government plans to dig in budgets ahead? The last two budgets, this year's and last year's, have in fact been crafted out of a dim analysis and cloudy planning that really do trample on the needs and aspirations and hopes of our citizenry.

This afternoon, in the time I have available, I want to concentrate my remarks in three areas. With the extent of this budget's impact, it's difficult to know where to begin to talk about it, and I look forward, in the days of the estimates, to being able to examine in much greater detail some of the impacts that this budget will have.

Not surprisingly, following on my questions to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) this afternoon, I want to talk first of all about what is an unprincipled attack on older people. I think any government, when it's planning its budget, needs to do so with some knowledge and insight about the people who are going to be affected by that budget. The government, I think, spends a great deal of time figuring out the impact of budgets on business people, on the forestry industry, on mining — and those are all very important parts of a government's analysis. But I think it spends very little time in analyzing and understanding the goals and aspirations and realities of the lives of working people and of older people. I want for just a moment to think with you about what the goals of seniors are, goals which are in fact being attacked by this government.

First of all, the goal of people as they move into old age, into their elder years, is to plan for their retirement and for their last years. It's a long period of time. People are living, as we all know, into their eighties and nineties, so we're looking in many instances at a third of people's lives.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

And they plan carefully. They plan for their finances, they plan for their housing, and they plan for their health. Older people plan, too, to continue to be participants in the society in which they live, consumers and active participants. Those are very basic aspirations, and with those aspirations they have certain expectations about how they will in fact be respected by the government which in many instances is a very important part of their financial, health and housing security. What do we have in this budget in respect to these older people, these people who are responsible citizens, consumers, whom small business, developers, travel agents

[ Page 3663 ]

and many of the people who are part of the business sector of our province look upon as major players in the economy that they are working in? What does this budget say and do?

First of all, it says in one sentence: "Our senior citizens are valuable members of our society requiring special attention and services." That is the only sentence that addresses the goals and aspirations. Then, for the next period of time in this budget, we hear what that attack on seniors is in fact going to be. It says to seniors: "You are a burden." In fact, it says to seniors: "Don't cross our borders. You are not a part of our economy. You are not healthy people. You are not responsible people. You are not people who contribute to the life of the community. We don't want you here." Our borders somehow need to be sealed against anyone over 65, because they are going to take away from the economy and from the quality of life in the province. That, Mr. Speaker, is a terrible message to give to the pioneers who have planned for their retirement carefully and are active participants in the economy, the culture and the volunteer life of this province. When the government attacks these people, it attacks every one of us.

I am astounded at how often, as I am out and about in the province, I find when I talk to people that the first subject of discussion is their concern for an older member of the family — a mother, father, grandparent or, in many instances, a spouse who is less well than the other partner. They say: "If this is what's happening to our parents, who raised us through the Depression, who raised us in hard times, who've carefully saved to look after themselves in their old age, what can we anticipate?" So there's a dual message that we're getting across to people when we deal with this issue of how seniors are being treated. There's an uncertainty created — an uncertainty that will have an effect on the well-being and the health of seniors, and an effect on their spending and their participation in the economy.

Now let's look at some of the specifics of this budget as they pertain to older people. The most specific issue that pertains almost exclusively to older people, though some younger people are affected as well, is the rise in the percentage of their basic income that older people will be required to pay if they are in a long-term-care facility. That rate, which goes up every three months with the cost of living, is moving from $16.70 a day to $19.20 a day. It is taking almost $1,000 of expendable income out of the pockets of every one of about 20,000 to 24,000 people who are in care. They are left with a very insignificant and paltry amount to deal with all the other needs.

Mr. Speaker, I want to itemize some of those. We talk so often about millions and billions that we forget how significant dollar and 10- or 20-dollar bills are to people. But I'm sure, Mr. Speaker, that you and most of the people in the House know what a tight struggle it is. Let me just itemize what has to come out of the income of this person in a long-term-care facility who is now being charged 85 percent of his or her basic income — that's every person, regardless of the level of income he or she may have.

That person hopefully has a phone, at $12 a month; hopefully a cable, at $3 a month. The care home charges an activity fee of $5 or $10 a month. The person has to buy toiletries — shaving cream, razor blades, deodorant; clothing, which in the washing machines of a care home, goes quickly — a conservative $20 a month; postage and stationery, to send a card to a grandchild or to a son or daughter, and gifts — $10 or $15 a month; outings, so that these people are not in prison in a long-term-care facility — something like $12 a month, perhaps a hobby, knitting or some crafts — $10 a month; a treat for a volunteer who comes to take the person shopping or to spend an hour or two — $3 a month. All of that, just that basic stuff, comes to $85 a month, and it doesn't account for any of the extras that the home must charge — for bandages, pads if someone is incontinent, medication that's not covered by Pharmacare, for a haircut or hairdo. Nor does it pay for glasses or teeth or any of the other things that people have to take out of their own income. We are in fact putting these people into poverty.

[3:00]

That's the scenario as it has been painted, but it hasn't been fully painted yet. There are some other lines in the budget that tell us where we're going. What we have in the budget is an indication that this government is going to break, for the first time in many years, the basic method by which the income of older people is assessed. For its guaranteed income supplement program the federal government assesses the income of people — not their savings, but their income from those savings which have been carefully acquired to leave these people independent. Hidden in the budget, but with some references that we've heard.... We now know that this government is going to start dipping into assets and savings. We are saying, in fact, to our older people who have carefully saved and planned for their old age: "We're going to treat you like social assistance recipients, like welfare people."

When I was working in the Seniors' Bureau in New Westminster, and in order to access CAP funding the government needed to do some record-keeping of seniors' incomes.... They came to a non-profit agency, because for a senior to have to go into the social assistance office, having lived all his or her life independently struggling, was something he or she was just uncomfortable doing. What this budget is doing is putting seniors into the position where they will be treated like people who are struggling down to their last dollar.

My colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Cashore) has talked about the effect of poverty and that whole system on the psychology, the mental health of younger people, who at least, we hope, will have an opportunity to get a job and fully participate. We're talking about people who have contributed their 35 or 40 years to this province, and we're talking about tapping those resources and undermining their planning for their future. All of this has been done with no public review, with no discussion with the older community, in which there are many organizations which would be glad to provide this government with some insight into the lives of older people. It's not fair; it's not just; it's not open. It's not honest, and seniors and their families no longer trust this government to be fair in treating their interests.

There is one other area that I want to raise in connection with the thrust of the throne speech and the budget. I find some very facile and not very sincere or well-researched lines about health and wellness and helping us to move from a sickness society to a society that promotes wealth.

Interjections.

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

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

[ Page 3664 ]

in their own homes. This government has — with sincerity, I hope — listened to the aspiration of older people that they want to remain independent and in their own homes. I hope they're listening to their aspiration and not just dealing with the bottom-line perspective on this. But let's see what happens with the budget to those dollars that go to home support, home nursing, adult day care and physiotherapy services — all of those services that are necessary and important to assist the older person to stay at home, to assist the Alzheimer's person to be in his home with a spouse managing, to assist the person who can no longer manage to do some of the heavy-duty tasks, to provide socialization, nutrition, support and practical service.

Mr. Speaker, you will be astounded, as I'm sure others will when they really look at the bottom line of what this government has done with that budget. Last year all of those services took $81 million of the budget. In this year's budget, with an increasing clientele, there is $62,000 more for those services. I haven't even bothered to calculate what an infinitesimal percentage that is; it's too small to be worthy of calculation. It might hire four more less-than-full-time home care workers or possibly five, given the poor wages they are paid, for this whole province. And that is with a population that is increasingly continuing to live, as they would desire, in their own homes.

There is no commitment to providing the support those people need. Remember, if the people are in their homes using those services, it costs on average ten cents of the dollar it costs to have those people in the long-term-care facility. It's shocking, Mr. Speaker. It is something that defies my understanding in terms of a government that, in addition to dealing with its business people, has a responsibility to help and work with the oldest and the neediest in this province.

I just want to note that it's not only seniors who will be affected by these fees; it will be people in mental health facilities and alcohol rehabilitation centres. Mr. Speaker, you and I know that those are not people who have been able to accumulate a lot of income, so the dollars that I spoke about that will be available to those people for their integration into society, for their socialization and rehabilitation, will be pitifully few. Even more so perhaps does that 85 percent impact these people, because we are looking at rehabilitation and their return to the community. So in the health area we have these things happening, and I want to deal with just a couple of other aspects before I move on.

This government talks about health consuming an inordinate part of the budget and the rates going up. I want to put on the record a few figures that show what a shell game this has been on the part of this government.

First of all, the proportion of the budget devoted to health remains where it has been for years — exactly at one-third. That is a figure that most provinces and this nation have accepted as a reasonable level of funding to be available.

Second, this government twice now has misled the House about the percentage of increase in the budget. The member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) says it's more than that. Speaking from my experience, it has been twice, but I'll take your word for it, Mr. Member, that this is an ongoing misrepresentation.

In the 1986-87 year, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance announced that 8.1 percent more dollars would go to health. Based on the government's actual figures, 3.4. Last year, through all the crisis with people trying to get into hospitals, there was 5 percent less money than this government promised.

In this budget statement, we have the same kind of misleading. In the main text of the Minister of Finance's speech — a 10.2 percent increase in budget towards health. In the actual figures in the government's own tables at the back — 5.8 percent increase for a health budget. I would suggest that based on last year's pattern, I wouldn't want to hold my breath in anticipation that all of that increase would in fact be delivered.

So we are going to take from older people something in the order of $18 million in long-term-care fees. I haven't spoken about the Medical Services Plan — others of my colleagues have — which is going to rob another $141 million from people young and old in this province. And we are seeing, in fact, a health budget that is right in line and is not an excessive part. This government is misleading this province and its people about the cost of health care, and it should come clean, stop playing around and be sure we deliver services.

There are two other items that I want to dwell on just briefly in the time I have left. One of them is again dealing with disadvantaged people. Over the past several months, we've had a great deal of anticipation that the government is going to make some significant improvements in the services available to people who are abusing alcohol and drugs. I think it was the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) this morning who said that one in five health-related problems is related in some way to alcohol misuse and abuse. It's a critical problem in the province. Anywhere to the tune of $1 billion to $2 billion is the cost of the effects of alcohol misuse and abuse.

We spend now $24 million on such services as rehabilitation and education. The government proposes to increase that by $23 million. But the government is pocketing dollars that should go to rehabilitation, instead of putting them where they should go.

In the budget speech, the Minister of Finance announced that there would be special taxes on draft beer that would be earmarked for rehabilitation. In fact, 25 cents of each of the dollars raised by that special tax is going to rehabilitation; the government is pocketing the rest into general revenue and continuing to spend a paltry 10 percent or 11 percent of all the income that it receives for rehabilitation. There is no more cost-effective thing that the government could do than to provide for an enhanced service to those who need help in order to get out of the syndrome of abuse. This government has defaulted on its obligation to those people.

The other area of concern that I want to raise is the paltry increase that has gone to the community colleges of the province. In my own community, where a thousand students were turned away last year, the news of a budget increase of less than 1 percent and the cumulative effect of starving the colleges has rocked even those very hardy supporters of the government who sit on the college board.

I have this day a letter from the board of Douglas College which I am going to quote more or less verbatim, because I have it by phone rather than in my hand. What that letter speaks about is the deep concern of this college board — one I am sure shared by college boards of every region of the province — about the implications of the estimates tabled. They say: "Douglas College cannot maintain present levels of enrolment, much less increase enrolment to meet the demand." Remember, there were 1,000 students turned away from that college in the fall of 1987. "The increasing number of students in our region will be unable to gain access either to

[ Page 3665 ]

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

At the end of the letter, the college board people say: "We emphasize the need for clear final decisions on this matter very soon." Otherwise the full-time-equivalents at this college will have to be reduced.

Today we are hearing about initiatives to support the family. We support the family by doing a number of things, one of which is to ensure that young people, single parents and people who need retraining have an opportunity to get the kind of skills and education they need to be fully participating people within our community. With this absolutely unbelievable non-increase in the funding of institutions that serve 70,000 students in the province of British Columbia, how can those people believe that anyone on the other side of this House cares at all about their lives and what they're struggling to do? I wonder if most of these people spend their time reading mining balance sheets and forest industry balance sheets and don't talk to the people in their ridings who are struggling to make a living and to become able — if they have had difficulty — to participate fully in the economy.

[3:15]

A budget is this government's blueprint for its future, and even more than any other document, it is a promise about what it believes to be important for the people of British Columbia. This budget tells the people of British Columbia that they are not important and that we will nickel and dime them to the tune of millions of dollars out of their pockets without any planning or any consultation or any concern for their futures. I have seldom read and worked with a document that has caused me so much concern about the direction of responsible people in providing for the citizenry of British Columbia. I will not only vote against this budget, but it will be my intention to ensure that people understand that much of it is duplicitous and hard-hearted and that people will suffer and continue to suffer as a result of how this government views its responsibility through use of the taxpayers' dollars. It's a shocking budget and one that this government should hang its head in shame to have tabled in this House.

MR. BRUCE: It's just amazing how two people can read the same document and interpret it so completely differently. However, with all due respect to my colleague from New Westminster, let me offer a totally different point of view than what we've just heard in this chamber.

I think it's really important that, first of all, we recognize that when anybody drafts a budget, probably the only person who will agree 100 percent with the budget is the person who did the work. So when the time comes for others to look at it, everybody will have a variety of opinions. But really it is incredible in the utmost to see and hear the differences of opinion, certainly that which has just been espoused by the member for New Westminster.

The economy as presented in this budget here — the future projections and where we came from in the 1987 projections — has really taken a good shot in the arm. Sometimes it's important to look in the smaller sense of things rather than in the global side, because people sometimes miss what is happening around them and don't fully appreciate the economic growth and the vitality of an economy. We here today know that in 1987 we saw about a 4 percent increase in the growth of the economy, and the projection for 1988-1989 is about a 2.7 percent growth in the economy. Those numbers sound great, but what do they mean when you actually look around you? Perhaps you can see when you look in the smaller context exactly what it means. Take, for instance, my community, if I may. Not that I wish to bore you with what's happening in my community, because there are always good exciting things happening there. But just take a look at what's happening in my community, and you can see what's happening in the overall provincial economy.

In the community of Chemainus we're seeing a new hotel of some $3 million being constructed. A heritage mill commercial complex of $2.5 million is being constructed. A new marina development is taking place. In Crofton we're seeing $240 million in upgrading British Columbia Forest Products paper and pulp operation, and a possible $60 million sawmill operation taking place in the Shoal Island operation. In Duncan a whole new city centre redevelopment complex is underway and on the drawing boards, and a proposed $5 million residential-commercial complex on the other side of town. In Mill Bay there's a brand-new commercial centre already under construction. In Cobble Hill we see the Arbutus Ridge retirement complex taking place, where 500 new homes are under construction, with a brand-new golf course and all sorts of other facilities provided for the enjoyment of those who have moved to our community to retire. In Cowichan Lake the village is looking to expanding the Lakeview campsite, already proven to be a success; and we know it will continue to be a success, as the tourism industry continues to boom in central Vancouver Island. In Mesachie Lake, a little west of Lake Cowichan, a major residential development is underway and on the drawing board.

What does this mean in the small world of Cowichan-Malahat? It means increased growth. It means some prosperity. It means jobs. It means an improved social and economic community. Those things are occurring because of good fiscal management by the government of the province of British Columbia.

I could go on listing a host of other developments that are taking place in the community, but there's no need to do that. It's important to understand, in those that I've already mentioned to you today, that there is growth; there's stability; there's an improvement in the economy of the province of British Columbia. There are more people working today than have ever worked before in the province of British Columbia, and we are on an upswing.

People say: where is this budget leading us? There it is. I've already shown you where this budget is leading us. And there will be more of the same thing coming in my community, your community and other communities throughout the province of British Columbia. Fearful of the future? How can you be fearful of the future when we're practising good fiscal responsibility?

The greatest cloud on the future of this province and this country is the looming deficits of our economy. They're not great things to talk about politically, because people generally would rather spend more. What it comes down to is whether a government has got the resolve and the integrity to deal with the deficit and to bring it in hand, while at the same time enhancing and improving social programs for all the people in the community of the province of British Columbia.

When we look at things, when we actually look at the budget.... Let's take a good look at it. In education we have an increase of $114 million. Do we have any problem

[ Page 3666 ]

with that? No, it's good. Does the opposition have a problem with that? Why don't they stand up and say it's good? It's the right direction. It's what we should be doing: increasing the funds for education to make our public educational system one of the best anywhere in this country and in the world. I've got faith in the teachers. I've got faith in the administration of our public educational system, and I am quite prepared to say to the taxpayers of my community that it's important that we put more money in the public educational system. It's our future.

Fifteen million dollars for the computer program — an expanded, enhanced computer program. I would like more money in that computer program and so would every member sitting in this House, but at the same time fiscal responsibility must be in place. Not only can we look at education; we can look at every one of the other ministry demands and the other social services that people would like to see expanded. So we must be prudent with how the dollar is spent. Fifteen million dollars for the computer program — certainly it's a great step. I'd love to see it more and so would everybody else, but it's a step in the right direction. It's good for us today and it's good for the future, and it's good for our children so that they can learn the new technology, learn how computers work and be able to compete in the modern world. There's nothing wrong with that. Let's hear it from the opposition.

University operating grants, increased by 5 percent.

AN HON. MEMBER: How about colleges?

MR. BRUCE: I'll get to colleges; hang on and listen. University operating grants, increased by 5 percent. That's a good thing. We've got good universities in this province. It's important that we invest in those universities. But combined with that, of course, is an increase — almost a doubling — in student financial aid. Doesn't that make sense? Increase the budgets for the universities and improve the student aid program so that they can get to the universities, and yes, so that they can get to the community colleges. If you actually understood what was going on — so they could get to the community colleges.

Let's talk about community colleges; they are really good things. I've got an excellent campus in my community, Malaspina College from Nanaimo, the satellite wing. It's a new, expanded campus. Because of the growth and the interest within our community, it looks like it will probably expand again because people can understand and see the importance of community colleges.

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

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

MR. CLARK: Less than 1 percent.

MR. BRUCE: It's not less than 1 percent. There has been a reduction of 5 percent to the BCIT operating budget which will allow for an increase of some 2 to 3 percent for all of the other community colleges in British Columbia. Is that a good idea, ladies and gentlemen? Of course it's a good idea because people like to go to our community colleges. We've got one of the finest community college programs anywhere in the country. Right here in the province of British Columbia it's excellent, and there is an increase to the community colleges. You have to look at the fine print. You have to know what you're talking about.

Now let's talk about our social services. Let's talk about, seriously, the cornerstone of any society — and I say seriously. The cornerstone of any society is the family. It's the strength of the province, of society and of civilization. This government is committed not just simply to those materialistic things which we can build with blocks — bridges, roads and sewers and all those other wonderful things — but to that intangible aspect which is hard for some people to grasp and see, and that's family.

When I say it's hard for some people to grasp, I don't mean that in any derogatory sense at all; I mean that in the sense that they have not had the good fortune that I have had and perhaps many other people here have had in having a good, strong family around you. There is absolutely nothing — and I know you will agree as well — that can replace the strength and the support of a family. This government is committed to strengthening the family unit.

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

MR. BRUCE: It's not a question of planning the families to death; it's because this government is prepared to lead where other governments have not gone in the past.

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

Three hundred and seventeen million dollars to be spent on the physically challenged and the special needs children. It's important that a society be measured not on the great, grand things that are built and constructed, but on how it helps and looks after the weakest member in its community. In the instance of the physically challenged, they are not what we would class as the weakest member of our society. In fact they are, as Rick Hansen and others have proven, the ones that are leading us as a society to greater challenges and to greater understanding of what we can do when we work together in concert.

There's $195 million for equipment for special classrooms for severely disabled children to be able to attend regular classrooms. Does this sound like a government that doesn't care? Does this sound like a government that isn't interested in the social aspect and the social development of our community? Absolutely not. You can't sit there with a straight face and say that.

Let's talk about our health care, one of the best health systems you'll find anywhere in the world, absolutely. I want to just come back to my colleague from New Westminster, when she states that our health care budget is right in line with the national average. So why all this outcry all the time when we talk about our health needs in this province? Why is it that the opposition continues to hammer away about the health care in the province of British Columbia when the opposition acknowledges the fact that the health care budgets in the province of British Columbia are right in line with the national average of this country? Why is it? It's because they want to play on the fears of the sick and the elderly. And I get tired of that. I don't mind arguing about where you want to spend the dollars, whether you want to spend it on highways or roads or whether you want to spend it on social programs or social services or what have you. But don't play on the aspects. Don't create that fear in the elderly and the sick, because that doesn't do anybody any good whatsoever.

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

[ Page 3667 ]

Interjection.

MR. BRUCE: Okay, I'll give you that, whatever you want to say it is. But it's approximately $400 million — a $365 million increase. So what would the opposition put in there — $400 million, $500 million, $600 million? How many millions more would the opposition put into health? And whoever said that the health budget was a finite item? Do you just draw the line and the doors go up? Do you just tell people, "That's it, you can't get sick past the date of November 10," or whatever, and that the money's run out? Absolutely not. The bills go in; the bills are paid. It's a projection; it's an estimate; it is not a finite amount. And the opposition knows that only too well. When you look at it, in 1978-79, $1.3 billion was spent on health; in 1987-88, $3.9 billion is estimated to be spent on health this year. That's a $2.6 billion increase. Does anybody have the foggiest idea how much $2.6 billion really is? It's incredible, absolutely incredible.

[3:30]

We hear the opposition talk about cutbacks in the health budget. There has never been any such thing as a cutback in the health budget. Each year the budgets have continued to go up, and each year the budgets will go up, because we have one of the best health systems you will find anywhere in the country — in fact, probably anywhere in the world — and this government, because of the actions today, will maintain the integrity and the prosperity of that health system for the future.

Let's talk of long-term care. I appreciate the comments from the member for New Westminster (Ms. A. Hagen), good comments in respect to our long-term care and the concern that many of the elderly can have when we talk about those types of increases — the 75 percent, the 85 percent — and all that's associated with it. But while it is that there is that concern — and I know, as well, that it's there — at the same time we cannot shy away from doing what we have to. When we talk about asking those to pay who can afford to pay, what's so wrong with that? What's so wrong about asking somebody in a long-term-care facility who is financially sound, well-heeled, to pay? They have money; they were able either through good fortune or good planning or what have you, in their younger years when they were in the workplace, to set dollars aside for their future. What's wrong with asking them to pay? In fact, I'll tell you something: the majority, I believe, of those people who can pay would love to pay, knowing that that's going to help others who are not as fortunate as they are to be able to move into some of those long-term-care facilities. I don't understand what's wrong with asking those people to pay who can afford to pay. In fact, in the long term it's going to protect and assist the integrity of that particular operation as well.

Then we have an increased tax on alcohol. I haven't heard a whole lot about that from the opposition, although there's been some mention of it. Certainly the increase in tax on alcohol affects a great many people, but the increase is for a useful and a good purpose. When we look at the effects of alcohol — what it does to our society, what it does to members of our family and to friends — it's important that we continue to expand the educational programs and the treatment programs so that abuse of alcohol is reduced. And what's this government doing? Yes, the government has increased the tax on alcohol, but at the same time it's increased some $23 million the alcohol and drug education prevention and treatment programs, which will now total some $48 million in this province. A worthwhile endeavour and one that I'm hopeful that those organizations that work so very hard in my community on drug and alcohol abuse and educational programs will be able to take some advantage of. I would urge it, and I'm sure others will also take advantage of that increase.

Then we come to the small business program, the small business aspect, where this government has reduced the income tax rate from 11 percent to 9 percent. Excellent move. It's a move that everybody, I'm sure — opposition and government members — totally and wholly applauds, because it is the small business that is the main generator of jobs in our community from every end of this province, north, south, east and west. The people who actually put the people to work are the small business community. That type of encouragement — reducing the tax rate from 11 percent to 9 percent — should and must be applauded by all members of this House. If they are truly committed to job development, to jobs for the people of this province, then all people in this House will support this budget, because this is what will put people to work.

Then we talk of the forest industry. I am pleased when I look at the forest industry, with my limited involvement, that we see some $210 million to be spent on silviculture. But I would like to emphasize, and I'm sure that in a constructive manner everybody here should emphasize, that as much as we are improving on our silviculture applications within this province and changing the forest policy to put a much greater responsibility on licensees and holders of TFLs for forest management, it's important that we understand that there needs to be more dollars put to intensive management.

Here I stand on the one hand saying it's a great budget — and it is — but at the same time I'm quite prepared to stand here, and I know others are as well, and say on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia that as good a job as we're doing, there is great room for improvement when we talk about intensive management of the forests of British Columbia. That should be a combined effort, both by the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada. I underscore that, and I am hopeful and will continue to lobby for more dollars in respect of the intensive applications of spacing, thinning and fertilization of our forests.

However, at the same time, let me congratulate the government. Let me speak in support of the $8 million in total that we are putting towards a new forest research facility at UBC. It's important that we continue to improve and enhance our research and development, primarily in that major resource the forestry sector, which is what fuels the economy of the province of British Columbia — indeed, the economy of this nation. Let us never forget or lose sight of the number of dollars that the forestry industry generates for this province and this country.

As important as it is for us to diversify our economy, to move into other fields, let us not forget that the forestry sector is the one that fuels the economy of the province of British Columbia — it has in the past, it does today, and it will do so in the future. All the more reason and all the more important that this government has committed some $8 million to the research facility at the University of British Columbia.

Tourism. As we speak about those primary industries and as the communities throughout this province move in a greater fashion, a more complete and comprehensive fashion,

[ Page 3668 ]

into the tourist industry, again, this government has underscored and understands the importance of partnership programs such as Partners in Tourism, a program that has done exceedingly well for many communities, both as community initiatives and private commercial initiatives. It allows partnership of local economic development, as tourism is, coming from the community and developing it with the province. An excellent program.

How could anybody speak against or vote against the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, particularly the two members for Victoria? When we look at the future of this fair city, of what it means to tourism in British Columbia, how could you vote against a budget that is working with the federal government, an initiative that will work with the national government of this country to understand the Pacific Rim countries and bring those people to our community of Victoria, Vancouver Island and British Columbia? How could you vote against that? I really wonder. I'm certain the members for Victoria will be able to explain how it is that they can justify voting against the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism.

In last year's budget there was a mention that the farm classification — the amount sold at the farm gate — would be increased from $1,600 to $5,000. I'm pleased at this point that the government, in the budget that's been presented, has announced that it will maintain that $1,600 target. It clearly demonstrates that this government listens to what the people in the community are saying.

In my own community, I had a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage). Some 300 residents showed up in the arena at Mill Bay from all over the central part of Vancouver Island to voice their concerns as to what it would mean to their family farm operations to have an increase of farm gate sales from $1,600 to $5,000. So did the rest of my colleagues; so did a great number of the others that have small family farm operations and ones that are a little bit larger. We've had those discussions with the citizens in our community, and we brought the message back to the government loud and clear that this was not a move that would be beneficial to bringing more farmland into production and enhancing that quality of life found in the small family farm operations; indeed, that it would be a regressive move.

This government listened and heard, and said: "Fine. We will not do it. We listen and we hear what the people of the province of British Columbia have said." I'm pleased indeed that that action has not been taken.

What is important to the people of B.C. is good fiscal management — yes, at the same time maintaining those social services that we have come to enjoy in this province, something that many would never find anywhere else in the world. What we enjoy in British Columbia in our education, social services and health you won't find in other countries. I've had the luxury of travelling throughout much of Africa and the Middle East, and they have no idea of the luxury that we enjoy in this province, the good health that's found in this province. To stand up and spread the fear that is sometimes spread, in the reality of the total world community, is ridiculous.

It is important that we don't get carried away with the moment, with that one little aspect of the budget, but that we understand what we have and how important it is to our well-being as a community, a society, a civilization. It's also important to understand that good things don't just last. You have to work to build and improve them, and you have to take looks at how you're delivering certain services and how you can improve on them, how you are spending the taxpayer's dollar, and how you can take that same taxpayer's dollar and improve the manner in which we are spending it on behalf of the taxpayers.

Not very many governments are courageous enough to go into that second-look field and look at how they are already delivering programs. Governments normally add another one and another one. Very few are prepared to say, "That one isn't working; let's cut it," or: "That one isn't working as well as it could. Let's change it, and be prepared to suffer the flak that will come whenever anybody tries to change things from one small degree to another." But this government has shown the leadership that's necessary. This government is prepared to enhance, improve and protect the integrity of the social services that we enjoy in this province and that you won't find anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Speaker, this budget is a good budget, and I urge all members to join me and support it on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia.

[3:45]

MR. D'ARCY: I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, along with other members of the chamber enjoyed the Easter break with your family. In the occasional times that I was unfortunate enough to read the news during the ten days the House wasn't sitting, I became quite happy to be living in Canada, in British Columbia in particular, since some of the news from around the world wasn't that good.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks about the budget I want to say some words on behalf of those British Columbia citizens who live beyond municipal boundaries. I don't know how many, if any, you have in your constituency, but British Columbians who live beyond municipal boundaries are increasingly hit and penalized by the government of British Columbia, which obviously has a much more urban orientation than Social Credit governments had in the past. Certainly when I was a very young man, Social Credit governments prided themselves on how well they represented British Columbians out there beyond the limits of the cities of British Columbia.

Here we have a government which has, in this budget and in the last, increased the taxation of property beyond city limits by some 64 percent, which is obviously far beyond the limits of inflation. At the same time we have the government of the day saying to those areas: "Because your school and hospital needs are such...." The government refuses to help. We have seen a number of regional districts increase their tax levels for regionalized services, and we have also seen school districts increase their tax levels, as well as in some cases hospital capital levies.

The fact is that British Columbians who contribute greatly to the British Columbia economy by and large do not have access to the services that urban British Columbians do, whether those services are federal, municipal or provincial.... It's all very well to say: "They're all available. You just have to drive 50 or 100 miles." But a service which is next door or down the street or across town is not the same as a service which is an hour or more away. The fact is that British Columbians living beyond municipal boundaries do not have the same level of services that urban British Columbians have. Yet the tax rates on the property they own and are working hard to develop, to improve their quality of life and that of all British Columbians, have been going up immeasurably under the Social Credit administration of the day.

[ Page 3669 ]

Considering the traditions of the Social Credit Party of the past, which once prided itself on taking a populist approach to those British Columbians living in the smaller and more remote communities of the province, I find that most extraordinary.

I also feel it's most unfortunate that in this debate today.... We've had four speakers from the government benches: one of them the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Savage) ; one from the Fraser Valley; one from Vancouver Island, who just took his place; and one from the South Okanagan. Not one of these speakers, in my hearing at least, even alluded to what this budget is doing to British Columbians who live outside city limits. What better indication do we have of the downtown urban mentality and orientation of the Social Credit Party in the late 1980s.

In addition to the property tax increase, there are not just fee increases in this budget, but fees being charged — I'm not going to go through the whole list of them — that were never charged before. For instance, a British Columbian living in an area which does not have a sewage system who wants to put in a properly approved sewage system, in order to protect not only his family's interest but also that of the public at large, is now faced for the first time with a $200 application fee — $200 merely to apply. And if for some reason the installation does not go properly or is not done perfectly, or if for some reason something goes wrong with an existing system, it's $100 to get a reinspection. Never before applied, Mr. Speaker. I don't know what municipalities charge for building permits, but surely it's not $100 for a building permit and another $100 for a modification, if one needs a modification. Yet here we see — for the first time — a charge of $200 to put in a properly approved sewage system. Someone who is responsible enough to want to have a properly approved sewage system is faced with a $200 charge simply for the privilege of being able to fill out the application papers — another impost on British Columbians who live, for the most part, beyond city boundaries. In some cases there are people who live within municipal boundaries who are not on a regular sewage system. Once again, it is a policy of the Social Credit government of the day which shows a downtown urban mentality and disregards the people who not only built this province but who are still building this province out there beyond municipal boundaries.

I want to speak briefly regarding the increased and additional taxes on liquor consumption in the province. I suppose it's trendy to announce more — and overdue — money to go to substance abuse programs. But as has been pointed out, less than half the increase in revenue due to liquor taxation is going to go into increased money for substance abuse.

I want to make another point, though. The majority of British Columbians — and certainly this applies in your constituency, Mr. Speaker — live within a very short distance of a border to another jurisdiction, whether it's one of the American states to the south of us or, for that matter, Alaska if you live in the area of Stewart, or Alberta and, in some cases I suppose, the Yukon Territory. The majority of British Columbians live within a short distance of these other jurisdictions. My constituents live very close to the U.S. border, and what the tax means is that alcoholic beverages, particularly draft beer, sold in bars will cost my constituents double if not more than double the money they do just across the border in the United States. Certainly this same thing applies to lower mainland people. It applies to people living in the Crowsnest Pass, who can get to Alberta. It applies to some people living in the North Peace River riding as well.

Mr. Speaker, you may consider this a minor point, but what the government of the province is doing is encouraging most British Columbians — because there is an elasticity of demand — to go out to do what people used to do when they wanted a drink on Sunday, which was to go en masse to Bellingham, Point Roberts, Blaine or, in my riding, to Northport, Washington. This is good neither for the B.C. economy nor for the responsible men and women who operate liquor outlets in my constituency. And because some people do abuse alcohol when they're in bars, it's not good for the safety of the rest of us on the highways. So I think the liquor taxes are somewhat ill-thought-out, because of the proximity of the majority of British Columbians to a border.

Just a quick aside. Government members, of course, don't have too much to crow about in the budget, so naturally they're going to pick on the one or two things that they feel are good and expand on them. I suppose I would do the same in their position. But it's interesting to hear them talk about the decrease in the income tax rate for small businesses. What they don't really want to talk about is that the business tax on small, medium and large corporations in British Columbia was lower between 1972 and 1975, in the early seventies, than it is today. The fact is that the taxes on corporations in British Columbia range, depending on the size, between 10 percent and 13 percent. We still see that the corporate tax rate in British Columbia is 14 percent under Social Credit today, in the late 1980s. I merely put that out as an aside.

One aspect that has received some publicity in the last day or so is the effect of the far-less-than-inflation increases in college funding. I want to talk in particular about what it means in my constituency. In my constituency about 40 percent of the increase in actual dollars is simply going to go to pay the employers' share of the increased medicare premiums. In other words, in real dollars there is a decline in the amount of money available for Selkirk College and post-secondary education in general.

I would point out that in my area, and I think other parts of the province are very similar, we have an increasing demand — increasing beyond our per capita level — for post-secondary education services, particularly at the community college level. In fact, the use of the community college by indigenous students, that is, students who come out of high school or older people — by older I mean beyond the age of 18; they've been out of school for a few years — who wish to use the post-secondary education services in my riding is the highest in the province. The participation rate as a percentage of the population is the highest in the province. This may, in part, be due to the fact that it's 400 miles to the nearest major university.

So there is no lack of public demand for the service. There obviously has been no resistance to paying the sharply increased fees which the government has imposed on students in recent years, yet the government is making less money in real terms available to provide post-secondary education services to British Columbians within the community they live.

I consider this, once again.... Well, I don't consider it exactly short-sightedness on the part of the government, because I don't think the government is short-sighted. I think that's giving them too much credit. That's suggesting they're making a mistake and that they don't know they're making a mistake. I think the effect of reduction in funding in real

[ Page 3670 ]

terms to the community colleges of British Columbia is not a mistake on the part of the government; it's a calculated, conscious act on their part.

I want to talk briefly about another area of education funding which I think is sorely lacking in the budget. While there is some provision for additional funds for school districts, I'm not certain as to whether this is an increase in money over what the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) already announced some time ago or whether the government is simply reannouncing the same increase.

[Mr. Rabbitt in the chair.]

While there is additional money for some programs for the severely disabled, I do not detect, nor has anyone I have been able to contact in the ministry, that there is going to be money for those British Columbians who are moderately disabled, who have a moderate learning disability. This is a major flaw in the school education funding system in British Columbia today.

[4:00]

It's quite clear that if an individual who is being mainstreamed — and I think it's a good trend — has an obvious mental or physical handicap, there is more assistance for them. If somebody is obviously blind or deaf or missing a limb or is severely physically disabled, or they have a severe mental disability, there are special programs for them and I say well and good. That is overdue and additional money, and that's a good part of the budget.

But for those students who simply have trouble learning — they're not unintelligent, they're not physically disabled, but they have trouble learning because they don't physically see things exactly the way you and I do; I'm not talking about opinions on matters; I'm saying they don't see or understand things — there is no assistance for them.

I think it's quite clear that many of the young people in British Columbia who feel disoriented, who want to drop out of school, who want to drop out of society, are those who are not stupid but have moderate learning disabilities. They do not come from uncaring homes or have uncaring parents or have a bad family structure; they simply do not have the ability to soak up the education as it is applied to them in the classrooms they are in. They need special professional help. By the way, if they had that, they could be every bit as productive as anyone else in British Columbia all their lives. But in fact there is no assistance for that.

I have no knowledge of what Mr. Sullivan — God willing he'll get well — will report to the government when he makes his report, but I hope that is something that he stresses very strongly in his report, and I hope it's something the government acts on.

About the Medical Services Plan, eight years ago in the fiscal year that ended March 1981 — it is seven years ago, but I'm comparing the budget which runs to 1989 — the total take for Medical Services Plan premiums in British Columbia was $180 million. Even if we allow for inflation and an increase in population since that time, that would still only take the Medical Services Plan premiums in British Columbia, if they had remained the same, to $270 million. Under the budget that we had tabled a couple of weeks ago, we're going to find it's going to be $555 million. That's a 100 percent increase in real terms. In actual terms it's much larger than that. But it's more than a doubling of medical plan premiums since 1981. The costs of health care have not been going up at.... I'm not going to go into that discussion, but they have not been going up faster than the rest of the budget, and doctors' incomes in British Columbia have not been going up faster than inflation. In fact, doctors are in a way quite typical of the overwhelming majority of British Columbians in that their real, disposable income has been declining — with the occasional exception, the occasional jump — for the past ten years.

A budget such as we are discussing in the chamber today here does not do anything for the individual's personal disposable income; in fact, it reduces people's disposable incomes even more. One of the reasons we have so many two-income families, or so many families where both people would like to be working if they could find work, is that one income simply doesn't do it anymore. It isn't that people have unreasonable standard-of-living expectations. The one income that went far enough in the middle and late 70s simply doesn't go far enough anymore. There have been tax increases by the provincial government over the last few years well over and above the rate of inflation. There have been tax increases by the federal government well over and above the rate of inflation. We've even had tax increases at the local level, which has not by and large been the fault of the duly elected people at the local level; they've come because of different funding changes at the provincial level. So people's disposable income in British Columbia has been declining for the overwhelming majority of British Columbians — and Stats Canada will bear that out — even without the tax bite that's taken by the provincial government.

The long-term-care increases: some people have said they're going up by 10 percent. Well, I know some people in long-term care. It's not going up by 10 percent for them; it's going up by 40 percent. They used to have 25 percent of their pension income left over after their room and board. Now they're only going to have 15. That is a 40 percent increase.

Some people have said: "We have to charge this amount because we don't want people flooding into British Columbia to take advantage of the long-term-care program." I don't know of anyone who.... What proof does the government have? What evidence do they have to show that anybody does that? The British Columbians in my riding who are in long-term care spent their working years here. They spent their years in business or professions or working in British Columbia. In many cases, they're native British Columbians. If they're not native British Columbians, they came here as young adults or as children. They spent all or most of their working years in British Columbia. They did not come here from some other province to take advantage of the health care system. The government has no proof of that whatsoever.

I find it rather empty to hear people on the government side talk about how important senior citizens are and the pioneers of British Columbia, and all that sort of flowery rhetoric, and then to know what's happening to people in long-term care. Oh, I know there are people on the government side who get up and say: "Well, but there are a number of wealthy people in the long-term-care system, and they should pay their share." So they should. That's why we have income tax. And that's why we should have succession duties with a very generous exemption level. What the government wants to do is go after, once again, those people who can least afford to pay.

Much has been made of the budget stabilization fund, or the so-called BS fund. British Columbians do not believe that privatization of such things as highways maintenance is going

[ Page 3671 ]

to save money. They really don't believe that. In fact, when they're out talking to the public, apologists for the Social Credit government rarely claim that it's going to save money. After all, most private sector truck drivers and maintenance workers make more than those who work for the provincial government — even some of the non-union ones. Nobody really believes that with the profit factor thrown in, services are going to be maintained at the same level and the government's going to save money. So even government apologists have stopped really saying that. What they say when they go up there is: "We have to sell off all these assets because the government has to have the money." It's a budget-balancing procedure. If the only rationale is that there is a deficit in British Columbia, you can't really have the Finance minister come in and announce that the deficit is $550 million less than he predicted it was going to be. So, of course, we need a budget stabilization fund. Because without the budget stabilization fund the rationale for selling off the assets of the province isn't quite the same, is it, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: You're asking him?

MR. D'ARCY: Well, Mr. Speaker is reasonable.

There is another aspect of that. I and a number of other people on our side of the House have been speaking about the tax increases and fee increases and rate increases, and how they apply mostly to those in British Columbia who can least afford to pay. Once again the government came in and said: "The deficit is $550 million less than we said it was going to be." How can you politically justify all the fee and rate increases, any more than you can justify the privatization program financially? You can't. Another reason for having the BS fund is so that the deficit from last year would appear to be $800 million instead of $350 million — or whatever it otherwise would have been. You can't justify tax increases when the deficit is disappearing anyway. You can't justify privatization when the deficit is disappearing anyway.

To repeat what has been said before, in the last year and a half there have been 662 fee and tax increases by the Social Credit government, all of them well beyond the level of inflation — not just beyond, but well beyond the level of inflation.

The budget puts less money aside for highways capital at the same time it charges people in British Columbia more for gasoline. The gasoline tax is going up a cent a litre. I have to take a quick kick at the federal government. I've been annoyed for a number of years at the federal government having gasoline taxes at all, quite frankly, since they don't put money into highways or transportation in this country; certainly not the road system. They may have done at one time, with grants for parts of the Trans-Canada Highway, but in recent decades none or virtually none. But at the same time they're taxing us more for gasoline, the Social Credit government is saying they're going to spend less on highway improvements.

Let's talk a bit about highways capital, Mr. Speaker. Most people, especially the city slickers — and I know you're not one, because you come from a riding with small towns and a lot of rural people — when they think of capitalization of highways, think of new highways or the reconstruction of old ones. But an increasing part — and I'm sure you know this — of highways capital is simply going into major maintenance. I don't know at exactly what point the ministry decides that major maintenance becomes capital instead of minor betterments, but it's usually at the point where it's so big they have to let a contract.

Just to give you an example, when I have to drive from my riding to the Tsawwassen ferry terminal, I travel Highway 3. Those parts of Highway 3 that have been either repaved or rebuilt in the last ten years are generally in pretty good shape, but those parts that have not been rebuilt or repaved in the last ten years are in embarrassingly horrible shape, Mr. Speaker — and you know that, because you have a substantial portion of Highway 3 in your constituency — and that is not untypical of the highway system in British Columbia.

There has to be a major resurfacing program just to keep the highways infrastructure in the condition it's in. There has to be a major bridge maintenance program in British Columbia just to maintain the bridges we have now. This is big money. I'll just give you an example. The Columbia River bridge in Trail is costing a million dollars — that's if there isn't an overrun, and there might well be — simply to refinish the upper girders; no work on the piers or the sidewalks or the deck or the main girders under the bridge, just the upper girders — refinishing, sandblasting, painting: a million dollars. Highways considers that capital; somebody else might say that's just maintenance. But I would point out, as I get nearly through my introductory remarks, that for the government to reduce spending on the highway system of this province, one which is largely used by those British Columbians beyond municipal limits, while at the same time increasing gasoline taxes is simply not responsible.

[4:15]

I'm not going to support the budget. There are a number of other things I could deal with. I suppose I will deal with them in the estimates as we go on, but I'm not going to support the budget, because it is very insensitive to human beings in British Columbia — to the people who make the province tick, the people who pay the freight.

There are numerous British Columbians out there who are not political. They just go to their place of work or their business or their professional office and do their best, and they don't really think about politics. They don't think about the kinds of things that we talk about down here. They're simply trying to maintain themselves and their families, to get ahead a bit. This budget is insensitive to them in terms of what is being charged by government and the services being returned by government. I hope that the people on the government's side will be able to persuade the Treasury Board and the minister to reconsider major aspects of this budget before it becomes law.

MR. MERCIER: I appreciate this opportunity to speak on the budget. In my riding I was in provincial elections in 1966 and 1972, and finally was elected in 1986, so I have observed the government operation for over 20 years. One of the impressions I was left with is that it is now more efficient than I thought it was, but it could be more efficient than it is.

The budget is heading in that direction. My purpose as an MLA is something that I have tried to understand better in the past year, and I have determined that my duty is mainly to speak for my riding. This is particularly important at budget time.

In each riding special circumstances exist that must be addressed. In my case, the percentage of single-parent families and middle-aged and retired persons is higher than the provincial average. In the party system, which is a democracy, it's necessary to speak to the needs of your constituents

[ Page 3672 ]

and at the same time recognize how difficult it is for the government to arrive at perfect solutions. So, Mr. Speaker, please accept my thoughts as I relate them to the special people I represent in my constituency.

Good government is a combination of leadership balanced by consensus. Our Premier is the most dynamic, energetic promoter of this province. We must with the budget process and other provincial matters approach the gathering of consensus with equal energy and vigour. I am sure all will agree that constructive comments are welcome and vital to the conduct of the business of the province.

In that vein, I would like to make a comment on the budget process, which I find backward and somewhat archaic. It's redundant for me to take the time of the House to speak to a budget that will not be amended. Notwithstanding that, in this case it is a fiscally responsible and forward-moving budget. But were it not, we would still have to live by its terms for the next year, so it's obvious that there are benefits of broader input into the process.

If General Motors, IBM and MacMillan Bloedel can review and discuss huge budgets in advance and have them finally adopted before the commencement of the fiscal year, why shouldn't we? The process should be more open to MLAs earlier to meet the consensus criteria, and only certain revenue measures held private until the end of the process.

The opposition will find little to criticize in this budget, nor would it have hurt the fundamental process to have the opposition comments earlier. The rapid moves of an economic cycle, particularly with a resource-based economy, require that we complete the process earlier than we do.

The government's job is to balance the aim, to control and manage costs with the desire of maintaining excellent standards for services provided. We must remember that we in government — and I include the federal and provincial representatives — are simply temporary custodians of the public's money. Never in Canadian history have we had so many programs under administration, and never have we had our hands so far into the taxpayer's pocket.

The combined tax load can leave a single mother, who has three children, a decent job and sensible spending habits, with an empty refrigerator before payday. We must be wary of the federal government because of the impact of federal income tax and, more importantly, looking ahead, we should strenuously oppose their stated intention to expand the federal sales tax, which would drain millions from our province.

Our country is suffering under an expense-driven budget process, and the federal government could well heed and duplicate the difficult but necessary steps taken by this provincial government to reassess spending, especially on duplication of services or inefficient delivery of services. Provincially, we must proceed with caution and balance, and show special care and concern for those on low income, those requiring medical care, the elderly and the disabled.

Consequently, while certain fee-for-service items remain part of our system, it should be remembered that the fairest tax in our country is income tax. When increases to fees for services are necessary, we must not forget the impact — a severe impact — of fixed fees on those least able to pay.

On another matter, I must voice my concern about the intentions to provide loan guarantees to business. For the indicated magnitude of benefits that such programs are historically known, they are not worth the effort. Too often the tax money of hard-working small businesses ends up subsidizing inefficient operations that do not warrant assistance or preservation.

Due to the process described earlier, it is difficult in the time allotted to fully develop commentary on the budget, but this opportunity to speak should not be wasted, hence the following random comments.

We have $5.3 billion in direct government debt, which costs us $600 million per year. We must reduce that debt until the annual cost is an acceptable percentage of our total budget, and consequently we would then make available funds for government social programs.

Our long-term planning should include a formula that relates our debt to our ability to pay back over a specified period of time. There were governments before ours that put the government operation in the hole. When we get out of that hole, we should have learned a lesson and not do it again. The budget stabilization fund is an excellent way to counter the roller-coaster ride of a resource-based economy. We must plan so that the pain of the effect of recession on our government employees and those served by the government is not revisited, because when we as politicians guess wrong, those who are least able to cope bear the brunt.

On the privatization fund, I might say that I could not support the accumulation of huge, unallocated reserves, because the basic tenet of taxation is to spread the tax cost among the people who, during a period of time, benefit from the programs. This fund is not a huge fund; it is a reasonable fund. The fund will also serve to preserve stability, as will the stabilization fund, and it will recognize the gains from privatization.

With respect to privatization, I wish to take a moment to express distaste that a private citizen, Mr. Toigo, would adversely affect the bidding process on the sale of assets of B.C. Enterprise Corporation and comment negatively on that process to the press. As a member of the B.C. Enterprise Corporation board, I wish to compliment the minister responsible for B.C. Enterprise Corporation; the chairman, Mr. Brown; the board; and particularly Mr. Kevin Murphy, chief executive officer, and his staff on their exceptional efforts to conduct the disposal process in a fashion that will bring the best price for the province under the circumstances existing at this time. Mr. Toigo is perfectly free to make public the details, including any conditions, of any offer he has for anything that is for sale.

Now looking ahead, in my constituency the population is ageing. Let us be sure they do so with dignity. Let us be sure we don't strip the elderly and the infirm of their dignity by not ensuring that they have some discretionary funds to spend. They say that in financial concerns perfect planning is spending your last penny when you're drawing your last breath, but I don't think we should provide our services in such a way that people are left with no discretionary cash. We will be under tremendous pressure, and must plan accordingly, to expand extended care and long-term-care residences.

I ask you to remember the bulging school system of the baby boom years. In Burnaby we had Panabode school buildings erected. They just couldn't build the schools fast enough for the school population resulting from the baby boom. The people of the baby boom are now older, people like me and you, and they are now moving into the category where they will impact next on the health care and the seniors' residential housing system. We are expected to maintain the services for that expanded need. We are also expected to maintain the hospital staffs and pay them sufficiently well to maintain the spirit and dedication required for

[ Page 3673 ]

them to remain the best. We are expected to pay attention to our economic development, to retrain people and create additional jobs, and by doing so reduce further the numbers on social assistance.

One of the main things we can do in the area of economic activity is to determine which products we can make and sell at a profit, rather than trying to enter areas where we don't have natural advantages. By research into those areas and concentrating on those areas, we will help small business expand, and we will help the start of new businesses.

My reading of the public pulse is that we have the public support necessary to dedicate the necessary resources to all these objectives.

[4:30]

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the previous speaker for a refreshing approach to the budget process. I know that our members on this side were listening attentively to what the member said. In opening his comments he adopted the position that the budget is something to be looked at critically by all of us, because it's a document that we're going to have to go out to the people of the province and to our constituents to defend and to explain, and if we don't have a bit of an investment in that document — if it's presented to the House on the day of the budget and we haven't really had any input into that document — then we can't really expect all of the members of this Legislature.... In fact, if only the Minister of Finance has seen the final terms of the document, then it's very difficult in some cases to get all the members of the government to get out there and to do a real team approach on this budget, to really be able to sell it to the people of the province. So I appreciate the comments of the member as to the process involved in drawing up the budget in the first place, and hopefully the members of the government will pay attention to the very appropriate comments made by the member. I'm sure that on balance the member is going to support the budget, but I think the fact that he had some comments as to how we could improve the process is really worthwhile and really useful for the people who are listening in this Legislature.

I can't say the same for the member for Cowichan Malahat (Mr. Bruce), who spoke and took exactly the other approach: "Boom-boom! Rah-rah! I don't care what's in the budget. I'm going to stand up in a demagogic way and support this budget." I think that those kinds of approaches don't help either, because if you look at the comments on this budget in the media and from people around the province who are going to be affected in a very negative way by this budget, in general terms, the rating of this budget has not been very high. Some people have rated it, as the member says, as a grab in the taxpayer's pocket. The Province's headline on the day following the budget was: "Ouch! Socreds Sock It to You." And: "This is a budget that attacks the poor."

No question about it, Mr. Speaker, upon analysis of the budget, our staff and members have found that this budget, in terms of taxes and fees, takes an additional $700 out of the pockets of every single family in the province of British Columbia. It is a tax-gouging, tax-grabbing, fee-gouging budget, and there's no question about that. In virtually every area of government service — and I wonder why I should be calling it a service anymore, when this government has established a price for next to everything it does for the citizens of this province.... Combined with the $700 that this government took out of the pockets of the taxpayers in last year's budget, this has been a serious tax grab on the income of families in the province of British Columbia.

One of the ways you can tell a demagogue.... Well, maybe I should take this story back a little farther. I once had a professor at UBC who advised me how to write a book. She said that in order to write a book that's going to sell, you have to have certain components in it. She said, first of all, it has to have a bit of love interest. So she was going to title her book "I Had An Affair." Then that wasn't enough, because everybody was writing books about love interests, so you had to make it a little kinkier. So she changed her title to "I Had An Affair With A Bear." Finally people said: "Well, that's not all that unusual in these days of environmental understanding" — perhaps it's more common up in Merritt. But they said you had to have some kind of transcendental experience coming out of this thing, so she made the title of her book "I Had An Affair With A Bear And Found God."

I think a demagogue structures his speech in very much the same way. You find out what appeals to the public; then you inject those kinds of appeals into the speech. When I was listening to the member for Cowichan-Malahat, he wrapped up his speech — which was essentially a compendium of the items in the budget speech — by talking about the family. Well, you know, when a politician starts talking about the family, they hope they're not pointing at your family.... But when a politician starts talking about the family and how the government wants to maintain a tightly knit family and how — as the member for Cowichan said — the family unit is something that politicians don't really appreciate because it's so intangible.... Mr. Speaker, this budget makes families tangible. If you want to know what the word "tangible" means, it comes from the root "they can be touched." They can be taxed; they can be gouged; they can be drained. What this budget and this government do is turn the family unit into a source of taxation for the Socred government here in British Columbia. That's all it has done, and that's all the concern that that member has for families in the province of B.C.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

No matter where you turn in this province, you're going to get hit by a fee for something, a fee that's constantly increased through government budgets and legislation. When you combine that with the same thing that's being done at the federal level by the Tory government since 1984, families in this province are suffering decreasing incomes, not as a result of wage settlements or changes in the standard of living due to other causes, because, as the member for Burnaby said, the government is constantly dipping into their pockets, constantly increasing charges for services, constantly compounding taxes upon taxes to drive families in this province into poverty.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: That's the objective of this government, and that member doesn't even seem to care, Mr. Speaker.

Every single fee, premium and tax has been increased in this province to the point where people are not suffering from low-income levels; they're suffering from taxes being drained out of their families by the government of British Columbia in collusion with the Tory government in Ottawa.

I was watching a program on television yesterday about the high costs being imposed on court processes in British

[ Page 3674 ]

Columbia. I forget the figures — Mr. Speaker, you can correct me if I'm wrong — but I gather that last year court and filing fees brought in revenues of about $3.7 million. In this year's estimates, we're talking about bringing in — I shouldn't say "we"; I'm not going to say "we...." They are talking about bringing in revenues of $14.7 million in court fees and filing fees.

There's been a problem in the province of British Columbia for years and years, and that is that average working families and individuals and people at the low-income level cannot get access to the system of justice in this province because they don't have money to buy a lawyer, because they don't have money to go through the rituals in the legal process.

When we were in government, we set up a number of instrumentalities; for example, the rentalsman office, where these disputes could be resolved on an informal basis. We set up things like a family court system where decisions could be made on a more informal basis, where you wouldn't have to have lawyers and refer to all of those legal forms and law books, and you wouldn't have to marry them if you wanted good service.

This government is turning that around. They're making the legal services and the judicial system more and more inaccessible to people at lower income levels and at the poverty level in the province of British Columbia. It's already expensive, and now it's becoming more expensive. Think of those single-parent families who have to go down and file for support payments that aren't being made or maintenance payments that aren't being made. Now the government will do it for them. But think of all those other processes that are required. At one time the rentalsman handled landlord and tenant complaints, and it was done without any cost to the people involved in the process. Now they're being charged through the court process, and it's a very difficult process indeed for most landlords and tenants to follow.

I just want to deviate a little bit from the discussion and talk about one of the things that's also in the budget speech, an increase in the revenue expected from fines. This is a government that likes to fine citizens, depending on which citizens they are, and they like to have big fines for those poor folks. As the member for Vancouver East said, this government is based on the thesis that the poor have too much money and the rich don't have enough, and they like to levy these fines against the poor folks. I gather that revenues in this budget from fines are expected to skyrocket.

I want to tell you about a complaint I have recently received from people in the Victoria area. The complaints are about those radar cameras, those cameras that the police will set up on an intersection somewhere or in a  certain speeding zone somewhere. They take a picture of your car, they get a readout of the speed, and then if they can get the post office to deliver the tickets, you get a ticket in the mail and you're fined $75 without even knowing at the time that you committed the offence.

I want to tell you about an incident that I heard about on the weekend where one person received in the mail on the same day three tickets, filmed with the same camera, going at the same speed, beyond the same location. I think that justice is not being served by the use of this kind of equipment. It's a great revenue cow, I can tell you that, because this kid ended up paying out $225 in fines.

I think the Attorney-General in this province should ban those radar cameras or else the tickets should not be effective unless they're delivered by an RCMP or police officer to the driver at the time of the offence. Because if there's one thing we want to do, it is not just to use this driver as a revenue source; we want to stop him from speeding too. Why don't they deliver that ticket to the driver and say: "You're speeding and you're going to be fined"? Then he won't drive past the machine three times again.

Nor will he speed somewhere else, because I'll tell you something. I once saw a magazine article in Maclean's magazine where the police department at Halifax-Dartmouth had put up a sign. They had a radar set up there, and they put up a sign, and they didn't ticket anybody. They just said: "60 miles per hour; 80 percent compliance today." Drivers actually slowed down to try to increase the compliance figure. So you could get a positive reaction by warning drivers that their speed was being tested. I think there are many ways to reduce speeding in the province of British Columbia, but one of the ways is not to use speeding offences as a kind of revenue cow so that you can milk drivers every time they drive by one of these cameras.

If a person drives by one of these cameras twice and then gets involved in an accident as a result of the high speed, I think the police officer who is operating that camera should be charged in that offence equally to the driver who is responsible, because when he had an opportunity to warn that driver, he did not warn that driver in order to prevent that driver from speeding and getting involved in a speed-related accident. This is just one example.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I'm not saying that we shouldn't catch speeders. Radar was great. Catching speeders is great. I think we should slow people down. What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that when one person gets three tickets in the mail from an offence committed a few weeks ago, and nobody took the trouble to warn him, then that's not justice done. It's simply using speeders as a revenue-generating measure, and I think that's reflected by the increase in fine revenue that's placed in the budget here. So I just wanted to get that on the record, and I'll be writing to the Attorney-General and making representations during the A-G's estimates on this issue. I'm sure that the Attorney-General (Hon. B.R. Smith) has received some complaints on this issue himself.

I would like to join the other members of my party in talking about the issue of medicare premiums. It was a serious error to finance the medical care system by raising the premiums to the extent that the minister has raised them in this budget. There are only three provinces in Canada left which believe in the premium process: Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. There are only three provinces in Canada which use that premium process, and I believe that the others have changed their method of generating revenue for medical services because using the taxation process is a much fairer way of allocating the costs and a much fairer way of distributing the cost burden for health care so that those who are poor don't pay more than those who can afford to pay, those who are wealthy.

[4:45]

The only way to improve the distribution of the burden of the costs of the medicare system is to impose the costs through the income tax system, and I'm pleased to say that seven other provinces in Canada have done that. The only three that remain are Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia,

[ Page 3675 ]

and I think it's a darn shame that this province didn't take an opportunity at this time — when people are so concerned about health care — to change our premiums to a taxation- based system of financing the medicare system based on ability to pay rather than on a premium-based system which hits the poor just as hard as it hits the rich, and hits low-income and middle-income families as hard as it hits those who are extremely wealthy. It's an absolutely unfair system, and I think this government realizes that. But this government is committed to a system of financing this province so that it hits the poor harder than it hits the rich, and you can see that in virtually every taxation program they've put together so far.

The minister says that in health care and Pharmacare programs and in the availability of health services and prescription drugs, we're never going to deny the poor what they're entitled to; we're just going to make them crawl to get it. That's what he's saying. And that's what we would like to eliminate from the system, Mr. Speaker. Everybody in this province should be entitled to the services of this province on the same basis — not constant means tests, constant examination of your income. We should do that once a year and once only, when we're filing for our income tax, so that we know who's entitled and who should pay and make them pay at the time they file their income tax. The rest of the time these programs should be universal.

I just want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, about something that happened to my wife, who teaches grade 5. Somebody found a lunch in the classroom, and one of the kids put up her hand and said: "We should leave that lunch at the back of the room so that if anybody came without a lunch, they'll be able to eat that one." In fact, as the discussion went on in the class, other kids put up their hands and said: "Maybe kids who bring bigger lunches in this class should want to share the food that they have and they should put the food in the cloakroom at the back of the class, and the kids who need it can go back and get it without being seen." My wife then asked them a question. She said: "Who here doesn't have enough food and would need to share somebody else's lunches?" And nobody put up their hand.

How would you feel, Mr. Speaker, if you had to go through that humiliating process of a means test for everything you need — for some things you need in terms of medicine to cure your illnesses or to prevent the breakdown of your body? How would you like to go through a means test again in order to get your premium subsidies or temporary premium assistance? How would you feel if you had to go through a means test at virtually every step in your day-to-day life? You would feel humiliated; you would feel less than human — a second-class citizen. I think that's what struck my wife when she was talking to the kids in her class about kids who were going without adequate nutrition. Nobody wanted to admit it, but everybody wanted that service to be there in the event that it happened to them and that they did need a lunch and were going hungry.

I don't think a system that operates by humiliating those who don't have adequate resources is a good system in a civilized province like British Columbia. I think what we should be doing in this province is making health programs as universal as possible and making the system of paying for health care as universal as possible, based on a tax system that operates on the ability to pay.

Let's do one means test a year for all of us — for you and me and the average person in the street and for low-income people. Let's do one means test per year on a confidential basis, and if you don't believe what they write down on their income tax form, believe me, the legislation is there for you to go after them and make sure they pay the price for that. It's unfortunate that this minister did not include in the budget a change from a premium-based system to an income tax-based system which would allow us to pay for our health care services on the basis of ability to pay.

The undesirable effect of that is that it would reduce the number of people who work for the government services whose only job is means testing for premium subsidies and temporary premium assistance. They would have to go and do something useful within the health insurance system. I'm sure they would be willing to do that.

I can tell you that from the point of view of my constituency office, every year we have hundreds and hundreds of people coming through who are in an absolute panic about being cut off the medical care program because of the requirement for temporary premium assistance or for premium subsidies. It creates a real problem for them.

Every April we have senior citizens coming in who have to fill out their income form for the last year in order to qualify for the guaranteed income supplement; otherwise they'll be cut off their GAIN for seniors or their Mincome program and their guaranteed income supplement. Why do we feel that we have to put people through this kind of humiliating test of poverty in order to give them the pittance that the government does give them? We have the income tax system that will require them to file once a year on a confidential basis, and then they'll be eligible for the programs universally. That's the direction we should be going.

In this budget we're going in exactly the opposite direction. We're setting up fees, premiums and programs that hit the poor and low-income people much harder than they hit the rich. That's the problem that this side has with respect to this budget.

I want to talk a little bit about decentralization and how it affects my community and my constituency. When the government in its throne speeches and its budget talks about the advantages that decentralization will bring to the province of British Columbia, it seems to be completely false. The story doesn't ring true at all in the community of Port Alberni, because over the last two years under this government, virtually every government service in the city of Port Alberni and the region I represent has come under attack from this government and is being threatened with shutdown so that those services are being moved out of our area and are being moved elsewhere on Vancouver Island.

Let me give you a few examples. The members on the government side talked a little bit about the recession of 1981 and 1982. We lost thousands of workers in Port Alberni in the forest industry. We lost thousands of people in logging, sawmilling and in pulp and paper. Not a single square centimetre of the forest land base was lost. All of the losses of employment were due to changes in markets, to speedups in the industrial process, to mechanization of logging and manufacturing. All of those jobs were lost as a result of those kinds of changes, with no decrease in the forest land base whatsoever.

In addition to those losses, the government is now coming back to Port Alberni and saying: "We're going to take away the Assessment Authority office in your community. We're going to take away the B.C. Hydro customer services office in your community. We're going to take away

[ Page 3676 ]

the Ministry of Highways district offices in your community." Right now, Mr. Speaker, I represent a major forestry community that contributes a major part of the revenues of this province, in terms of forestry stumpage revenues and that kind of thing, and the Forest Service now is even discussing shutting down the forest office in Port Alberni and moving it to Nanaimo, combining it with Duncan.

It's absolutely insane. But it's also a lie. The government is lying to us if they say that there's a decentralization process in operation. All we can see in Port Alberni are government offices shutting down and being centralized in Nanaimo and Victoria and other places. Who's telling the truth?

I can tell you what the truth looks like from the city of Port Alberni. The truth looks like the process is centralization, not decentralization. The government is taking away services from us. They're taking away jobs from us. They're compounding the economic impacts that we in Port Alberni have been feeling as a result of the recession of 1981-82, which the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) said isn't over yet in B.C. We're not over that recession; we're still having problems.

I might say that some people in Port Alberni are over the recession. MacMillan Bloedel this year just announced an increase in profits, to the point where they're now making the highest profit they've ever made in the history of that company. They're over the recession. Now they're not paying any taxes at all. In a recent issue of the M-B Journal they said they wouldn't be paying taxes on their earnings for ten years. Wouldn't you like that kind of tax system, Mr. Speaker? Wouldn't members of this Legislature like a system where they weren't paying any taxes on their earnings for ten years? In addition, thanks to the generosity of this government, M&B now pays no taxes on its machinery and equipment, which used to be taxed in order to support school boards and hospital boards. In fact, the assessment system has been changed so that they pay less on their property. They questioned how you can evaluate or assess the market value of a mill; as a result they're paying less on their property. And as a result of the generosity given them by the Social Credit government under this Premier and under the previous Premier, much less revenue is coming into the coffers of the city of Port Alberni and other communities in my constituency.

Guess who's making it up, Mr. Speaker. It is the residential tax base in that area, owned by the families that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) was talking about. If that member was so concerned about families, why are he and his government constantly gouging those families for taxes and at the same time relieving the big earners in Port Alberni and that region of any obligation to pay virtually any taxes at all? It's not fair. It's not a fair system, and the people in Port Alberni can see that it's not fair. As the taxes go up on their houses and the assessed value goes down, and as the taxes on MacMillan Bloedel's property go down while their profits go up, it's pretty clear to me that the system is unfair. I'm sure it's clear to you that the system is unfair.

What we should be developing in a budget like this is a system that taxes people according to their ability to pay. What's happening in British Columbia is that those who have the greatest ability to pay are paying nothing, and those who have the least ability to pay are being forced to shoulder the whole of the burden.

Another of my professors at university once told me about a Greek system. In Greece everybody paid taxes according to the amount of his wealth, according to what he owned, and the rich were expected to contribute a lot more in terms of food, horses or even soldiers for the army. The rich were expected to contribute more bushels of wheat. In fact, my classics professor told me that there was a term called "pentakosiomedimnos," which means a five-bushel-a-year man, and if you lived in ancient Greece and you were wealthy enough to do it, you were expected to contribute five bushels a year to support the army. And you didn't try to conceal that or cover up your income or use tax dodges to get rid of that obligation because in that society you were proud of the fact that you made that kind of contribution. You were proud of the fact that if you had derived your income and your wealth from that society in the first place, you could at least make that kind of a return.

[Mr. Weisgerber in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I know what you're going to say, because I can see that the red light is on, and I think that I've basically had my say and will have more opportunities in the near future. I want to express my appreciation for the speech made by the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Mercier). I hope that all members of the government give this budget more serious consideration.

[5:00]

MR. PETERSON: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in support of the budget. Our previous speaker, the member for Alberni, talked about the negative effect of the budget on individuals. I guess I have to agree with him because any time you have to pay taxes, any time you have to pay for any services that you get, I guess it does have a negative effect on you. However, the reality is — and the socialists over there simply cannot seem to understand — that there is no such thing as a free ride, and the demand for services must be paid for. When will they understand that? I don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: They want a free lunch.

MR. PETERSON: There is no such thing as a free lunch. One corporation the member for Prince George talked about is MacMillan Bloedel, who this year announced some great earnings. That's super, but what about the last five or six years when they lost huge amounts of money? But they kept plugging away, and they've come out of it, and they'll do well.

MRS. BOONE: How about the workers who lost money, too, during that time?

MR. PETERSON: Absolutely.

Anyway, I'd like to just carry on here. During the response to the budget by the first member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), the opposition Finance critic, he talked about deficit, and let me quote from Hansard:

"Twelve years of Social Credit mismanagement has left us with a legacy of debt. When the New Democrats left office, there had not been an operating deficit in the province of British Columbia since the public accounts dated March 31, 1918. There was a deficit that year, and it was paid off the next year. There never was another deficit in the province of British Columbia until the public accounts tabled by the Hon. Evan Wolfe in 1976. "

[ Page 3677 ]

That was a really interesting statement. I have a lot of respect for the first member for Nanaimo, but if my memory serves me correctly, something wasn't correct in his statement, so I did a little research.

I'd just like to go through some of the public accounts figures. Let's look at the fiscal year ending March 31, 1971. That was under the W.A.C. Bennett Social Credit administration, and they had a budget surplus that year of some $13 million, in rough terms.

MR. REE: Budget stabilization.

MR. PETERSON: Right. Okay, let's look at the fiscal year ending March 31, 1972. That was a great spring that year, super spring. We ended up with a budget surplus of $83.5 million. Okay? Now unfortunately that fall the Dark Ages set in in British Columbia, and the NDP government was elected. So they had an accumulated surplus, a substantial amount to play with in there, so the first year they didn't do too badly. The fiscal year ended Match 31, 1973, and they had a budget surplus of almost $46 million. But mind you, they had just found the cookie jar.

I see the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) there. He was part of that group — in the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974. We must remember we've got an overheated economy, inflation is running rampant and — look at this — the budget surplus dropped to $13 million.

MR. WILLIAMS: So what are you complaining about?

MR. PETERSON: I'll tell you what I'm complaining about. Let me relate this to the next year. Remember, I told you that you just found the cookie jar there, hon. member. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1975, the budget deficit — remember that overheated economy — was $13.5 million. An overheated economy, and you'd think they'd be trying to dampen things, but no. With all those revenues pouring in — the highest revenues ever; combined total budgetary revenue was $2.6 billion — they ran a budget deficit, and they talk about fiscal responsibility.

Let's get back to the first member for Nanaimo's statement. For the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976, there was some hope on the horizon, because guess what happened in December 1975. But it takes some time to put the brakes on this spending orgy those socialists were on. The budget deficit — in fact, it was announced by Evan Wolfe, but he had only been at the helm for three and a half months, and you can't stop three years of fiscal disasters in three and a half months — was $405,186,000, and this is in that overheated economy.

What a legacy! The opposition Finance critic talks about fiscal responsibility. I can't believe he can say that; I just simply can't believe it. We had our taste of that: we don't want any more of it — never, ever again in this province.

This budget currently under debate demonstrates our government's commitment to planning for a stable financial future. We are building a long-term economic plan for our province which will not only ensure that we have clear goals for our future but also that our children will not be saddled with a legacy of debt. I am very proud to be part of a government that would table such a budget.

Listen to our three main fiscal policy goals. (1) The elimination of the current deficit. Are you going to speak about that? (2) The reduction of the accumulated debt. (3)

The stabilization of revenue. This is a fiscally responsible budget, and I applaud it.

I'd like to take a few minutes and look at the economy in British Columbia as it sits today. Let's look at some of the highlights.

Interjection.

MR. PETERSON: No, I write my own stuff. You don't like it?

MRS. BOONE: Not much.

MR. PETERSON: I didn't think you would.

Between January 1987 and January 1988, more than 90,000 jobs were created in British Columbia. I know this fact has been brought up, but we should be proud of it. The unemployment rate in British Columbia has fallen from 13.6 percent in January 1987 to 10.1 percent in January 1988. That's a drop of 3.5 percentage points. I'm not saying the current level is acceptable, but we are making headway. Total unemployment has fallen by 46,000 since January 1987.

Let's look at the inflation rates. In 1987 Vancouver's annual inflation rate was 3.1 percent, while Victoria's was 2.5 percent. Both rates were less than the average national inflation rate of 4.4 percent. Increases in wage costs have been moderate, with wages increasing an average of only 2.1 percent in 1987. Retail sales on a seasonally adjusted basis rose 9.8 percent in 1987 over the 1986 level.

Housing starts, a really good indicator of our current economy, in 1987 were at their highest level since 1981, with construction commencing on 28,944 units — an increase of 39.9 percent from 1986. Manufacturing shipments in 1987 were up by 11.4 percent compared to 1986. Lumber production in British Columbia in 1987 was up by 19 percent from 1986. Business incorporations in 1987 were up 9.5 percent over the 1986 level, while the number of business bankruptcies decreased by 12.2 percent. We are on a positive economic roll in British Columbia; the proof is in the figures.

I would like to talk a bit about the budget stabilization program. I think that this program as announced by the Minister of Finance is long overdue. Other members have mentioned that with the resource-based economy, we have to find some method of taking the blips and the bumps out of the revenue this government is able to generate. So it's a management tool designed to stabilize government operating revenues.

Provincial revenues are very volatile and difficult to predict, particularly resource-driven ones. For example, in the past six years actual revenue has ranged from $800 million below budget to $550 million above budget. With the budget stabilization fund in place, these revenue fluctuations can be more effectively managed. Transfers to the fund can be made in years of strong revenue growth, and transfers out of the fund can be made in years of weak revenue growth. It is not unlike an individual putting money away in good times as a nest egg for when times are not as good. I think this is an excellent program, and I'm very happy to see that it will be instituted.

There is some excellent news in the budget for my constituency of Langley: no change to farm revenue threshold. In order for farmers to qualify for preferential property, social service and motor fuel tax rates, they must have a record of at least $1,600 in farm sales annually. A change to

[ Page 3678 ]

this farm revenue threshold and the definition of a bona fide farmer was announced in the '87 budget for implementation in 1989, but has been deferred because of representations made from many rural residents. I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, as one member for Langley I was against this, and I am very pleased that our Minister of Finance has chosen to re-examine and revisit this issue.

MRS. BOONE: Did you vote against it last time?

MR. PETERSON: Well, you know there are always a few negatives to every great package, and when you vote on these packages, you have to balance the....

[5:15]

There's other good news for Langley and for all British Columbia — for example, the reduced small business income tax from 11 percent to 9 percent. That's a reduction of 18.2 percent.

MRS. BOONE: What did you raise it last time?

MR. PETERSON: I can't remember; however, that's $18 million annually. B.C. will have one of the lowest small business income tax rates in Canada. Only Alberta and Quebec will have lower rates.

MR. WILLIAMS: What about medicare?

MR. PETERSON: What about medicare?

I would like to mention the parimutuel tax redistribution. There are many people in my constituency of Langley who are involved in the horse-racing and -breeding industry. British Columbia presently shares the proceeds of a 7 percent parimutuel tax on a fifty-fifty basis with the British Columbia Racing Commission. Each receives 3.5 percent. Effective March 25, the Racing Commission's share will be increased to 4 percent, while the provincial share will be decreased 3 percent. Revenue from this change will be used to benefit the horse-racing and -breeding industry. That amounts to about a million dollars annually. I applaud this move because that industry employs directly and indirectly a tremendous number of people, particularly in my constituency of Langley.

So all in all, I've got to say that our Minister of Finance has done a commendable job. I totally support the budget, and I look forward to the vote.

MRS. BOONE: It would be nice if I could stand here and say that this is a good budget and that I'm pleased to support it. However, needless to say I am not going to be supporting this budget, and I think it's a very sad day for British Columbians.

When I listened to the speech of the Minister of Finance, I actually had a feeling of deja vu. I thought perhaps the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and the Minister of Finance had listened a little bit to us when we spoke last year with regard to the need for prevention and for focusing on keeping well. I also thought that perhaps they had listened a little bit when we talked about the disadvantages of the user fees. However, it's obvious to me that they didn't.

In the speech of the Minister of Finance it became obvious that the government has been doing its polling, and its polling has given them a clear message. That message is that British Columbians are dissatisfied with their medical program and with the health care that they've been getting, and this government had better listen. That message came through in the minister's speech in the jargon that he was using, in the rhetoric that he was using. His speech was couched in language such as " prevention," " keeping well," "good health practices," "prudent users," and "cost-effective care."

One would think that this budget would address those things and really do those things. If they did exactly those things there and if they were addressing those things and dealing with prevention, then I would be standing here saying what a good budget it is and how impressed I was with the way the Minister of Health had listened to me during my estimates. However, this budget does not address those things. This is sheer lunacy. This budget does not address them at all.

After talking in terms of prevention and saying that they felt that they would deal with some of the prevention issues, that they felt that the practices of physiotherapy, naturopaths, chiropractors, podiatrists and orthodontists and all of these were very successful and good programs and that they could service the people better and with less cost — after saying all of those things, which are the things that we were saying last year in this House, they still haven't taken off those user fees that are deterrents, which the Minister of Health said were to deter people from using those services. Yet this budget says: "We're going to encourage people to use those services. We think they're good. We think they're cost-effective and they're going to save us money."

However, last year's budget still has its effect on that and still is going to stop people from using those services because they can't afford the $5 user fee. If they were really honest about this, if they really felt that prevention was on their agenda and they really wanted to keep people well, then they should have removed those user fees this year and shown the people of British Columbia that they really believed in what they were doing. But that has not happened. Instead, what they do is promote those services and then throw us a bone. They say: "We will continue to cover these services, enhance benefits through Medical Services Plan." Well, thank you very much. We certainly appreciate that you are continuing. What is there to increase those services? There is nothing there at all.

When I was listening to the Minister of Finance speaking, I thought that perhaps he was going to succeed in pulling the wool over the people's eyes and perhaps people were going to believe that this government was truly trying to tackle the health care problem. However, the public has seen through this budget, and if you looked at the media coverage that came immediately after the budget, you can see that they have seen this as a tax on people. It's a tax on the old, a tax on the sick, a tax on the poor, a tax on the people that can least afford it in this province.

This budget is really an interesting one, because I've heard it called various things. I've heard it called a shell game.

HON. MR. DUECK: Good budget.

MRS. BOONE: No, not a good budget at all — never a good budget; a shell game. I've heard it called smoke and mirrors. And when I tried to figure this out last weekend — yesterday, I guess it was.... I'd like to say that this is a budget in illusion. This is one that deals with an illusion.

[ Page 3679 ]

What you see in this budget here is certainly not what you're going to get.

HON. MR. DUECK: Oh yes.

MRS. BOONE: Oh no. I've spent a whole day trying to figure out what figures balance with what pages, where they come from, how they got there and what they mean. I've come to the conclusion that this is meant to confuse everyone — and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that it certainly did confuse me — and it's meant to deceive, but it didn't deceive me at all.

This budget has some very interesting facts. On page 9 they say that the health budget has an increase of 10 percent. On page 30, in the expenditures, they say that there is an increase of 8.3 percent. On page 72, under the functions, they say that the increase is 5.9 percent. Now, which is it? Is it 10 percent, 8.3 or 5.9 percent? I'd say probably it's none of those things, because I think the figures are all hooked on those.... Which is the right figure? It all depends on which way you take it. If you take it from the estimate to the estimate, it's 10 percent. If you take it from the estimate to the revised estimate, it's 8.3 percent. And I don't know where the heck you get the 5.9 percent increase that comes on page 72, because I don't know where those figures come from. I've searched for those, and I've had other people searching, and we haven't been able to find them.

The bottom line is that this budget here can use whichever figure they want. If they want to say,"We're increasing it 10 percent," they take it from estimate to estimate. If they want to say,"Well, maybe we're not increasing it that much," and they want to impress people that they're not spending really 10 percent, they're going to say: "Well, we've increased it 8.9 percent." And then if they're talking to some real rightwingers, they can say: "Heck, we've only increased it 5.9 percent." You can do whatever you want with this budget. You can take the figures that you want, and they don't make any sense whatsoever.

However, yesterday I pulled out another thing, and my confusion really thickened. On Friday I pulled out this one here, and it's got the interim financial statements of revenue and expenditures for the ten months ended January 31, 1988. 1 looked at that and I thought, "What are the expenditures that came from that point?" — which was pretty close here. They revise them. At that point the revised forecast said it was $3,176,033,257, so I thought, okay, and I looked at the other budget — this thing that we were given here. It says: "Revised forecast is $3,615,400,000." So after figuring that out, I thought: $439 million is missing. We were able to figure that out; that $439 million was somehow encompassed in the Medical Services Commission. So we discovered that what they've done this year.... I understand that this is something suggested by the auditor- general, so I'm not saying this is the wrong thing to do, but it certainly confuses everything. They add the $439 million. Medical Service Plan is now included in the budget as an expenditure, whereas in previous years it hasn't been included as a budget. They've taken the differences between the Medical Services Plan and what was actually paid by the doctors.

HON. MR. DUECK: What's wrong with that?

MRS. BOONE: There's nothing wrong with that.

Now all medical services plans are included as expenses, and medical services plans are also included in the revenue, under general revenue. That sounds not too bad; it makes a little bit of sense. So we've got $400 million; we know approximately where it's gone: it's in there.

Now, increased Medical Services Plan fees. Those are the fees we are talking about here, which are now showing up in this budget. I'm going to get back to that other increase later on, but it's kind of confusing. I know the member.... I want the member's mother to know he's here. The member for Vancouver South is listening very carefully to me, and I want you to understand that I'm going to come back to this $3 million; so don't lose that $3 million. But what I want to talk about right now is what's happening with the increase in Medical Services Plan fees. Those fees are an attack on the working poor. My colleagues on this side have done a tremendous job of outlining just what a problem it is going to be for many people.

What the minister doesn't understand is that the level of poverty can be pretty high before you actually get there, and that many people are having tremendous problems even meeting the existing premiums. You've increased premium assistance, but it's still not enough, because it's going to hit the working poor, those people who are making too much money to qualify for welfare. It's not going to hit those in unionized jobs, where their employers pay their premiums; they're not going to feel this pinch. It always hits those in between — last year's budget hit those people; this year's budget is hitting them as well — who do not qualify for premium assistance, who do not qualify for any assistance, who do not have an employer paying their premium. They are the ones who are really going to suffer in this budget.

What is interesting, though, is that employers are going to be hit with these added premiums. I wonder what's going to happen to these employers — and to these employees — when contract negotiations suddenly come up and they negotiate these things into their contracts with their employees.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: Maybe they are going to hit them. Or maybe some of these employers are not going to do that. Maybe they'll just absorb it. But it's going to be a tough time for many people in British Columbia.

[5:30]

The interesting thing is that the Minister of Finance says we still have the lowest premium in Canada; it's still lower than Ontario's. Well. Ontario's is only 50 cents more than B.C.'s. And Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are the only provinces that have medical service plan premiums. We are the only provinces that tax people, not on the basis of a progressive tax based on income but with a flat tax on everybody. If you were to suddenly increase — and these are massive increases; 40 percent in some cases — that tax on everybody, there would be absolute chaos in the system. But you're not. It's not going to be felt uniformly. It's not going to be felt throughout the whole area. It is a flat tax. It is not a progressive tax; it is a regressive tax, and one that shouldn't be tolerated in this province.

We are a rich province. We are a proud province. We ought to be proud of our heritage. We ought to be proud of what we can give our people. We should not be taxing and putting a tremendous burden on people that can least afford it.

I'm going to go back to some of the interesting figures in this budget. The Minister of Finance said that they were going to increase Medical Services Commission $114 million.

[ Page 3680 ]

And they justified the increases on our Medical Services Plan by saying that they required that money to make these increases in the Medical Services Plan. However, if you look on page 71, the 1987-88 revised forecast for medical services premiums — which is something that never showed in a budget before; that is, the revenue coming in to the province — is estimated at $414 million. The 1987-88 estimated forecast is $555 million. I'm not a very good mathematician; however, that is a difference of $141 million — $141 million that has been increased revenue coming in to this province in medical services premiums. Yet the Minister of Finance says $114 million is going into Medical Services Commission. That leaves a substantial amount of money that is not going into medical services premiums, that is not going into the Medical Services Commission. And, I guess, as British Columbians being forced to pay those extra added premiums, having tax added on them, they want to know, and I want to know: where is that extra premium money going, Mr. Minister? Why isn't it all going into the Medical Services Commission? Now that this money is going into general revenue, is that money going to be siphoned off into general revenue? Is the money coming off the premiums of the working people in this province going to be used to pay the debt of the Coquihalla? Is this money going to be siphoned off to make the special fund?

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: It does matter. It matters, because you have put this additional premium on the working people of this province to pay for their medical services, and this is not all going into medical services. It is going into other things. It is going into general revenue. You are using a fee, a regressive tax, to pay off some of the other debts of this province, and that is totally unacceptable.

If you also look at the other one, and when you're looking in the smoke and mirrors type thing, if you look at the expenditures that I said.... The Ministry of Health had a revised estimate of $3,176,033,057. That is shown in the revised estimate that was done on January 31, 1988. I would think that that would be a fairly good estimate to be able to come up with. If you remember correctly, that's less because at this point you still had not included the medical services premiums in this area. The 1987-88 estimates — and this is where it really gets confusing if you go back in the previous books.... Page 123. Amazing! That estimate shows a total revenue of $3,176,033,057. This is right on the button. That is exactly what was in the revised forecast of January 31, 1988. So at that point this government was expecting the Ministry of Health's budget to be exactly in line with what it had anticipated last year.

If you look at what the Minister of Finance said, it was that they have a $62 million overrun in the Ministry of Health. I don't know where that overrun is, because in your revised forecast of January 31, 1988, you were right on the dollar, and all of a sudden, within two or three months, you suddenly develop a $62 million overrun.

What the people need to know is: why are you trying to make the health costs appear larger than they are? Why are you trying to make the general public believe that the government is spending more on health care than it is? I believe that this is being done because the government, the Minister of Finance and the Premier have all got it in their mind to inflict user fees on the people of this province. They have been making comments for the past year; the Minister of Finance was making comments during the summertime saying that health care costs were totally out of line. The Minister of Health denied it, and the budget proves that they are not totally out of line. There is no justification at all for the user fees or the premium increases or any of those fees that this government has decided to inflict on the people of this province.

Our health care costs are not out of line with the rest of the people in Canada. They are not out of line with other provinces. They are totally acceptable levels of spending. That does not mean, as the government members like to point out, that we are going to shovel this money out of the back of a pickup like you people did on the Coquihalla, but it does mean that we do not have to inflict user fees on the people of this province. It means that we as the governing body here ought to be behaving responsibly, and ought to be saying to the people of British Columbia that the health care costs are in line with other provinces, that they have not increased, that we do not have these overruns, and that we are going to continue with our same health care system that we had in the past.

When I was looking through this budget, I started to do some figuring out. If you look at the FTEs — full-time-equivalents — in the personnel.... Look at the FTEs for Health, and they go down from 4,757 to 4,572; that's a drop of 185 personnel. Yet the budget hasn't decreased, and neither has the budget for salaries decreased. Some of this, I know, is going to be due to the reduced employment and the elimination of keypunch operators, as you are doing at Medical Services Commission. With making the doctors responsible for their billing, which is something that this budget also does, you are taking the burden of the keying-in of information regarding billing and placing it on the shoulders of the physicians. With that burden on the physicians automatically comes a decrease in staffing at the Medical Services Commission. Those jobs will be lost; they will be gone. It is a fine way to contract out jobs, a fine way to privatize jobs — without even going to the public or admitting that you are doing it.

Interjection.

MRS. BOONE: I don't think that there are 185 jobs being lost there, so some other jobs are going to be lost somewhere in the ministry over the next year.

I've been speaking to some managers in some of the government operations, and they tell me that keeping to their FTEs is more difficult than anything — even more difficult than handling their budget. That is the most difficult thing to do, because there is no discretion there. If you have somebody on long-term disability, it counts as an FIFE and you can't rehire.

With the decreasing employment that's coming with people going on early retirement, those people are being eliminated. You have to justify whether they are going to be retained or not or whether they are going to be rehired. The staffing levels in all ministries.... If you look through this budget, you'll find that just about every ministry — I think Social Services and Housing is one of the few — has a decrease in employment, a decrease in FTEs. But there is no decrease in the budget that corresponds to that.

MR. WILLIAMS: So what does this mean?

MRS. BOONE: What this means is that they're going to be doing a lot of contracting out, privatizing, without having

[ Page 3681 ]

any reduction in the budget, as we were told. The government and the Premier have told us time and time again that privatization is a means of saving the government money. Yet what we are saying is that it is not a saving of money but a reduction in government employees, in employee levels, in FTE levels, but with no reduction in the budget. So it's going to cost the people of this province more money, regardless of whether you are contracting out or privatizing in those areas. The only thing is that we are not going to have the government and its employees there.

I want to get back a little bit — I digressed a little bit there — to the doctors' billings. The physicians are going to have to assume those costs, and it's not going to be an easy job for them. Some of them who are in clinics or what have you may be able to pick up the costs between them; others will have to go out to a service to pick up those costs, or they may purchase computers. That's a cost that was normally assumed by the government and that is going to be shifted over to the physicians.

An interesting thing that's happening here is that this is driving a very healthy wedge between the physicians and their patients. It is driving a wedge there because you are making the physicians responsible for any increases in premiums. The budget clearly states that the premiums are going to cover half of the physician's fees, so any increase that is automatically given to the doctors will automatically mean an increase in the premiums. It is going to mean raised premiums, problems for the consumer. It is going to mean that the patients out there are going to be blaming their physicians for any increase in health care costs. You've already put a burden on those doctors, so when they go to you in a little while they're going to be saying that you have put a burden on them of adding to the costs, and they're going to be asking the government to assume some of that responsibility through fee increases. Then we are going to have to see premium increases to cover those fee increases. It goes on and on and on. It is just an incredible situation.

[5:45]

I'm losing my voice here; I'm losing my time too. This is a very good ploy of this government. They've done it in the past. They've put the public against the public servants, the government employees. They've pitted the public against the teachers in the past, and now they're going to pit the public against the doctors. It's worked in the past, and why shouldn't it work now? People don't like to see their taxes increased. They don't like to see their premiums increased. They don't like to see any of those things happen. When you are driving these wedges into them and bashing — as this government has done so well — the doctors and the teachers, as you did in the past.... I can tell you, if you talk to many teachers right now they're sort of heaving a sigh of relief to know that the burden is off them and that this government is looking to seek some revenge in another area. It's obvious that the doctors have become that area upon which they wish to seek their revenge.

This budget is totally unacceptable. I think I've clearly indicated — and it's very confusing, as I've stated; it is smoke and mirrors — that the numbers don't justify the increases that we have. We have no realistic reason, no reason whatsoever, to expect these types of increases. We haven't had the massive increases in the health care costs that the Minister of Finance and the Premier are so adamant about saying that we have. It just has not occurred.

I see my time is up. I would like to say that I could go on for several hours on this, but thank you.

MR. R. FRASER: I'm very pleased to take my position in this debate. I must say I'm always dazzled by the arguments put forward by the opposition, whether they be from Port Alberni or Prince George North. With the way the numbers keep flying around, you wonder what the message is supposed to be.

I think you're finally getting it, Madam Member. You are finally beginning to understand that the more we spend, the more we have to take in. It's a nice equal balance. It usually works, but the thing that dazzles me about the opposition party is the constant complaining about the fact that we have to raise taxes, and that we should be spending more on absolutely everything, presumably giving away everything for nothing and not giving the public any sort of idea of what the cost of government services really is.

By the way, before I get into this too deeply, I'd like to comment on the second member for Langley (Mr. Peterson), who gave a great presentation on the budget and talked about the hundreds and hundreds of millions that were wasted by the opposition when the years were great — never mind when the years were bad. I can see the Manitoba government being in the mess they're in now, and now they've elected one of the more radical left-wing members to lead the party. So now we know: the mindset is in, and it's coming west, which is the problem. Unbelievable opportunity we have here. You can't increase the spending and not increase the taxation; that message is very clear.

I have a lot of material here, Mr. Speaker. Quite frankly, in harmony with many of the other members here, there are some things in this budget that actually have raised some questions in my mind. Who can be totally satisfied? I have a little college in my area that I'm sure the Minister of Finance is going to hear about when he discovers that his increase is very modest — in fact, so modest as to be almost nonexistent — and that good college in my riding needs a little more money. So of course I will be talking to the Minister of Finance and other government ministers so that we can be sure that the plan for college funding is there. As was pointed out earlier, the college funding in this province should be good, because we have a great college system to support.

We see other increases in areas like health. which always goes up. It never seems to go down. That is a concern for everybody; there's no question about it. If we have to have premiums tied to the expenditure side and we have the doctors advising the patients of how much money they're actually spending by going to the doctor, I think that makes sense. So I can certainly support that general attitude, because it's understandable, comprehensible and public — nothing secret. We like to have it open over here, and we want to make sure that everybody has a good understanding of where the money is coming from and where the money is going.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can see by the clock on the wall that we're getting quite close to the closing hour, so rather than warming up and just getting to full speed at quitting time, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:50 p.m.