Hh Da lcaetaeen ng tray fb Ba ake Same 2PTNEE geet, 9 Dow Pactra treet pent» Bo

BUDGET ’87

: Continued from page 1

“It’s the private sector that has brought
B.C. to its current state of affairs, with high
levels of unemployment and its high level of
people.on welfare, with one out of every five
people unemployed,” he charged.

Perhaps the more remarkable feature of
the budget from the supposedly new,

- improved Socreds is that it has united sev-

eral diverse social and economic forces in
Opposition.

Along with labor, community groups
and the education community, voicing their
displeasure were members of the independ-
ent business community, who were stung by
a three-per cent hike in their income tax
Tate, to 11 per cent. Other business-oriented
concerns complained about the two-cent
per litre hike on leaded gas, while.real estate
agents and first time home buyers protested
the surtax slapped on property transfers.

B.C. Central Credit Union economist
Richard Allen joined the criticism, com-
Menting that the government should have
worried less about balancing the budget
through a reduced deficit than spending
More to create more jobs.

In a nutshell, the new budget maintains
current dismal levels of funding for
services — health, education, welfare —
while hiking taxes for modest income
earners and small businesses, and continu-
ing giveaways to large corporations.

And, Georgetti noted, the budget con-
tains some “ominous comments” about the
new Labor Code amendments, expected in
the next few weeks. In his budget speech,
Couvelier stated, “One message frequently
heard by government and business leaders
from potential investors is their reluctance
to make British Columbia a home for their
capital because of our reputation for labor
conflict. This reputation must be changed.”

The minister referred to the “costly”
forest strike last summer and fall, and
declared, “the government clearly must
take action.”

When it comes to straight dollars for
Services, most spokesmen for groups
affected charge that the minister is using
Smoke and mirrors.

Jack Gerow charged that when it comes
to health care funding, the budget, ATS not
only nota fresh start, it’s a false start and in
fact, a dishonest start.”

In an interview, the business manager for
the Hospital Employees Union pointed out
that although Couvelier’s budget speech
claims an 8.1-per cent hike for health, the
teal figure is hidden ina table at the back of
the budget book. It shows an increase to
$3,176 million from $3,072 million, or 3.4
Per cent.

Gerow said that the minister in his speech
Used “lowballed” estimates for health care
expenditures in 1986-87 — expenditures
that are now shown to be higher.

Gerow also noted that this year’s health
budget includes, for the first time, the costs
of Pharmacare — meaning the 3.4-per cent
'S reduced yet further, in terms of expendi-
tures for other health care items.

Another table in the budget book shows
that between 1983 and 1987, health care
€xpenditures rose by an average annual rate
Of 3.7 per cent — meaning that this year’s
crease is less than those under the worst
years of the Socred cutbacks.

eanwhile, some $90 million in federal
transfers — released when the Socreds
finally, and reluctantly, agreed to drop hos-
Pital user fees — will find their way largely
Ito general revenues and not into health
fare, which Gerow said last year comprised
py 27.8 per cent of provincial expendi-

Tes, compared to 30.2 per cent in the pre-
Testraint days.

Socred Finance Minister Mel Couvelier presents budget in legislature March 19.

As for the abolition of hospital user fees,
the HEU representative commented: “The
provincial government has simply found a
way to disguise them as something else. We
now have Pharmacare dispensing fees, fees
to visit chiropractors and physiotherapists,
and hiked medical insurance premiums. So
we still have user fees, in crueller forms.”

Gerow asserted that B.C. continues to
have the highest patient turnover rate in
Canada, the lowest per capita funding for
health care and the fewest hours of care per
patient per day. He predicted even longer
periods of closure for some wards in the
summer, as has been the practice recently.

Jean Swanson and Sue Harris of End
Legislated Poverty charged that the govern-
ment has been misleading about its claims

Corporations and wealthy
protected, poor hit harder

ag, ~

pharmaceuticals skyrocket, constitutes a
double whammy for the poor.

“Tory supporters of the Drug Patent Act
have stated repeatedly that seniors, the dis-
abled, and low income people would not be
hurt by increased prices. But the Socred
budget pronouncements have proved them
wrong,” Harris charged.

Seniors’ organizations have already
initiated action over the dispensing fee
which will cost users up to $125 annually.
The B.C. Council of Senior Citizens’ Organ-
izations sent a telegram to Premier Bill
Vander Zalm charging that the dispensing
costs and user fee constitute an “apparently
vicious attack on seniors.”

“We're asking all seniors organizations
and all citizens to join us in a massive fight-

RUSH

GEORGETTI

of increased rates for GAIN recipients.

Couvelier’s announcement that rates for
families on GAIN will increase by five per
cent in June and by another five per cent in
December are misleading, said he
since these apply only to one portion — the
support section — of the GAIN rate.

“Tt will work out to about $7 per person
per month: a few more loaves of bread or
litres of milk on the table,” Swanson said.

She also pointed out that some 66,000
GAIN recipients who are single with no
dependents receive absolutely nothing from

’ budget.
perenne coalition also targeted

the dispensing fee for Pharmacare users,

charging that it, coupled with the new pat-

ent bill in Parliament that will see prices for

GEROW

SWANSON

back against this regressive legislation,” said
Ed Apps, publicity chairman for the
120,000-member umbrella group.

It is education financing that truly reveals
the government’s priorities. While public
schools received an increase of 11.3 per cent
in total expenditures, private schools —
following a pattern set in previous years —
receive a whopping 42 per cent hike in a
budget of $41 million. That’s small com-
pared to the budget for public and post-
secondary education, but it amounts to a
subsidy borne by all taxpayers of private
education enjoyed mainly by the affluent.

Public schools do not, despite appearan-
ces, receive an 11.3 per cent addition to their
operating budgets. That percentage includes
$40.3 million for special programs and

— DAN KEETON

TRIBUNE PHOTO

$44.8 million to replace funds lost through |

the phased, three-year reduction in com-
mercial and industrial property taxes. The
remaining $42.3 million goes towards oper-
ating budgets, constituting an estimated —
and dismally low — 6.6 per cent increase
after five years of draconian restraint.

While the budget has hiked small busi-
ness income tax, hit consumers with a var-
iety of rental taxes, penalized first-time
home buyers with the property purchase tax
and increased personal income tax, it’s
given further breaks to B.C.’s corporations
and affluent citizens.

As Couvelier admitted in his own budget
speech, as a result of the abolition of the
health care maintenancé surtax and high
income surtax, B.C. taxpayers would now
have to pay an increased proportion of the
federal personal income tax, up to 51.5 per
cent from 48 per cent, as provincial income
tax. That measure, which the finance minis-
ter anticipated would raise $184 million,
discriminates against low and middle
income earners by levelling out the percen-
tage, and increasing the regressive nature of
the taxation system.

In fact, Rush noted, that three-year
phase-in of corporate tax reductions —
belying the government’s “fresh start”
facade — continues with a variety of reduc-
tions in capital, property, machinery and
general corporate income taxes.

Those tax cuts amount to more than $600

- million in tax breaks annually, said Couve-

her in his speech.

The features of the 1987-88 provincial
budget ought to be enough to convince
anyone that new Socred is old Socred with a
facelift, and that a major response is neces-
sary. The pensioners, who were instrumen-
tal in overturning through a national
campaign the federal government’s attempt
to de-index pensions, have already vowed to
fight the new user fees. It remains to be seen
whether the labor movement in B.C., which
still seems to hold the opinion that “co-
operation” between business and labor is
still possible under a new Socred govern-
ment, will rise to the challenge.

PACIFIC TRIBUNE, MARCH 25, 1987 e 3