1984 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 33rd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 1984

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4135 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Reports

Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs

Mr. Blencoe –– 4135

Supply Act (No. 1), 1984 (Bill 17). Hon. Mr. Curtis

Introduction and first reading –– 4135

Second reading –– 4136

Committee stage –– 4136

Third reading –– 4136

Partnership Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 8). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Hewitt)

Report –– 4136

Income Tax (Health Care Maintenance) Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 2). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 –– 4136

Mr. Howard

Mr. Rose

section 2 –– 4139

Mr. Cocke

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Rose

Third reading –– 4141

Hotel Room Tax Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 3). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 –– 4141

Mr. Cocke

Third reading –– 4142

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 4). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 4142

Hydro And Power Authority Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 13). Committee stage.

(Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 –– 4142

Mrs. Wallace

Mr. Rose

Third reading –– 4144

Partnership Amendment Act, 1984 (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Hewitt

Third reading –– 4144

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Health estimates. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On vote 34: minister's office –– 4144

Mr. Mitchell

Mr. Rose

Mrs. Wallace

Royal assent to bills –– 4150

Pulp And Paper Collective Bargaining Assistance Act (Bill 18). Hon. Mr. McClelland.

Introduction and first reading –– 4150

Appendix –– 4150

FRIDAY, MARCH 30, 1984

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: This morning in the members' gallery is

Mr. Earl Hansen, managing director of the British Columbia Motels,

Resorts and Trailer Parks Association. He's accompanied by his son

Tyler. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome to

our gallery today Mrs. Jan Field, who is a very good friend and

supporter of our colleague the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley

and Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Ritchie). She is a member

of the minister's executive in Central Fraser Valley. I'd like to ask

the House to give her a very fine spring welcome.

Reading and Receiving Petitions

DEPUTY CLERK: In the matter of the several documents presented as a

petition to the House on March 29, 1984, by the hon. second member for Victoria

(Mr. Blencoe), said documents are irregular in the following respects: the form

thereof does not conform to appendix A of the standing orders; and further,

does not conform to the requirements of standing order 73(5) ; and further,

contains no prayer for relief.

All of which is respectfully submitted. Ian M. Horne, Clerk of the House.

MR. BLENCOE: Mr. Speaker, your Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs begs leave to report as requested yesterday.

Leave granted.

Mr. Blencoe, Chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs, presented the committee's report, which was read as follows and received.

"Your committee has received correspondence from John. A.

Bovey, dated August 16 and August 18, 1983, chairman of the Public Documents

Committee, established under authority of

section 3 of the Document Disposal

Act (RSBC, 1979,

chapter 95), and having read the submission on behalf of the

Public Accounts Committee recommends that, in accordance with the provisions

of the Document Disposal Act, approval be given for the destruction of various

public documents as listed in the submission to the Public Accounts Committee

for 1982 and 1983 insofar as the following ministries of government are concerned:

Ministry of Attorney-General, Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Ministry

of Education, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, Ministry of

Environment, Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Forests, Ministry of Health, Ministry

of Human Resources, Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, Ministry of Provincial

Secretary and Government Services and Ministry of Transportation and Highways.

"All of which is respectfully submitted. Robin Blencoe,

Chairman of Public Accounts."

MR. BLENCOE: I ask leave that this report be adopted so these disposals could continue.

Leave granted.

Orders of the Day

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 1984

Hon. Mr. Curtis moved the following motion:

That from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid

and applied in the manner and at the times the government may determine

the sum of $1,944 million towards defraying the charges and expenses of

the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31,

1985, and being substantially one-quarter of the total amount of the

votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985,

as laid before the Legislative Assembly at the present session; and

secondly, the sum of $99 million for recoverable disbursements, being

substantially one-quarter of the total amount required for the purposes

referred to in

schedule C of the main estimates for the fiscal year

ending March 31, 1985.

Motion approved.

[10:15]

Bill 17, Supply Act (No. 1), 1984, introduced and read a first time to be considered for second reading forthwith.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time. I believe that leave is not required.

MR. SPEAKER: That's correct.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In moving second reading of this bill, this supply bill is in the general form of previous years' supply bills....

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we often have

debates about what constitutes an emergency in this House. and if this

bill is being moved under standing order 73, I think.... What is being

invoked so that a bill is proceeding through more than two readings

without leave? Under standing order 1, I would ask that Mr. Speaker

inform the House...give reasons for allowing this departure from normal

procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a good question. One moment, please, hon. member.

Hon. members, to avoid what could otherwise require further

clarification, possibly the minister would be good enough to ask for

leave.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, in a spirit of cooperation, with leave.

Leave granted.

Interjection.

[ Page 4136 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: I haven't finished. The Chair has made a

suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I'm very happy to concur with that. With

leave, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, leave was granted, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: In a spirit of cooperation. Now that we've forced the minister into a corner, leave is gladly granted.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, as I started to say just a few

moments ago, this supply bill is in the general form of previous years'

supply bills. Bill 17 requests one-quarter of the tabled estimates to

provide for the ongoing expenditures of the government. It also

requests one-quarter of the disbursement amount required for the

government's ministry related financing transactions, which appear in

schedule C of the estimates. I also want to point out that included in

this bill is the amount of $99 million for the said financing

transactions, which are fully recoverable, Finally, I point out the

requirement for early passage of the supply bill in order to provide

for the ongoing expenditures of government for the 1984-85 fiscal year,

that year commencing on Sunday next. I move second reading of Bill 17.

MRS. WALLACE: It was interesting to note that the minister

said this is being presented in the same manner as last year. I don't

quite agree with that, Mr. Speaker. This is being presented in the

usual manner: that is, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and

after a goodly number of the estimates have been debated. That was not

the case in previous years, and I commend the government for getting

back to a more democratic practice.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her

observation. I think I said that it is in the general form of supply

bills in previous years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not last year.

HON. MR. CURTIS: We can recognize that last year, for a

number of reasons, was somewhat out of the ordinary, particularly in

view of the late start of the session. Nonetheless, I think it is

important that this bill be proceeded with at the earliest possible

moment. I therefore move second reading of Bill 17.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: With leave, Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

The House in committee on Bill 17; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 17, Supply Act (No. 1), 1984, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 8.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 8; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 through 6 inclusive approved.

section 7.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper. [See appendix.]

Amendment approved.

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 8 through 16 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment,

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 8, Partnership Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete with

amendment to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 2, Mr. Speaker.

INCOME TAX (HEALTH CARE MAINTENANCE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 2; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

[10:30]

section 1.

MR. HOWARD: Not only is

section 1 improperly worded, but

also, I think, the title of the bill. It doesn't truly reflect what the

bill is all about. I hope it's a typographical error and not a

misleading word in here, because

section 1 talks of it being a "health

care maintenance surtax." But when we look at what is sought to be

amended — namely,

section 3 of the Income Tax Act of the province — we

are in fact simply levying an income tax increase, period. It's an

[ Page 4137 ]

increase in income taxes, and it has nothing whatever to do with a health care maintenance surtax.

If the funds raised by this particular bill were to be assigned by

the bill itself to health care purposes — if there was a fund created

at the same time and it said that funds raised from this increase in

income tax would be set aside specifically for health care maintenance

— then one could conclude that it was in fact a health care maintenance

surtax. But it isn't, and the bill in that sense is misleading. It's

misleading even to refer to it by the title of the bill, or to refer to

it as a tax with any reference whatever to health, for the simple

reason that it is an ordinary income tax increase, not for any purpose.

It's an income tax increase to go into the general revenue of the

province to be disbursed as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

sees fit in the preparation of the budget or within the budget for a

particular fiscal year. In the next fiscal year, which will start in a

couple of days, the 4 percent surtax will be available to the minister.

The amount of increased income from that has been put on the record a

number of times by other speakers, indicating that far more money will

be raised by this income tax increase than is required for the expected

shortfall that may occur as a result of diminution in the transfer of

federal funds. Those figures were set out quite clearly in the budget

speech of the Minister of Finance. In a full year the amount of money

raised by this income tax increase, this levy, this imposition of an

increased income tax, will far exceed any expected shortfall in funds.

In other words, it's just a tax grab, and the minister has sought to

dress up the description of it to make it palatable, to make it look to

the general public as if the general public is having its pocket and

its purse picked by this government for the purposes of that motherhood

thing called health maintenance. It is no such thing.

I started off by saying that it may be a typographical error in the

bill, but on reflection it appears that that is not the case. Right on

the front page, in parts (

a) and (

b) of the explanatory notes as well

as in the title of the bill and in sections 1 and 2, these misleading

terms, "health care maintenance levy" and "health care maintenance

surtax" are repeated. But that's typical of this government's approach

to fiscal and tax matters. It's usually done by some subterfuge. It is

usually done for one purpose but declared to be for another purpose. I

could cite examples about taxes raised by this minister's authority

earlier in other budgets and removed later on. When they were imposed

it was for one purpose, but when they were reduced there was another

rationale for that when it was eliminated.

There's always this misleading of the general public with this

Minister of Finance. To have included in the bill itself the reference

to a health care maintenance surtax is just so much guff, so much

misleading conversation. The minister can correct it by either agreeing

to take that out or by agreeing that the money so raised would be

specifically earmarked and set aside in a fund for some aspect of

health care. If he doesn't do either of those, then he is just

perpetuating the attempt to mislead the general public into believing

they are paying a tax for one thing when in fact it's just filling up

the coffers of the provincial government and assisting the minister to

get out of the difficulty he got this province into by his fiscal

mismanagement.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, obviously I disagree with the

member for Skeena. Incidentally, we're dealing with

section 1, and

therefore I feel that I cannot respond fully to some of the comments,

which could have been dealt with more appropriately in second reading.

Clearly there is the need for additional money for health as called

for in

section 1. The act is not misnamed; this

section is not

incorrectly identified. I would point out to the member for Skeena and

members of the committee that the only program activities to show an

increase in expenditure in the fiscal year about to start are in

health. Clearly, the revenue obtained from this

section of this bill,

as well as subsequent sections, will be used for the purpose for which

it has been described and for which it was designed.

MR. ROSE: My participation in this debate really perpetuates

a debate I had with the minister earlier during the minister's own

estimates. That has to do with the amount of money that's actually

being spent on health. We know the budget has gone up $50 million for

health, and there are a number of reasons for that. Perhaps I could go

into those a little later. depending upon whether I receive the proper

answers to the questions.

If one looks at the estimates, there's ample evidence to indicate

that the cost of health is alarming; there's no question about that.

But it's gone up from $2,480 million last year to an estimated $2.539

million this year, an increase of some $50 million. The 8 percent

health maintenance tax will raise $97 million. What are you going to do

with the extra money? The crux of the question is: what does the

ministry intend to do with the extra $47 million it’s going to raise?

Is it going to turn it into general revenue as it's done with the extra

EPF funding or fed funding that it received?

I have mentioned this a number of other times and the minister is

well aware of it. He promised me a reply some two weeks ago, and I've

never received it yet. My problem with the minister and with this

bill.... I don't object to taxes being used to pay for medicare. I

think income tax might be the fairest way, unless there are hookers in

it such as charging the number of families. Usually if you have a large

family it means that you have three or four more exemptions. That isn't

what is planned here, as I understand it. There might be an arrangement

made that if you have a larger family you pay more, which is another

way of a distortion of the proportional income tax and putting a tax on

people who can least afford to pay it.

The facts are clear: medicare.... I shouldn't call it medicare;

medicare is doctor care. Anyway, health care is going to cost us an

extra $50 million this year. I don't think that is disputed, because

that's in the estimates. This tax will raise an extra $97 million. Why

do we need it? Are we going to siphon it off into general revenue? The

minister stated earlier that without this we are going to have to cut

the health care budget by at least $40 million. What this tax generates

overcomes both the $50 million increase and the threatened $40 million

decrease. But there's another partner in this whole thing: the federal

government. When I heard the minister flail away in his budget speech

at the federal government for backing off in 1982, depriving the

provinces of their rightful share of revenue, I agreed with the

minister. Sure they did. All provinces in Canada, over the next three

or four years, will lose $8 billion. Part of it is a loss to the

universities and part of it is a loss to health care. But it was the

provinces who begged for block funding. They felt demeaned because they

had to account for what they spent. So in 1977 they all trooped down to

the conference table in Ottawa and got the feds to change from

dollar-for dollar funding — accountable

[ Page 4138 ]

funding — to block funding. They got hosed. They

wanted it because they felt that they were in a better position to

determine provincial priorities. From that point of view you have to

agree with them.

Incidentally, my party fought that change in the House of Commons. I

wasn't there at that time, but they did fight it, because we felt that

the poorer provinces such as Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and New

Brunswick would siphon off unaccounted money that they received in

blocks from the federal government and put it into roads and sewers and

other forms of provincial priorities. Instead they would add fees to

medicare; hospital premiums would go up; there would be user fees;

there would be what is sometimes called "patient participation," which

is another form of cash transfer for those doctors who believe in

entrepreneurial medicine and run around with a stethoscope in one hand

and a cash register in the other.

We were concerned about that, so we voted against it. What happened

when this block funding, or EPF, went through was simply this: it

wasn't the poor provinces who did it at all. They didn't siphon the

funds off into roads and sewers; they kept it in medicare. It was the

rich provinces such as Alberta, Ontario and to some extent British

Columbia who did that. If we're short of money for medicare, the

provincial governments have only themselves to blame. They were the

ones who pressed for block funding because they didn't want to go

through all this bureaucratic accountability that appeared to be

necessary.

In 1982 the feds came along and said: "We're going to reduce you by

about $8 billion." We can't be happy about that, but I checked the

facts with the feds and the minister promised to confirm or deny my

allegations some two weeks ago by letter. I've never heard from him on

that subject. I have a letter signed by James H. Lynn,

director-general, federal-provincial relations and social policy branch

of the Department of Finance of Canada. Without reading the letter into

the record, because that would be tedious and repetitious, I'll give

you what is said here: in health care a federal transfer to British

Columbia under the established programs financing arrangements in

1983-84 and 1984-85 indicate this for health. I'll leave post-secondary

education out of it for a moment. I wasn't able to give these figures

earlier when we spoke on the minister's estimates because it

anticipated this bill. I've been waiting in breathless anticipation

ever since, and so I must read the health care part of this letter. Mr.

Lynn, honourable man, bureaucrat of the federal government, has this to

say about the health care increases to British Columbia in 1984-85 over

1983-84. The nub of it is that the government of British Columbia will

receive $100 million more this year than it did last. According to Mr.

Lynn's way.... I know figures can lie or can't lie, and I know the

converse of that. What Lynn has to say is that in 1983 the tax transfer

for health was $460 million and in 1984-85 is $523 million. The cash

transfer, which makes up the other part of EPF, is $623 million and

$662 million in 1984-85, a total growth of $100 million. The question

is: if you're only spending $50 million more on health this year, but

from the feds alone you're receiving $100 million more, then why do you

need an 8 percent tax which is euphemistically called a health tax, to

raise even more, $97 million, on something as precious to people as

health care? You can ride in a tax hike on that basis.

I'm afraid — to be as charitable as I usually am — I cannot buy the

argument unless the minister is prepared to offer a counterargument. I

invite him to do that now.

[10:45]

HON. MR. CURTIS: First of all, with respect, this may be contravening the rules regarding committee — debate on a section.

The member quite properly says that I undertook to provide him with a letter.

MR. ROSE: Pledged.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Pledged, undertook, yes, a commitment, and

that letter will be in his hands in a matter of a day or two — early

next week. I'm sorry for the delay. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the

member would restate the tax and cash numbers that he read from that

letter, please.

MR. ROSE: I don't know whether it is appropriate. I'll be

pleased to do that and in addition I'll be pleased to table the letter

if that's appropriate. You don't want it tabled?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Well, give me a copy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, hon. members, if I may

just interject for one second. I think hon. members know that I listen

very carefully to what is being said during these debates, and I have

noticed that in the course.... I didn't want to stop the hon. member

because it is a very important subject, one which should be well

covered, but it did seem to me that some of the thrust of what was

being said would really have been more in order under second reading of

the bill. I would like to gently remind hon. members that we are

dealing here with

section 1, which deals not with the propriety of the

tax per se, but specifically with the amount of the tax; the 4 percent

and 8 percent.

Having said that, and not meaning to chide anybody, I turn it back to the member for Coquitlam-Moody.

MR. ROSE: Thank you for the advice, Mr. Chairman. I guess I

was a little bit confused here, because I see the tax explicitly

presented under (

a) and (

b) of

section 1. That's is the reason I

discussed the size of the tax under those items.

To reply positively to the minister's request, here are the 1983-84

figures: tax transfer $461 million cash transfer $623 million, for a

total of $1.085 billion. The 1984-85 figures are: tax transfer $523

million, cash transfer $662 million, for a total of $1.185 billion.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have a copy of

the letter; it need not be tabled when we move out of committee, but I

would like that letter. The fact is that in second reading debate I

spoke of the underfunding with respect to health by the federal

government, and therefore I want to analyze all of the material that

the member has alluded to — but not read, quite properly — in committee

debate.

MR. ROSE: I'm not sure that I can get away with this, Mr.

Chairman. Since the minister mentioned underfunding, I'd like to

examine two or three ideas of what causes some of the underfunding of

medicare.

First of all, it is fantastically expensive health care, and one of

the reasons it is so fantastically expensive — even without diverting

funds from it if that is the case, and making if appear even more

expensive — is that the practices tend to

[ Page 4139 ]

be, as I said, entrepreneurial. Really, what we

have in medicare is a compromise. It isn't purely socialized medicine

at all, or else — like the school teachers — we would have the doctors

on salary and working in hospitals, or at least paying rent for their

places of labour. It isn't that at all. It's a compromise between

entrepreneurial medicine and socialized medicine, and it is a

compromise that has worked quite well. But there are lots of pressures

to cause it to go up. I can deal with it in another portion of the

committee stage if the minister would prefer to do that.

One of the reasons that I think it's happened here is that we have

neither one system nor the other. When the doctors' portion rises there

are constant pressures, either for fee increases or for extra billing,

and that puts pressure on all the systems in Canada, not just the one

in British Columbia. I'd like to examine some of those pressures, but I

don't think it's the appropriate clause on which to do it.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the latter

section that we voted on

— so I cannot reflect upon a vote — was one that had nothing to do with

health. This has something to do with health. I've seen this government

take away powers of the Legislature. They've eroded it slowly but

surely, taking into that cabinet room the decision-making that is

normally left to the Legislature. They do that by passing bills here

that permit regulations to do what would otherwise be done by

legislation.

Now what do we have in

section 2? We have what they call the health

care maintenance levy. There may be some propriety in that particular

title here. What they're saying is that they're going to impose a levy

by cabinet order if in fact the user fees are outlawed by the federal

government, which they will be under the Canada Health Act. But I see

no limit provided here. I can see this being a measure that they could

use in perpetuity to raise taxes without ever coming back to the

Legislature for that permission. That has to be, in my view, something

we can't accept.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

What an unusual clause in an income tax amendment act! It says:

"

(2) In prescribing the amount of the increase in tax

under subsection (1), the Lieutenant Governor in Council" — that's

cabinet — "shall take into account (

a) the amount deducted under

section 20(2) of the Canada Health Act, and (

b) the provincial

minister's estimate of the number of taxpayers whose taxable income for

the taxation year will exceed the prescribed amount first referred to

in subsection (1), and the tax shall be related to the number and

relationship of dependants, including the taxpayer, who were resident

in the province on the last day of the taxation year and who were

claimed by the taxpayer.

"

(3) The tax under subsection (1) shall be administered

Columbia tax collection agreement referred to in

section 54."

Well, Mr. Chairman, I suspect there's nothing stopping the minister

from making any kind of an estimate that he or she would like to make.

So this is a carte blanche, without reference to the Legislature, to

impose tax on the people of British Columbia, and I think it has no

precedent. I've never heard of anything like it in my life in this

House. And believe me, if you haven't heard about it here, you haven't

heard about it anywhere, because we are considered to be rather

abhorrent of the Legislature in this province — that is, the government

is perceived to be that way. One reason they are perceived to be that

way is because they've taken so much away from the Legislature and its

responsibility, and given that responsibility over to cabinet. Here

they are doing it again. Mr. Chairman, I think it's a kind of behaviour

that we should not accept gracefully.

MR. MOWAT: Mr. Chairman, I beg leave of the House to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MOWAT: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House today some students

from Sir Charles Tupper School, with their teacher Mr. Bob Campbell, visiting

us from the Little Mountain constituency. I'd ask the House to make them

welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, with respect to

section 2 of

Bill 2, I've listened very carefully to the comments which the member

for New Westminster has made in this connection, and indeed, without

doing more than briefly acknowledging them, to similar comments which

were made in second reading. The fact is that insofar as I am advised —

and insofar as I am determined — there is no nefarious scheme here in

section 2 to provide wide-open authority for the government to do what

it wants with the income tax system. The rate of provincial income tax

is legislated in this chamber, in the act, and a change to that would

require the approval of the assembly.

The member for New Westminster read out in large part the

section

which is before us for debate, and it quite clearly indicates — and I'm

satisfied — that it directs the Minister of Finance of the day.... In

the event that the health care maintenance levy is required — i.e. that

the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall take into account clause (a),

the amount deducted under

section 20 of the Canada Health Act — that is

a factor, the amount deducted — and (

b) the provincial ministers

estimate of the number of taxpayers whose taxable income for the

taxation year will exceed the prescribed amount first referred to. In

other words, I'm satisfied that, in the event this

section is fully and

finally required as a result not of actions in this chamber but of

actions in the House of Commons, there are very definite guidelines for

whoever may occupy the portfolio of Minister of Finance. It is not

carte blanche, as the member and others have suggested. That is all I

can say in this regard. It is a bill which is dealing with health, and

the

section deals with a health care maintenance levy.

[11:00]

MR. MITCHELL: I'd like to go back to the same section, part

of which I asked the minister to give some explanation of when he

discussed it under second reading as he closed the debate. This is the

section that he always reads up to and then stops: "...and the tax

shall be related to the number and

[ Page 4140 ]

relationship of dependants, including the taxpayer,

who were resident in the province...." I don't have the legal support

staff that I know the minister has available to him, but when I read

that, with some experience of reading various pieces of legislation, it

indicates to me that if a person who, we'll say, is paying income tax

on a $25,000 income were single, he would be paying one rate, but if he

had a wife and three or four children.... Is it the intention of the

government that that person with the same income would be paying

another rate, either higher or lower? I think it's imperative that the

government establish what they mean by that section, because the way I

read it, it would indicate that the government may have intentions down

the line of collecting the premium via income tax, of establishing

whatever the premiums are for health care and having the federal

government collect it at the income tax level. I am not opposed to

raising needed funds at the income tax level, but I believe that the

income tax level should be established evenly, based on income. As my

colleague said earlier, all the deductions that go into making up an

income tax form allow for dependants to be deducted from the gross

income of the person, so that when you're setting your tax, you're

setting it on taxable income. I really feel that something is.... I

won't use the word "deceitful," but the meaning of what the government

intends to do seems to be hidden in the bill, and we have not had a

full explanation from the minister. I asked him in second reading if he

would give us an explanation of the intention of the government. Is it

the intention of the government to impose additional income tax on a

person with the same income but who has dependants, based on some type

of premium, or is it not? Is this the forerunner of dissolving the

medical care

section that collects all our premiums today under the

present provincial government? If we're going to have a premium, say

so. But don't hide it under income tax when it's really not under

income tax.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in this quiet environment we

have in the galleries the Hon. John M. Bucklaschuk, who is the Minister

of Housing in the province of Manitoba, with his wife Colleen and two

children. I hope the committee will give them a welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: To the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew,

let there be no confusion among the members of the committee.

Section 2

of Bill 2 is in no way related to Medical Services Plan premiums, which

remain in place and will remain in place for certainly as long as I can

foresee — unless the federal government suddenly decides that it

doesn't like the idea of premiums being collected. The issues are

completely separate, Mr. Member. The only thing they have in common is

that they both deal with health in one form or another. This

section

provides — and I am quite certain I did answer this earlier, but the

member may not have been present — that British Columbia income tax

payable by individuals shall be increased by an amount, i.e. the health

care maintenance levy, when an individual's taxable income exceeds an

amount prescribed by order- in-council. Now the amount of taxable

income which will result in a tax liability will be that level of

taxable income at which provincial income tax is first incurred. As an

example, for the 1983 taxation year — and it is an example only in that

this is not retroactive in terms of 1983 taxes; it comes into effect in

July — this level of taxable income was $1,990. If I did not fully

answer that question posed by the member in second reading, then I'm

sorry, but I was sure that I had.

MR. MITCHELL: The minister gave the explanation for a surtax.

I understand what a surtax is and that it comes on at a certain level,

and he gave the figures for the level. The surtax comes on for everyone

at a certain level. But what is the need for the reference in the

section that says it's going to be related to the taxpayer and his

dependants? That is a completely different section. When courts make

decisions, they don't do it on statements of surtax that the minister

gave. They make their decisions on the wording in the act, and the act

does relate to the dependants, which would indicate that there is a

possibility that the government can put an additional surcharge, not

only on the income level but on the number of dependants. I think that

section in itself is completely contrary to the intent of an income tax

act.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I disagree with the member. He refers to a

surtax. This

section deals with the levy. The surtax was spelled out in

section 1. I say again, Mr. Chairman, that the levy is to offset what

we now understand will be the loss in user fees as required by the

Canada Health Act. There is another

section later, in case the member

is concerned, which deals with the low-income notch aspect of the

provincial income tax vis-à-vis federal income tax. But I think the

member's fears are groundless in this regard.

MR. ROSE: I raised it earlier, Mr. Chairman; therefore it

concerns me as well. I think what we need is a flat statement from the

minister under the premium synopsis.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Premium?

MR. ROSE: Well, where you have premiums. If you have a man,

his wife and six kids, they're going to pay a higher premium than a

single male or female. Right? That's given. Under the income tax,

exactly the reverse prevails. You have a man, a wife and six kids

earning $25,000 a year, and you have a single person earning $25,000.

Which of those two will pay the most under the scheme contemplated by

the minister which says the tax shall be related to the number and

relationship of dependants?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, any one of us who looks at the

income tax form — and we have the combined federal-provincial form in

this province, under our tax agreement — will know that a single person

would reach the provincial income tax kick-in at a different point than

one who has a spouse and three or four dependants. So there is no

change in terms of when one arrives at the point where this levy will

apply.

Interjection.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The member has another question?

MR. ROSE: It's an elaboration of the same question. What the

minister is saying then, so that we're absolutely clear on this — it

takes a long time to get through to some of

[ Page 4141 ]

us, because we're dull some mornings — is that the

single male is going to be paying more health tax than the man with a

wife and six kids.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, that's not what I'm

saying. I'm saying that the levy flows from a particular point in

provincial tax payable. That point varies depending on whether one is a

single male, single female or whether one has a spouse, one dependent,

or several dependents, because that is.... I used, as an example, the

1983 taxation year point, which was $1,990. It's that simple, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. ROSE: If it's that simple, then the answer is simple. A

single person earning $25,000 a year will be paying a proportionately

larger health tax than the man with the wife and the six kids. Using

the example of $25,000 a year, give me the anticipated tax from the

single person and the man with the wife and six kids who have the same

family income.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I don't know that it's within

the authority of the committee to start discussing tax tables; that is

public information. The member is not obtuse; he knows that a

particular tax-payable point is reached depending on a variety of

circumstances and factors. It may be that the single employee earning

$25,000 will be paying more, but that depends on a variety of factors

which are part of the tax system. The member knows that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall

section 2 pass?

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to observe that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 2?

MR. ROSE: Yes. Perhaps I didn't leap to my feet as rapidly as I should — with alacrity, some people would say.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair apologizes. It was only conscious of

your previous activity of leaping to your feet and anticipated the

same. Would the member for Coquitlam-Moody carry on.

MR. ROSE: As Chairman Mao used to say: "It's a great leap forward."

The minister has confirmed for all of us to know that there are, as

he says, a variety of circumstances. But an exemption is an exemption,

and a child is an exemption. If you don't have any children, you don't

have those exemptions. So what we really have found out is that through

the income tax system the family of six will benefit in terms of their

health care premiums if they receive the same family income, compared

to the single wage-earner.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the

whole question of tax tables with the member one of these days, but

clearly not in committee and not on

section 2.

The circumstances for individual taxpayers varies so dramatically

that the member cannot reach that conclusion with no other factors

being taken into account, and he knows that.

MR. ROSE: If they're both employed. If they're self-employed, it's different.

HON. MR. CURTIS: But there are certain circumstances which

would lower the taxable income of a single person working for himself

or herself. I cannot allow the member's last remarks to go unqualified

when speaking in committee. Circumstances could alter that taxable

income level for the person who has five dependants versus the

individual who has no dependants.

[11:15]

MR. MITCHELL: We get a lot of little arguments and byplays in

debates. But if this

section is not going to add an additional burden

to people with dependant children, then why is it needed? I would feel

a lot happier if the minister could give us that assurance by amending

everything from "...and the tax shall be related to the number and

relationship of dependants. Including the taxpayer...." As long as

that's in there you are going to allow the government of British

Columbia, in my opinion, to add an additional tax based on a premium

levy that will be based on the number of dependants. I can’t see any

other way of interpreting that. If the government wants to collect

income tax based on a levy of a premium, then say so. Don't try to hide

it in that section. If that is not the intention of the government....

I would feel more at ease if the minister would delete that

section and

keep income tax as income tax and surtax as surtax, but don't have an

income-surtax based on the number of dependants. I think that in itself

is oppressive, and that was my main reason for bringing this to the

minister's attention. I think that

section can be misread many ways if

it gets before a court.

Sections 2 to 6 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report Bill 2 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 2, Income Tax (Health Care Maintenance) Amendment Act, 1984,

reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 3, Mr. Speaker.

HOTEL ROOM TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 3; Mr. Ree in the chair.

section 1.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, just to reiterate what

section 1

does, it reduces the taxation on hotel rooms over $50 a day and

increases taxation on hotel rooms under $50 a day. So it is clear that

this

section hits out at the poorer people. There is an increase of

about $200,000 in government revenue, but that's not the point. As far

as I'm concerned, the point with respect to this

section is that while

the minister has made it

[ Page 4142 ]

easier for the hotels to keep their books, because

it is all now 7 percent, it is an imposition on people at the lower

income levels, because they are obviously the ones that are going to be

staying in the lower-priced hotel rooms. So from their standpoint I

suggest that it is an imposition.

I said earlier on in the debate on second reading that I'm not sure

what one would do about this section. There is a choice: one could have

reduced it down to the lowest common denominator, which would have been

the 6 percent level. Anyway, the minister decided to raise it for the

poorer people and to reduce the rate of taxation for those who are

sufficiently affluent to afford a hotel room over $50 a day.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 3, Hotel Room Tax Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I call committee on Bill 4, Mr. Speaker.

HOME OWNER GRANT AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 4; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 4, Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Committee on Bill 13, Mr. Speaker.

HYDRO AND POWER AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

The House in committee on Bill 13; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 1.

MRS. WALLACE: Once again we're into a bill where

section 1

provides for an additional $500 million borrowing power for B.C. Hydro.

As we all know, B.C. Hydro is already in a very heavy deficit position.

We are currently contemplating the idea of making firm power sales out

of this province because of the surplus power that we have produced as

a result of the over-anxiousness of Hydro, under the direction of the

government, to expand our facilities. The maximum return from those

power sales will not even recoup the interest on the Revelstoke Dam,

where the power is supposed to be coming from.

I wonder if the minister would tell the House exactly why we need an

additional $500 million? How much of that $500 million will be going to

pay interest charges accruing to B.C. Hydro?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that information would be more

readily and accurately obtained by the member for Cowichan-Malahat by

reviewing the latest annual report for British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority, or by reviewing any prospectus that is issued by B.C. Hydro

and Power Authority from time to time. But in order to assist the

member, I can indicate that the projects which cumulatively have led to

this bill to increase the borrowing limit of Hydro would show:

Revelstoke, $157 million: Cheekeye-Dunsmuir, the cable to Vancouver

Island is almost as much, interestingly enough, $147 million; electric

and gas distribution systems, $125 million; and then under "other,"

$193 million. To explain "other," I could provide the member with a

more detailed list, but for example: consultant studies, $10 million;

Site C, $1 million; Keenleyside and Murphy Creek, $4 million; other

plant and substations around the province, $124 million, which would

then be the fourth-largest amount of the total; gas capital, $3

million; and miscellaneous and joint-use works, $51 million. So "other"

totals $193 million. The grand total of expenditure by project, which

has brought about the requirement for this increased borrowing, is $622

million.

MRS. WALLACE: Excluding the other, how many of those projects

which you have listed — I was aware of them but just wanted to confirm

with the minister that we were in accord — are still under

construction, with capital expenditures still being made?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Revelstoke is nearing completion — virtually

complete, as the member knows. Cheekye-Dunsmuir: the link is expected

to be in service in October of this year. Revelstoke actually becomes

operational in May 1984 — units 1 and 2 — unit 3 in July and unit 4 in

November 1984. I believe the member to have said: "excluding other."

That's Revelstoke and Cheekye-Dunsmuir nearing completion. Electric and

gas distribution systems capital — I'm sorry, I don't have that list

this morning. I'm sure that it could be made available by Hydro,

because it could involve in some instances very small projects which

would be commenced and completed in a limited space of time. Some of

them might be larger, but there are a host of them which would make up

that $125 million.

[11:30]

MRS. WALLACE: So what the minister is telling us is that

Hydro's debt is so horrendous.... There's very little capital

construction going on now; it's just about wound to a halt. But we are

so in debt as a result of this overconstruction that we are now

borrowing money to finance our borrowing. That's basically what we are

doing with this bill. There is very little capital construction going

on. The major portion of

[ Page 4143 ]

this $500 million is required to meet the interest

payments on the money that's already borrowed. That is certainly what

the figures that you have give me, Mr. Minister, indicate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely

incorrect. We're not borrowing to meet interest payments. I indicated

in second reading that we have some previous financings which come due

and therefore will have to be refinanced in part or in whole. That was

quite clearly stated in second reading. I think there was a $50 million

redemption in February 1984, and that's principal and interest. The

member would know that. Then the capital projects total in excess of

that which this bill seeks to increase borrowing authority for. In

terms of its own financial integrity, and in terms of the financial

integrity of other similar utilities in North America, Hydro is in

quite good shape. I'm sorry that the member has been misled or

misdirected in terms of why we are increasing the borrowing authority,

as indeed four governments, including one of the party to which she

belongs, from time to time have increased the borrowing authority.

That's all it is, Mr. Chairman.

MRS. WALLACE: It seems to me that somewhere we have to take a

stand. Of the $15 billion debt that this province has, some $8 billion

is Hydro's debt. It's getting closer to $9 billion now, which means

that probably our total provincial debt is closer to $16 billion.

Somewhere we have to stop. It seems to me that when we have the kind of

surplus supply of energy that we have at the present time with B.C.

Hydro, perhaps now is the time to make a firm stand. There's a

principle involved here as to how far you go. How much further do you

allow Hydro, to expand this deficit? How much of that construction...?

The minister says I'm incorrect about its being interest; it's really

for a construction program — some $672 million for further

construction. I believe that was the figure he gave.

HON. MR. CURTIS: It was $622 million.

MRS. WALLACE: There is $622 million for further construction. How much

of that is needed for our power supply here in British Columbia, and how much

of it is to facilitate Hydro's present plans for firm uninterruptible exports

to the United States? How much is B.C. Hydro getting into debt on behalf of

the citizens of British Columbia in order to finance a construction program

for export of power at rates far below those at which we are offering that same

type of power to a concern like, for example, West Kootenay Power and Light?

They're paying something like 3 cents for power which, when surplus power

is available from Bonneville.... Last year the rate was reduced as low as,

I think, 11 cents per kilowatt-hour. We're now proposing the same kind of

contract with Los Angeles Water and Power. If in fact there is surplus power

available from Bonneville, Los Angeles will not be obliged to take the power.

It's the same kind of arrangement as we have with WKP. Yet we're charging

WKP 30 mills and California 20 mills. We're not even getting the interest

back — nowhere near the interest on the Revelstoke Dam. Why are we selling it

for 20 mills? The Bonneville Power Administration are mightily upset. They were

negotiating to sell at 4.5 mills, and were simply undercut by B.C. Hydro. Is

it any wonder then that they're looking askance at wheeling this power down

through their transmission lines, to the point where we have the chairman of

B.C. Hydro, Robert Bonner, calling for the construction of a transmission line

from British Columbia to California firm power exports for 15 or 20 years?

This isn't something new. In the records of the U.S. Senate there is

an indication that officials of the British Columbia government back in

1979 were down trying to sell power in the United States. This is

something that's been going on under the guise of domestic production

for a long time. The time has come when we must call a halt to this,

and this borrowing bill is the only way that we as an opposition have

to protest this kind of performance by this government and by B.C.

Hydro in allowing that export of a very valuable power source at a

price so low as to simply export jobs out of this country.

There are many ways we could be putting pressure on some of the

corporations in this province — I speak of Alcan for one. In California

they're required by law to purchase their power from the public

utility. Here we let them generate themselves, and we're proposing to

let them dam a river that could well represent over 50 percent of the

Fraser River salmon catch — if it were properly used — with the very

likely destruction of that salmon industry. Yet we're saying: "Well, we

don't want to do anything, because they might not buy from us and they

might not build the smelter." Where else are they going to get power at

2 cents a kilowatt-hour? Nowhere except in British Columbia and Quebec.

Not in California. Not in other countries. I think it's time we started

beating Alcan at their game and saying: "Look, if you want to put that

smelter in, then you buy the power from B.C. Hydro. We're not going to

let you dam that river." If they don't do it, we could certainly find

someone who would come in.

The time has come when we have to take a hard look at the direction

Hydro is going. There seems to be a hidden agenda, and Hydro is moving

forward with an export program for power. We've had the Minister of

Energy (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the chairman of B.C. Hydro indicating that

there will be long-term, firm exports of low-cost power out of this

country, and with that go job opportunities for British Columbia and

opportunities for technological advancement that would keep us abreast

of the industrialized countries around the world. Instead of that we

are just simply giving a rubber stamp to Hydro to go ahead and borrow,

build and over-construct, and to export those jobs out of this province.

MR. ROSE: What I have to say really concerns a project in my

riding. As you know, there is an application for a waste management

permit by the Burrard thermal plant. About two and a half years ago an

application for an oil-fired thermal plant was turned down by the area,

because what they really want to do is use the air as a sewer. The

Burrard thermal plant has been there a long time, and the people of

Port Moody and that area are very concerned about its existence and

what its future use might be. If the permit is being requested on the

grounds that it is going to be used for the export of power, it is a

non-partisan issue. The council members are of all political shades,

but they all agree that they don't want that to happen. They don't want

a situation to develop in Port Moody, which is known as the ozone

capital of British Columbia....

HON. MR. CURTIS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps I should have interrupted earlier. I am the fiscal agent for British Columbia Hydro.

[ Page 4144 ]

MR. SKELLY: Resign!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I will if you will.

Speaking to

section 1, Mr. Chairman, I am not the minister

responsible for B.C. Hydro. That minister participated in second

reading debate, and his estimates have been before Committee of Supply.

The need for a particular project, or any comments with respect to why

a particular project should not be undertaken, are not the

responsibility of the fiscal agent. My responsibility to Hydro is very

narrowly defined. Hydro's directors, the minister responsible and the

government decide courses of action to be taken, and if that involves

capital expenditure, then I must step in and fulfill that role and that

role only.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair recognizes the minister as being absolutely right.

MR. ROSE: Well, perhaps my clinging to order is rather tenuous; I don't deny that.

One of the reasons that we have a thermal plant in my riding is to

provide generation if major new projects are delayed. It seems to me

that as the fiscal agent, calling for upwards of $800 million, you must

anticipate some new projects, and if these are delayed, it means that

there is going to be a greater use of that thermal plant. I think that

the people in my riding will want me to speak about this, because

they're in a high-occlusion area, one of tremendous air pollution

caused by the traffic patterns in that area, and by the westerly

direction of the air, the shape of the mountains, the funnel and all

the things that cause trouble. We don't want any increase in use of

that particular facility, except for peak power. But if it is going to

be tied into the grid system, which, for the purpose of exporting more

power....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I rise to restate the point of

order that the fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro — the member and other

members opposite will know it well — does not identify projects which

should or should not be undertaken by British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority. Nor, in the same way, Mr. Chairman, would the fiscal agent

for B.C. Railway indicate what rolling stock should or should not be

purchased.

I may agree with the member in his remarks, but I suggest that they

are out of order in this section, as were the other remarks by the

member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) dealing with whether Hydro

should or should not export power. I suggest that that is not before

the committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the member for Coquitlam-Moody agrees

with the minister, and perhaps if he wants to pursue this matter

further he can discuss the borrowing.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Chairman, thank you for your advice. As to

agreeing with the minister, I haven't done that for years, and I don't

intend to embark on some sort of new venture at this very sensitive

time in my life.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill to borrow money, right? The Burrard

thermal plant costs money to operate. If it operates as part of a grid

system, it operates at a much higher cost than any normal hydroelectric

plant because it uses natural gas rather than renewable water. If you

need the precise figures, I can probably get them out of here. Our

concern is that while we were quite willing as a constituency to share

this extra burden of air pollution, even though it's a greater cost, to

benefit the lower mainland, we're not going to be part of an export

policy for electrical energy if it means the expansion of the use of

that plant. That's the point at which I agree that the minister is

responsible for this kind of thing, because only through his ministry

is it possible to increase the borrowing limits of B.C. Hydro.

[11:45]

Section 1 approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 13, Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1984, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with leave, third reading of Bill 8.

Leave granted.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

Bill 8, Partnership Amendment Act, 1984, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF HEALTH

(continued)

On vote 34: minister's office, $199,325.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make an apology and a

correction. Yesterday in debate, in discussing rates for extended care,

I did relate a particular constituency problem and used the figure of

$30,000 that the hospital was trying to recover by a type of

foreclosure. The figure should have been $11,000. I just wanted to

correct the record and apologize to the minister.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, no apology is needed.

Certainly the $30,000 was an alarming amount and I'm pleased the member

had the capacity to look into that very quickly and come back with a

revised number. I will be responding once that information is received,

and some investigation.

I wonder if the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) is expected

back soon. I have some information related to a query of yesterday and

I'd like to respond to her.

MR. ROSE: Again, it's a matter of a local concern. I

certainly regret the decision of the Ministry of Health on Eagle Ridge,

which is to be opened next Saturday. That decision means a completely

equipped emergency centre

[ Page 4145 ]

there, whose staff had already been contracted,

will not be opening. That's past history now and I don't think we can

do much about that. I made my representations on that earlier.

As well, I wanted to express my deep disappointment that that

facility will only be half used — certainly not up to the capabilities

for which it was constructed. I won't go through the litany about the

industrial area, the traffic patterns, the very difficult time during

rush hours to get from the highway to the Royal Columbian trauma

centre; the fact that my riding, above all else, is a bottleneck, and

at certain times of day it's virtually impossible to get through the

traffic. Should there be an industrial accident of any magnitude

because of the rail lines or something like that, we're certainly going

to need, and we anticipated.... The people who worked for years to

establish that hospital are going to be deeply disappointed by the fact

that the emergency part of it will not be open. It will only be half a

hospital. I realize that you can't have hospitals duplicating every

function. One of the pressures on medicare is the fact that we get into

the business of competition. It's known as medical politics, I guess.

That's one point where I express regret. I also express some

disappointment.... The minister apologized yesterday for this, and I

want him to know that if he intends to copy one MLA in a particular

area he should do it for all of us. If he has a particular piece of

correspondence, it should not just be for government members. I think

the minister regards that as something he regrets, and if he does I am

pleased.

We come to the board. There's going to be a new joint board

established. It may or may not include many of the people who worked

very hard for a long time — almost a decade — to see that that hospital

was built. I hope that when the new board is appointed it will not only

be geographically represented — include people out of the four or five

constituencies which the hospital serves — but also include people who

may not be members of the government's party; that it will also include

people because they are capable people and not just because they may

agree with the government.

I look forward to being on the platform with the minister next

Saturday. I understand that he is the only one who will be allowed to

speak. But I'll probably be able to mingle as well, since I'm better

acquainted and maybe even a better mingler.

I would like to hear his remarks on that before I go into another

little matter that I alluded to earlier in the bill on health tax: some

of the things that we might concern ourselves with in the spiralling

costs of medical care in this country.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I don't have the up-to-date

file on the Eagle Ridge board situation. We've had a large number of

meetings with representatives from the Eagle Ridge board. I believe

they refer to themselves as an executive committee of the board for

reasons of efficiency rather than the exclusion of others. We did have

a large number of meetings with Eagle Ridge representatives and came to

an agreement with respect to their consolidation with the Royal

Columbian Hospital at the board level. At the moment, I can't give the

member a list of those people who have been asked to be on the board,

but as soon as I receive affirmative responses from them, I will advise

the member. I don't wish to even allude to the identification of any of

those people at the moment, because I have corresponded with them in

some confidence. We will have that list in a relatively short period of

time.

The board has agreed that those persons who were involved in the

building and planning process of the Eagle Ridge Hospital have to some

degree concluded their efforts. Some of them advise that they really

have been involved for a long period of time and would seek some

relief. Some of them felt their role was in building, planning and

funding. When it comes to the operation, they're not offended that some

other people may be asked to serve on a board which is going to be

responsible for operating rather than building and planning. There has

been some disappointment by those who felt they would like to see their

product opened in a certain style on a certain date and be ready for

all.

A review was undertaken by a committee, including representation

from the Greater Vancouver Regional Hospital District. Again, I can't

think of the personalities associated, but there were a number. There

was also a representative from the B.C. Medical Association and a

representative from the B.C. Health Association as they refer to

themselves. They reviewed the desirability and the need for the

emergency ward of the Eagle Ridge Hospital. Advice was given to me — I

believe I released this information when we announced the result of

their study — that there should be an emergency ward, and I think they

said it should open in about 18 months. One of the phrases within their

report, and I'm not sure which of the four members authored that

comment, said it would not only be inappropriate but dangerous to open

certain wards immediately. Reasons were given in the background as to

why they had reached that conclusion. I understand, and I appreciate,

the disappointment some people have because they felt that a certain

date would occur and the hospital would open in all its glory and their

dreams in effect would be fulfilled on a certain date. To a very large

degree I think that has been resolved, and there seems to be general

acceptance in understanding the proposition. But I appreciate the

member's concern, because it's a concern which has been expressed by

people in that general area.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) yesterday

raised a series of points, including one with respect to infant and

children restraint seats. I promised to try to research it and respond

at some later time. I'm very pleased to say that in the very short

interim between last evening and today, members within the ministry

have compiled a considerable amount of information, although the

information is not precise and as complete as perhaps a further report

could be. One of the difficulties from the information readily

available was the examination and study of a history of a person — a

child. In this case — who may have sustained injuries and determining

the cost thereafter, and so on. That would take a considerable amount

of time. This is of considerable interest to the member — and, I think,

to all members — because as we discussed yesterday, and I think as we

agreed yesterday, the need to restrain children in a moving automobile

is a very important factor.

Canada-wide, approximately 4,000 children under the age of five are

injured or killed while travelling in motor vehicles which are in

traffic crashes. At this moment, I cannot identify which of those

children were restrained or not. But the overall number is

approximately 4,000. A very shocking aspect is that motor vehicle

accidents are the most frequent cause of all deaths between the ages of

one and 14 years. One-third of Canadians killed and nearly one-half of

those injured in such accidents are passengers, with the largest group

of victims between the ages of one and five years. I think that bit of

information sustains the base for the

[ Page 4146 ]

inquiry of yesterday. It confirms the serious

nature of the concern. In British Columbia in 1983 there were seven

children under the age of six years killed, and there were an estimated

480 injured under the age of six years.

[Mr. Ree in the chair.]

Regulations specifying the standards for seating systems designed to

protect children — that has to do with weight: 20 to 40 pounds — were

first issued in 1972 by the Department of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs. A revised standard was introduced in 1974. The regulations

effectively removed seats from the market which provided no safety to a

child.

A survey in our province in June 1983 showed that 83 percent of the

under-six-year-olds were wearing a restraint, but proper use was not

defined. The traffic safety education department's infant travel

restraint survey in 1982 showed a 16 percent proper usage rate. That

information suggests that children were to a large degree being

restrained, but the equipment was not deemed to be proper.

[12:00]

Mr. Chairman, with the introduction of infant and child

car-restraints to the market, more have been sold and installed

voluntarily than any other safety device that's been marketed recently.

Most hospitals report that with their loaner programs and purchases of

personal car seats, it is rare for an infant to leave a hospital not in

a restraint.

Some additional information. A variety of agencies, private

organizations and businesses have been contributing to the use of these

restraints. Examples could be the BCMA's television commercials, the

Insurance Corporation of B.C.'s traffic safety education program; and

the Ministry of Health is involved in the distribution of instructional

packages for use in pre-natal classes. We also have a film and a VTR

called "Life is Precious." They are distributed along with educational

material. In health units we have a rental program.

Mr. Chairman, despite what I have offered, I endorse the concern

expressed yesterday that more needs to be done. Even though some of the

figures indicate that there may be a growing concern about and better

utilization of restraints, I think that people generally still do not

quite comprehend the serious nature of not restraining children. The

ready availability of such equipment today and, even more important

than that, the need to use it.... As I mentioned yesterday, I think

that many parents simply do not feel that it's necessary to restrain a

youngster. They have some other thought that perhaps they themselves

can restrain them.

Infant and child car-restraint systems are available in almost every

department store throughout the province now. Availability has

increased by 500 percent — I don't know what date they're comparing

that to. As well, many hospital auxiliary associations provide loaner

programs throughout the province. There are now approximately 12

certified models available on the market. The booster seats which were

introduced for children three to six years of age have also seen

distribution. This was previously the most difficult group to restrain.

As of June 1983 approximately 83 percent used infant and child

car-restraints, according to a survey. A large number of used

restraints are now available as well. I think, perhaps just to sum that

one point up, it would appear now that from a technical point of view

the equipment is readily available. It could be improved, perhaps, but

it's readily available. I think the next step now is to try to convince

people, in whatever is the best fashion, that they should be used and

that there is a very strong need for that utilization.

While I'm distressed with some of the statistics I have offered

today, I am somewhat hopeful that the program is growing and becoming

more acceptable. I take as a very positive suggestion the suggestion of

yesterday that perhaps more effort should be put forward to educate. We

will follow through with that.

MS. BROWN: Briefly, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the

minister and certainly to compliment his staff for the speed with which

they were able to return with this information. I also want to support

his commitment to do more in the way of education, and to suggest that

probably one of the things that could be added is that any advertising

or educational program could be done in a number of different

languages. That would be most useful, because I think a large number of

as their first language.

MR. ROSE: I have a few remarks that arise out of remarks I

made during the bill. I'm not certain that I'm going to say anything

that's absolutely new and sparkling or particularly creative. There is

nevertheless a tremendous pressure to cause budgets for health care to

increase. I think that maybe this is because we have tended to tackle

our health care problems from the wrong end, so I'd just like to say

two or three words about that.

First of all, I said earlier today in the debate on the bill that I

thought that you really don't have socialized medicine anyway when you

have medicare. You have a compromise. You have the entrepreneurial

model of medicine, which is fee for service, but the fee is paid for by

the public. We have socialized education here, in the sense that a

building is put up and the schoolteachers are hired by the state

through the boards and paid a salary. I know that it's absolutely

abhorrent to many doctors, because they are concerned that it disturbs

that fine doctor-patient relationship — which I think is often defined

as a fee structure more than anything else. I think it's a euphemism,

and that we tend to grovel before the medical profession because

they're the new magicians. They're becoming more magic all the time;

there's no question about that. Advances are remarkable. The killers of

ancient times are not even around now. They've been licked. There have

been other things that have taken their places as number one killers,

but then something has to be a number one killer, I guess, if you want

to rank killers.

On the socialized medicine aspect of it, with the entrepreneurial

model we have, all the doctors' bills are paid. They may not like their

fees, but at least now they get all the money. Since they get all the

money and it's on a fee-for-service basis, some of them, I'm quite

sure.... We talk about overuse of services. There may be overuse of

services by doctors because, instead of ordering one test, it's just as

simple for them to order ten, and the public picks up the bills. It's

very difficult not to cover yourself if you're a doctor, especially

since the rise of malpractice lawsuits in the States — and anything

that happens in the States is ultimately going to echo in Canada. So I

don't deny the fact that doctors need to be cautious about things like

this and that they need to cover themselves. But whenever there is a

lid put on doctors' fees — and I think B.C.'s are the highest in Canada

— then there's all kinds of screaming for extra billing. Then you

develop a two-tiered medical service. I think we're going to

[ Page 4147 ]

have to reach a time when we either abandon

medicare as being too expensive for the state.... I think the figures

prove it's a much cheaper model here — about 7 percent of the GNP,

whereas in the States, where they have the cash register approach to

medicine, it's about 9 percent of the GNP. So ours is definitely

superior, because a person without any kind of resources is entitled as

much as the most affluent person to the most elaborate kinds of medical

care. That is one pressure. When these fees are regulated by the

minister — and the minister has to do this — then there's pressure all

the time for extra billing. I find that unacceptable. The minister

doesn't like it either, but feels he's forced to do it, I guess.

The second point I'd like to talk about here is that the competition

for funds must be immense. We just talked about Eagle Ridge. We've got

a big trauma unit. I was a member of council in Coquitlam in 1966-67,

when some group — I think it was Royal Columbian — came to us to ask

council to provide a trauma unit for that hospital. But that is nearly

20 years ago now. Nevertheless, elaborate machines and care are desired

by doctors practising in all hospitals. There is a tremendous

possibility of over-use and duplication of these things — the way we've

seen people hooked up, and the recent moral crisis about people hooked

up for years who are really clinically dead, but they won't die — and

the pressure on physicians to keep people alive with elaborate

techniques must be immense.

Anyway, there are obviously unnecessary operations, and overuse of

extreme life-saving measures, where people would prefer just to pass

out and pass on. I think that is another pressure on health care

funding. I would like to think that we could move into a situation in

medicine in which we spend a little less time treating diseases or

accidents or illnesses and a greater amount of time on prevention. But

it pays doctors to treat diseases and treat accidents rather than

prevent them.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: The more sick people, the more patients the doctor

has, the greater his income. There's no question about that. I don't

know why I even hear that harrumphing. I hope that member learned to

harrumph, like Joe Clark, at age 18.

The water supply situation. The health costs of native people could

be vastly improved if we spent a little bit more money on decent,

clean, potable water — the same as in Third World countries. Even in

Mexico and we had some Mexicans in the gallery the other day you can't

drink water, and that is a health problem when you can't drink the

water.

Lifestyle. Booze, cigarettes and all those other things that we all

enjoy so much are costs to the health system. Seatbelts. Battering.

Nutrition. Pollution of all kinds — air pollution, that sort of thing.

We don't do nearly enough in those areas ' So those are some things

that I think are worthy of exploration. Again, I don't think they're

particularly new or innovative, but maybe a greater balance could

be.... Sure, you've got to be crisis-oriented. If somebody's sick or

breaks his leg, he's got to have help — no one denies that. But the

thing that broke his leg might be removed — like a rotten piece of

sidewalk or something like that. I'm saying that if we spent more

time.... I won't even talk about the educational side of it, because

that's been dealt with by others.

Those are some things I wanted to say about the general subject.

I think we're very fortunate to have the kind of medical care we

have in Canada, and I don't want it to be priced out of existence. It

was too long a battle to get it to have it nibbled away and eroded.

Therefore I'm a great defender of what we have.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments,

and I also appreciate the style of the member in discussing this today.

Yesterday the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) said politics

should be kept out of health care. I suggested the same thing during

the last estimates to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). I sincerely

believe that health care is far too important to become a political

football in a partisan way. I appreciate the tenor of the member's

comments with respect to it. As to the details, much of what he has

said is, I think, commonly held in the attitudes of many people.

[12:15]

I suppose the overall problem of health care is the mysterious

aspect of health, life, death, injuries and all the rest of it. There

is no question that society has placed medical doctors on a pedestal,

and society still as a group finds health and medicine particularly

more wondrous than many other aspects of life. Possibly at some point

in time, that professional organization has had the opportunity of

taking advantage of that. It is a rule of thumb in the ministry, Mr.

Member, that if a doctor appears on television to make a statement

wearing a stethoscope, watch out, because who would doubt a person

wearing a stethoscope and making a statement about health? So we know

when we're in serious trouble, depending on the makeup. Other doctors

have told me that you simply do not wear a stethoscope unless you want

to impress someone.

Some of the situations the member mentioned, such as the prolonged

period of time people with chronic conditions and those who are

clinically dead are held, are causing immense distress throughout the

world, and there are strong legal, moral, medical and other opinions

associated with that. There seems to be a greater degree of choice

occurring today with respect to that. But it does cost a tremendous

amount of money, and there are very serious questions as to whether you

are adding to the quality of life, and those serious questions must at

some point in time be determined.

I think the member described a hybrid system which we have in the

country with respect to our medical service. Doctors advise me they are

entrepreneurial individuals, and that's fine; that's a

self-description. I think that there is a slight flaw in the

description in that if you have a state program of any kind which

guarantees payment, it's not quite the same as a complete free

enterprise system where you are causing your business and responsible

for the provision of the service, plus all that goes with it, including

collecting your payment, living with bad debts and all the rest. When

the medicare system was introduced in the country, the doctors who were

in practice at that time witnessed an almost phenomenal increase in

their actual income, because prior to that doctors were leaving estates

made up mainly of bad debts. Some attempt was made to collect some of

them — huge amounts of money. But it's not so today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

[ Page 4148 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: For the edification of the first member for

Surrey (Mrs. Johnston), as well as others, there are so many aspects to

be examined in health, but in British Columbia there are very expensive

procedures in hospitals, very costly procedures. In British Columbia it

is a matter of utilizing doctors for all reasons, including that first

visit to the doctor's office because of a concern. In B.C. last year,

6,418,000 doctors' office visits occurred. That is the number one cost

and the number one utilization. Not an expensive procedure on its own,

but the utilization rate is so high that it is represented as the

highest individual cost under their code. The second is general

practitioner minor examinations, 2,211,000; and then general

practitioner hospital visits, 1,165,000.

Those are the big three items from a utilization point of view, and

a massive amount of money is associated with that. Then, of course, the

others go down in order, diminishing quite rapidly. The member was

quite correct in identifying certain procedures which in themselves are

costly. They represent a very small number of procedures in the overall

scheme, but certainly on their own they do cost a tremendous amount of

money.

Just a very quick comment. There is a strong difference of opinion

between those who are responsible for producing the funding for a

medical system and those responsible for the delivery of the health

care system. I think the attitude across the country, in every

province, is that there has to be some type of accord between the

medical professions and the provincial ministries of health and that

there must be some type of understanding. Medical doctors quite

frequently speak of partnerships, when it comes to this. But I don't

think it could actually be classified as a partnership as such. There

has been much more cooperation over the past while, in part because of

the intrusion of the federal minister into health care. I think it has

encouraged other people to get together. So that's been useful. But

other than that, it hasn't helped much.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge to those members present in the

House that the federal Minister of Health has today invited provincial

ministers of health to get together for a meeting...

MR. ROSE: Together?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: ...early next year.

MR. ROSE: I thought she was going to pick you off one by one.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I suggested they not print the names of the ministers on any of the tags.

MR. ROSE: I thank the minister for the tenor of his reply,

and wish him all the best in his deliberations with the federal

Minister of Health, Monique the Meek, early next year after the next

election.

I've got one other brief question, and it's a profound moral one.

About a month ago there was a lot of news about a man on dialysis who

was desperate for a kidney offering $5,000 to all comers to provide the

kidney. Several unemployed people said that they were suitable, that if

their kidneys weren't rejected they wouldn't reject the $5,000. This

points to a tremendous need for a human parts department. When we get

our driver's licence, we have an opportunity to indicate whether or not

we wish to become an organ donor.

I'm not quite sure what the act is now; I did look it up, but now I've forgotten. What's it called.?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Human Tissue Act.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: I didn't offer my liver. I don't mind giving my

life, but I don't know who would want my liver. It says in the act

dealing with human tissue and organ transplants, donors, recipients,

and all that group of concerned people, that a person has to give

permission in order for those organs to be taken. I wonder if the

minister has ever considered changing the law so that it doesn't

require a positive act for a donor, who is perhaps killed in an

accident, so that if he doesn't want that to happen, he can so

designate with a card. There is tremendous demand for these organs, and

it's going to increase; it's not going to get smaller. If that's not

morally justified.... And it may not be, because — no pun intended —

it's far from an open-and-shut question. There is this concern that

this man was so desperate for a kidney that he had to buy one. Perhaps

we are not active enough in educating people to give up their vital

organs and sign pledges to this effect. The other way would be the

negative way — to say yes, unless you designate that you do not want

this to happen. Then it can be an automatic thing. I wonder if the

minister would care to comment on that?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: That is a very difficult situation. The

reverse-onus aspect — saying that if you haven't prohibited it, then

the spare parts are available — probably would not fly from a legal

point of view, with the Charter of Rights and other.... I'm sure it

would be argued for years.

I agree with the member that not enough is done to promote the

program. I think a very large number of people in the province would

agree to be donors if it were brought to their attention. I intend to

have all of my senior staff in the Ministry of Health fill out donor

cards, as a beginning.

MR. ROSE: Require them?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not require them; I'll suggest it. I think we should bring it up to a much higher level of understanding.

MR. ROSE: If they don't, downsize them.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: It is serious, Mr. Member. The fellow from

Alberta has changed his mind considerably on things. He found himself

in a tremendous dilemma and didn't know how to respond to it.

Very briefly, in British Columbia it is prohibited to sell or buy

bits and parts for any consideration; they can be donated, but not from

a live donor. I suppose under extreme emergencies — between identical

twins or something like that — possibly.... Then, of course, you have

the problem where one kidney may not be suitable for the recipient, and

that becomes a medical decision. Highlighting the program is essential,

and we should immediately begin to do so because there are plenty of

people around who would be prepared to donate, but it's just never

brought to their attention. If they suffer fatal injuries, they are

interred with all parts intact

[ Page 4149 ]

when they could be saving someone else's life. It is quite a dilemma.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to continue a bit with this theme

that my colleague the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Rose) was dealing

with — not the last one but the one before, relative to the concerted

effort to change what has become a sickness care program into more

truly a health care program. I suppose that if we were to check out our

hospitals on any given day we would find a very high percentage of the

inmates of those hospitals were over the age of 65. It would seem to me

that we should be doing some reviews and studies to try to promote an

attitude of health among older people.

There has grown up in society generally a feeling that once you have

reached a certain age you are no longer really able to cope. You become

put off into a side pocket. I think perhaps it affects even more

drastically the males of the species who have led a very active life

outside the family and suddenly at age 65 they have a mandatory

retirement. If they have been extremely involved in whatever it was

they were doing, they may not have acquired many hobbies, and they find

that transition very difficult. As a result, health being a state of

mind, they develop ailments. It's also true of the women members of

society, particularly because we outlive our male partners in a great

many instances. Statistically every woman can look forward to 12 years

of widowhood, and very often when that happens the income dies along

with the spouse. Our pension system is not adequate to provide an

income to women whose husbands pre-decease them. Men die younger. Women

marry men older than they are. Speaking statistically, very often women

find themselves widowed before they are even eligible for the old-age

pension, and they don't have Canada pension. Very often the husband's

pension from the place of work dies with him.

I was part of the task force that went around the province reviewing

the situation of older women in society. It is interesting to note that

the federal government has recently been involved in a study entitled

"Resource Development — Health Promotion and Older Adults." I am

interested in their findings. One of the things that they indicate is

that the problems are the same right across the five regions of Canada.

They recognize that there are possibly some differences between rural

and urban, and perhaps for ethnic groups, but basically the problems

are the same.

[12:30]

Those problems, strangely enough — perhaps not so strangely — are

the same problems turned up by the task force in which I participated.

Mental health and loneliness was one of the prime things, mental health

being a direct result of that loneliness. Nutrition was another one,

particularly among women — the task force I was on was looking at women

— because of this loss of income. There was a terrific failure in

nutrition. There was the toast and tea syndrome, which I'm sure the

minister is familiar with, partly because of lack of income, partly

because of loneliness — no incentive to get a meal and have a proper

diet. Prescription drugs and their overuse: again, a finding of the

federal body and the provincial body. Also over-the-counter drugs — a

tremendous overuse of drugs. Alcohol abuse. Lack of physical activity.

The tendency to just stay inside; almost a paranoia about going out

alone because you are looked upon as an object of pity.

Certainly there is some room in the Ministry of Health for

educational programs, for some attempt to turn around the social

attitude and encourage older people to continue being — or to become —

active, healthy participants in society. That's a preventive measure.

It's being done to some extent, mostly by societies and groups of

senior citizens. There has been some funding from another ministry —

and I know I mustn't digress — and some support, but a lot of that has

been cut back.

We have a situation where seniors are being pushed out of society,

and as a result are becoming apathetic and ill, taking up hospital beds

and causing those excessive costs for the hospital and health care

systems. I think that's one spot where the minister could take some

action and move into a preventive program that would not be costly at

all, and that would do a lot to relieve the pressure on the acute,

intermediate and extended care. Relative to the intermediate and

extended-care facilities, again there could be a much cheaper way of

providing services for those people if in fact the homemaker and home

nursing services were extended. People are much happier if they can

remain in their own home. They would much prefer that. With one or two

days from some outside source — a homemaker coming in a couple of times

a week, a home care nurse once a week — that individual could perhaps

stay out of intermediate care. If it's a couple, you would find that

both of those people could continue to live in their own home, again

reducing the cost of the hospital care and the cost to the health care

system. It's much cheaper to prevent those people from having to go

into hospital because they can't quite make it on their own than it is

to let that situation occur, and certainly much more satisfactory for

the individual involved.

I've spoken about the excessive use of over-the-counter drugs and

prescription drugs. I'm sure the minister must be aware of what is

happening in Ottawa with the pharmaceutical industry and the drug

situation generally. A little history perhaps. Back in 1969, I think it

was, Mr. Basford brought in some changes in the legislation which freed

up the import of drugs and broke the monopoly on these drugs.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: You want a motion? Very well then, we'll get back to the drugs at a later date.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I am advised that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is in or nearing the building and should be here momentarily.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE:

Income Tax (Health Care Maintenance) Amendment Act, 1984

Hotel Room Tax Amendment Act, 1984

Home Owner Grant Amendment Act, 1984

Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act

Partnership Amendment Act, 1984

Hydro and Power Authority Amendment Act, 1984

Supply Act (No. 1), 1984

[ Page 4150 ]

In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank

Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to

these bills.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

[12:45]

Introduction of Bills

PULP AND PAPER COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ASSISTANCE ACT

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, it is very fortunate that His Honour was just here. He left something with me.

Hon. Mr. McClelland presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Pulp and Paper Collective Bargaining Assistance Act.

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:49 p.m.

Appendix

AMENDMENTS TO BILLS

8 The Hon. J. J. Hewitt to move, in Committee of the Whole on Bill (No. 8) intituled

Partnership Amendment Act, 1984 to amend as follows:

SECTION 7 , by deleting paragraph (

c) and substituting the following:

"(

c) by repealing subsection (3)."

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1985,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada