[ Page 4025 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 4025

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Provincial Secretary and Government Services estimates. (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

On vote 54: minister's office –– 4025

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Michael

Mr. Mitchell

Motions and adjourned debate on motions

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4028

Mr. Howard –– 4030

Mr. Nicolson –– 4032

Mr. Cocke –– 4033

Mr. Blencoe –– 4034

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4035

Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act (Bill 6). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Third reading –– 4035

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4035

Mr. Stupich –– 4036

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4039

FRIDAY, MARCH 23, 1984

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

MR. MICHAEL: Mr. Speaker, it is a great day to be a Canadian. On behalf of all members of this Legislature and the people of British Columbia, I would ask this House to send its warmest and sincere congratulations to two very outstanding Canadian athletes. Last night in Ottawa Barbara Underhill of Oshawa, Ontario and Paul Martini of Woodbridge, Ontario gave Canada its first world figure-skating victory since 1973. Their flawless performance gave Canada its first gold medal in 11 years, when Karen Magnussen won the singles. But even more significant, the last pairs entry to win for Canada was Maria and Otto Jelinek in 1962. Last night Underhill and Martini's spectacular performance upset the Olympic and defending champions from the Soviet Union. The Soviets had won the pairs title 17 of the previous 19 years.

Mr. Speaker, I can relate somewhat to the determination the effort and the hours of practice, as my daughter was a professional figure-skating instructor. I can tell you that it's early hours and long days to accomplish such a task. Again I would ask that this House send its warmest and sincere congratulations to Barbara Underhill and Paul Martini, two great Canadians who have shown the competitive spirit, true commitment, courage and determination that all Canadians aspire to.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I would like to join the member who just took his seat and say that we're most pleased to endorse the statement he made and we join in saying that we, too, are all very, very proud of that couple. Thank you for your kind remarks about them.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on your behalf the Chair will undertake the appropriate message.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today seven members of parliament from France: Mme Marie Jacq, M. Guy Durbec, M. Louis Moutinet, M. Pierre Jagoret, M. Jean-Pierre Penicaut, Mme Annie Delaye and M. Axel Queval; accompanied by Mr. Claude Boucher, First Secretary and Consul at the Canadian embassy in Paris. I'd like the members to join me in welcoming them here today.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Everyone in our assembly knows and appreciates the work of Variety Clubs International. In our gallery today are two outstanding members of Variety International, community workers and business representatives from the city of Vancouver and the community of Richmond. I would ask the House to welcome my friends and colleagues in Variety International, Carol and Paul Fader.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to table the financial statements for the year ending December 30, 1983, for that fantastic little railway, the people's railway, the British Columbia Railway Company.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF PROVINCIAL
SECRETARY AND GOVERNMENT SERVICES

(continued)

On vote 54: minister's office, $190,839.

MR. KEMPF: I'll not take up too much more time of this House in summing up my remarks in this minister's estimate. It's quite apparent, Mr. Chairman, from what was said by the minister yesterday that I'm not going to get the answers to the questions which I have posed.

We are not going to be told how much money was taken in by the Lottery Fund last year. We're not going to be told when it is that we will see an accounting of last year's allocations from the fund. We're not going to see where the dollars are going — to whom or to what projects. We're not going to be told how much money remained in the fund at the end of 1983. Certainly we're not going to be told why there will be no consideration given to changing the guidelines of the Lottery Fund program in order to facilitate grants for small rural communities in this province. These grants, although very small and maybe totally different from those needed in the urban areas of this province, are nevertheless very important to the well-being of those very small have-not communities of British Columbia.

[10:15]

It's interesting to note in passing that when one comes to this House with well-researched debate stating fact — and in the case of this argument quoting directly from applications made by groups and organizations — that that debate is deemed rhetoric in this House by the minister concerned. It's also interesting to note that other ministers, such as the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), believes, as he himself said in this House.... I'll read from the Blues of yesterday. A member who speaks out on behalf of those he represents in this chamber is "not a competent MLA."

Mr. Chairman, to speak out is to go against the grain. It's considered a no-no in the system, and subject to scorn in this assembly. But, Mr. Chairman, the same system that allows that scorn will be a deciding factor whether or not the people of Omineca feel that I have wronged them by speaking up for them in this chamber. That same system will allow them the opportunity, if they feel that's wrong, to turf me out at their next visit to the polls. It's very clear to me in cases such as the Lottery Fund, and the losses of services to the communities which I serve — because of, among other things, high rental rates charged to ministries by the British Columbia Buildings Corporation.... It's clear to me that we in the north, particularly in the name of restraint, and during this period of restraint, are once again being short-changed. Compared to the urban south, we, the people of the northern and north-central part of British Columbia, are once again being shafted in preference to the south.

Mr. Chairman, Lottery Fund dollars have literally dried up for the north, while much-needed small projects such as those that I have cited, and others, are going begging, at the same time as literally hundreds of millions of dollars are suddenly made available — from that same fund — for large projects in the heart of Vancouver.

[ Page 4026 ]

It's an unfortunate situation from the viewpoint of a member not being able to speak up in this chamber for his constituents. It's an unfortunate situation that, because of large urban projects, the little people of the north should be forgotten or further ignored in this province. They're not being ignored when it comes to the decision-making of reducing their services — not at all — and that's becoming more and more apparent to me. They're not being ignored when it comes to the collection of moneys which go into the provincial coffers from our rich resource areas of the north and north-central part of this province. But they're sure being ignored when it comes to meeting their needs and retaining their badly needed services. It's happening, as I've pointed out very conclusively in this minister's estimates, and as I will be doing in others. I call upon my colleagues from the north sitting in this chamber on both sides of the floor to speak up as well, for they too represent northerners, and they too will be judged at the polls next time around.

MR. MICHAEL: I would like to start off my address on a more positive note and, indeed, thank the minister and the lotteries division for the tremendous work they have done within my constituency. I am very pleased at the amount of grants being passed out to such groups as schools, for student travel, large sums to volunteer fire departments, cultural groups, heritage societies, and the Knowledge Network, where I believe our constituency has received in excess of $100,000 over the last 18 months.

I'd like to say to the minister that I, for one, identify very closely with Expo 86 and recognize the amount of money that's flowing there from the Lottery Fund. I believe the figure is $20 million a year that's being pumped into Expo 86 as seed money for that tremendous exposition we're going to have in our province, and I think it's money very well spent. I repeat that I am very happy with the amount of support in grants that has been given my constituency.

I still feel that there is room for further expansion of lotteries in British Columbia, and I say that for one particular group. That is the very large group of organizations that started the lotteries in the first place some 10 or 12 years ago. I'm thinking of service clubs, volunteer organizations, societies, groups that got the thing off the ground and are now being funded.... And I thank the minister for extending funding to those service clubs and volunteer organizations. But I feel that there is a vacuum that needs to be filled, to permit those volunteer organizations to raise money for additional community needs. I'd like to refer the minister to two provinces — that I am aware of, one being Alberta and the other Manitoba — that have entertained the Nevada-club style and type of lottery ticket. I feel that there is an opportunity to enter that market and permit groups of people — volunteer organizations — to raise millions of dollars for local needs.

As we all know, the present lottery rules do not permit grants to recreation facilities. I feel it's unfair, Mr. Chairman, that reams of communities across this province have received enormous amounts of money from the recreational facilities fund in past years. In my view, those communities that missed the boat in previous years by not expanding at that particular time, for whatever reason, and are perhaps prepared to expand now are not being given treatment equal to that given to those communities that expanded during that time, when they were entitled to one-third of the capital cost up to $1 million, or whatever the figure was. I think that if the minister would give positive consideration to entertaining the idea of the Nevada-club type of lottery ticket, and permitting volunteer organizations to enter this market, we could perhaps kill two birds with one stone.

Having recently checked with the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation, I learned that they permit any charitable community or religious organization to enter this Nevada-club type of lottery marketplace, providing the money is used for religious or charitable purposes. The tickets can be sold wherever, at bingo games, bazaars or social events in areas throughout the province. I can also tell you that in 1983 the total net profit to the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation — who actually print the tickets — shared by the community groups and organizations, Kinsmen, Rotary, religious organizations or community groups, was $16,915,000. I believe that if the minister would give favourable consideration to entering this marketplace, it would resolve a lot of the problems that the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) and other speakers have brought up about the need to raise some extra money to satisfy community needs in the recreation field.

One of the communities in my constituency does not have a recreation centre. We are very desirous of having one, and I believe the taxpayers in my particular home town are prepared to give support to the municipal council. It would certainly give a lot more impetus to the group which has been working for years and years on this particular centre if there were a good chunk of money made available through a recreation facilities fund.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would appeal to the minister to have a close look at this. Study what they're doing in Alberta and Manitoba, and give favourable consideration to entertaining this new market for fund-raising. I don't believe that it would give any significant competition to current lotteries that are being handled by the lotteries commission in the province of British Columbia.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I have two or three questions I would like to put to the minister. The one I will start off with was led into by the previous speaker when he stated that large amounts of money are given to volunteer fire departments throughout the province. I'd like to ask the minister directly, because I have made many inquiries on behalf of volunteer fire departments for grants.... At the present time you watch all this advertising on TV of a fancy fire truck leaving a hall, and the idea that money is given to volunteer fire departments. The information I have been supplied with on many inquiries is that the only money from lottery funds goes to the academy in Vancouver and is used for the training of volunteer fire officers. I would like to know from the minister if any money goes into grants directly to volunteer fire departments for either setup or equipment, or what money goes directly to a department. On every inquiry I have made, I have been turned down. I have talked to other MLAs from my caucus, and they have received the same story.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, in response to the question put to me by the member for Esquimalt, yes, we do give grants to volunteer fire departments throughout British Columbia. We have given many grants to volunteer fire departments, not only to the academy, but it's for capital costs — construction costs of a firehall or extension of an existing fireball. The rules are very simple. The reason the program was brought into place about a year ago was the tremendous

[ Page 4027 ]

demand that had built up for this kind of assistance, not only since I've been the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services but over many years. I know many of my small communities have asked for government assistance for a new firehall and have been unsuccessful. I brought the program in a year ago. We give a maximum grant of $40,000, We're prepared to pay 50 percent of the cost of a new firehall or the extension of a firehall, with the upper limit of $40,000.

[10:30]

I gave instructions at the time to people in the lotteries branch to monitor this very closely and to give me the numbers. We'll determine at that time just how effective the program has been and whether the program should be extended beyond the realm of firehalls or not. Of course, if we do expand it, one has to look at the projected costs that would be involved to the fund by expanding it beyond the realm of firehalls. I think it's a first-class program, not because I brought it in but because it has contributed a tremendous amount to various volunteer fire departments scattered throughout British Columbia. So there is a program there. If you have any volunteer fire departments in your constituency that need a new firehall, all they have to do is apply and they'll be given consideration.

MR. MITCHELL: I want to thank the minister, because I'm sure the last inquiry I made was last fall and I was again told the same story I was told in the past. I will admit that I never saw any press release come out of your office on that, and if it did I would be happy to receive a copy of it and I will circulate it. I know I have made applications.

There is one other issue that I bring up annually, even though I'm not sure if we are now past the point of no return. That was the promise made by three members of the government, prior to the 1979 election, of money that would be available to convert or remodel the abandoned Lampson Street School in Esquimalt to a greater Victoria cultural centre. This was announced by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Evan Wolfe, in company with another member of the cabinet, Sam Bawlf, and the then MLA for Esquimalt, Lyle Kahl, who attended a public meeting at the Lampson Street School, where the executives of all the cultural — pottery and so on — and sports groups were told that there was all this money available to remodel the school and make it a worthwhile centre that was needed in the greater Victoria area. The hope that all these groups received because of this presentation was great. Hundreds and hundreds of hours have been spent by them in attempting to put together plans for the building and the distribution of the various facilities within it. Every time that I or any of the groups have made any application, we have been told that lottery funds are not available and that there is no money left in the recreational facility fund.

I feel that there is a need for a cultural centre in the greater Victoria area. I do know that the school board is prepared to go along with that use of this particular building. The Esquimalt council have gone through the procedures of having it designated as a heritage building, because that was one of the requirements that appeared somewhere in the negotiations. But because of the frustration and the continual turning down of applications and presentations, a lot of the groups have got discouraged by the lack of action from this government, and the lack of leadership that should have come from those in your ministry who deal with recreation grants and from the numerous other ministries that could assist.

Secondly, I would like to join with my colleagues and with the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in saying that this government has an obligation to the people of British Columbia to bring out the true cost of the lottery operation. How much money has been spent on high-priced, politically motivated advertising that continually goes out through the media? How much money is spent on staff? What percentage of the money goes out to the community in grants? Every year we get a copy of the list of grants that went out. But what percentage of that money raised is used for grants, and how is it proportioned? I go around and I meet many groups that at one time or another sold lottery tickets to raise money in their own communities for various programs. I talk to them, and they ask me: how much money goes out in advertising, and what is the breakdown of the total fund? I join with members from both sides of the House in saying that the government has a direct obligation to tell how that fund is being administered. It's not the pet project of any member of the cabinet. It is the people's money, and it is your responsibility to give that information out. We cannot continue to hold it back as if it were some secret that only the government can share.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I don't feel an obligation to fulfil any commitments made by people who have preceded me in years gone by.

However, the Lampson school situation — and your great interest in establishing that site as a cultural centre for the heart of the Esquimalt constituency — is one which I'm prepared to examine. There has been some correspondence on the issue, dealing primarily with the issue of heritage designation. I don't know the specifics of it, but it is one question that I can take as notice and investigate on your behalf. There is nothing I would like to do more than help those people from Esquimalt, because the more we help those people from Esquimalt the better they'll be able to help us. So I'm one who is prepared to help that particular constituency.

On the question of advertising, I don't have the breakdown here. The administration cost of the Lottery Fund in 1983-84 is $1,469,000 approximately; 1 percent of sales is the cost of administration of these grants. We issue tens of thousands of grants each and every year from this ministry. I don't know whether or not you support this. Some people might view it as a contribution to the lower mainland. We give $3 million from the lotteries for medical research, which has been increased by $100,000 this year. The Lottery Fund allocation goes to very worthy causes in our community. There will be a contribution to Expo as well. There are contributions to recreation and sports running in the millions of dollars, helping all the amateur sports groups scattered throughout British Columbia. We're attempting to help these little groups — heritage conservation, cultural funds, arts challenge and those kinds of programs. Beyond the realm of helping out for volunteer fire departments in the construction of firehalls and beyond the realm of recreational facilities and the kind of grants we make there, millions and millions of dollars have been spent throughout British Columbia for recreational facilities, and we have a lot of other worthwhile endeavours here. I'm sure the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) will be the first to admit that the kind of allocation of these lottery dollars is something that he strongly supports and endorses.

MR. MITCHELL: I'd just like to zero in on that wonderful promise he made; it's taken five years. If at first you don't

[ Page 4028 ]

succeed, try, try again. I say to the minister that I'm happy he's going to look at the Lampson Street School centre as something from out of the Lottery Fund. While I have him here and I have his rapt attention.... You stated that for firehalls you look at a fifty-fifty basis for an extension of up to $40,000. What type of breakdown will you give on a renovation on a cultural centre? It's not just Esquimalt; it's the greater Victoria area. One main group that has been trying to get a home is the greater Victoria gymnastics association, which can use the auditorium. I'm just wondering what kind of breakdown that is. Will it be the same one-third, two-thirds? Is there any maximum on that grant for a major renovation?

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Esquimalt has just confused me. He's talking about an application for a cultural event, then he goes on to talk about gymnastics. I have some difficulty responding to a question where you're attempting to address what should be two separate and distinct issues –– I can't respond to you. The question is so ambiguous and foggy that I have some difficulty answering it.

MR. MITCHELL: The minister has obviously not gone over the reams of correspondence between the various groups and the ministry. It's a group of cultural and gymnastic groups that were invited by two cabinet ministers and one Social Credit MLA to come to a meeting, where they were advised that if the Social Credit government got re-elected in 1979, there would be money available to do a remodelling job on the abandoned Lampson Street School. One of these groups was the greater Victoria gymnastics association and the others were pottery, weaving and painting groups. There were numerous groups. Don't try to say that I am confusing it. I inherited this group from the actions of my predecessor and from the actions of the government. I didn't invent them. I'm not confusing you. If anything, I'm just bringing you back some of the groups that you brought together. They are all good groups. I want you to give me the answer — and don't say I'm confusing you. What kind of money are you prepared to put up for a renovation job? What percentage? I don't want anything else. I don't want a lot of flimflam and fancy skating. I want straight facts.

[10:45]

HON. MR. CHABOT: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew has suggested that two previous ministers and one previous MLA have made a commitment to a particular group within his constituency. I think that's the point he's trying to make. I don't know if they made a commitment or not, but I'll tell you that if you can give me the evidence that they've made a commitment — send me a copy of the correspondence and the application they've made — I'll give it some consideration.

MR. MITCHELL: Would the minister be happy to have affidavits from all the groups that attended, and what they recall was said? I will add a supporting affidavit because I attended the meeting. I don't think I was really welcome there by certain political figures in the area, but I was invited by the groups to be a witness to these wonderful promises. Because I was a witness, I feel it's my duty to bring it back to you. I used to bring it back to one of your predecessors, not very successfully. I'm at least getting you to slide around a little bit.

Vote 54 approved.

Vote 55: Provincial Secretary and Government Services, $33,373,140 — approved.

Vote 56: government information services, $18,915,859 — approved.

Vote 57: culture, heritage and recreation, $17,884,946 — approved.

Vote 58: government personnel, pensions and employee benefits administration, $13,250,416 — approved.

Vote 59: Pensions and employee benefits contributions, $10 — approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we'll proceed to resolutions. In approaching resolution one at the outset, I would say I have given consideration to the amendment of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), which appears in the order paper as resolution 27. Mr. Speaker. I advise the House that it is a worthwhile proposal of the hon. member and is indeed acceptable, but for the better shepherding of the debate I would ask leave to move the resolution I shall now recite, which essentially includes the terminology of Motion I and Motion 27, with consequential modifications. I will read the resolution, which has been seconded by the hon. member for Skeena. It is as follows:

"That the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills review the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and make recommendations for appropriate amendments with a view to improving and better facilitating all aspects of proceedings in the House and committees thereof. For this purpose the committee shall have the power to meet while the House is sitting and during any adjournment of the House and power to adjourn from place to place, and shall report from time to time its recommendations to the House before the conclusion of this session."

I would ask leave to move that motion.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, philosophically I'm very sure that all members of this assembly are very much wedded to the historic democratic processes and institutions of our country, the rule of law, our courts, the independence of the judiciary, parliament, our legislatures and a free press. To each of these concepts there are attendant hallmark responsibilities. I would suggest that from the perspective of the public at large, certainly insofar as their respect is concerned, today in Canada our courts are first and foremost, with Parliament and the legislatures and the press being a distant second or third or fourth or whatever. I'll certainly leave all of that to the sagacities of others to determine the order. However, I'm very sure, Mr. Speaker, that

[ Page 4029 ]

most everyone will agree that anything that parliamentarians and legislators can do to encourage more light and less heat in their assemblies will be much heralded and of lasting value.

For the record, we appreciate that although the standing orders of this assembly are hardly a breakfast, bedtime or household preoccupation, they are the rules that govern the operation of the Legislature and are its own laws, so to speak. Much in the same fashion as the laws of our country are derived from two sources — first, constitutional-legislative and second, the case law of judicial decisions — so we, too, in this House have our book of rules, Standing Orders, which establish the parameters of the method of dealing with the business of the public. Where those orders appear to be silent or are open to interpretation, then follows parliamentary case law, i.e. precedents established by past rulings and precedents of B.C. Speakers and the Speakers of the British Parliament at Westminster.

By way of history, B.C.'s standing orders were established in 1873, and they were closely patterned on those of Westminster. They were formally readopted in our province in 1930, but except for some relatively minor changes instituted since the late seventies, some by the previous administration and some by this administration, they have really not been adjusted since. I think it's apparent that the standing orders of this House, with little exception, are 54 years old — well beyond their golden anniversary. Yet the very rules on which they were based, those of the mother parliament, have themselves been subject to rather dramatic change in the intervening years. Hence we're much behind Britain, even with its age-old reputation as being perhaps overly encrusted with tradition.

So the time for deliberative attention has more than well arrived. I think it's also germane to note that today's legislators, right across the country, have to deal with infinitely more complex and varied problems than their predecessors of half a century ago. With computerized data and electronic media, both parliamentarians and the general public are able to become much more swiftly and fully informed. Research capacity has increased, the volume and complexity of legislation has increased, and the volume of specific information that members must themselves absorb has also increased.

I think it bears comment that in the pre-communications explosion and slower-paced depression days of the 1930s, before the full effects of the longest and indeed worst war the world has ever experienced and the various attendant economic legislative upheavals that flowed from that, before television, before computerization, before far-reaching technological advances, and indeed at a time while radio and commercial air service were in infancy, being a member then of this assembly was often a part-time activity. Then an average sitting only lasted about six or eight weeks, even into the early 1960s.

But dramatic changes in British Columbia since the Second World War are a very good benchmark for comparison purposes. Since 1945 our population has approximately tripled from under one million to more than 2.8 million. The provincial revenues then were under $46 million. Now they are some $7.2 billion — about a sixteenfold increase in 40 years. Demands on government have grown enormously, with its business volume, complexity and response to public demand. Yet still the standing orders of this assembly and the very rules and procedures that are in place to handle this greatly expanded responsibility are essentially the same as they were in the 1930s. I stress this, Mr. Speaker, not to imply that because certain rules may have some snow on the roof they should be sent to pasture, nor that indeed change can automatically result in improvement.

I wish to emphasize this next point: I don't in any manner intend to infringe upon the mandate, responsibilities and prerogatives of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills, because when it gives consideration to its mandate, it will no doubt develop its own procedure. It will put the present standing orders under close scrutiny. It will examine alternatives, and as the motion states, it will make recommendations for appropriate amendments.

But I would like to observe that as government House Leader and as a member of this House for quite some years, and one who has been fortunate in serving both in government and in opposition, and indeed as a B.C. citizen, I think with everybody's general concern for better processes and the quality of public life in this province, I have reviewed a few areas where, in my opinion, certain improvements in the standing orders might be entertained by the committee. But I would re-emphasize that the rules of the assembly are its rules, and the rules for all of its members. With that in mind I would sincerely hope that the committee might entertain a request to all of our 57 members to file with it any written recommendation any member might have for improvement. What the committee will accept, reject or modify will, of course, form the basis for its recommendation.

First, Mr. Speaker, I'd suggest perhaps one area of consideration could be the desirability and feasibility of televising or broadcasting some or all of the debates of the assembly. With properly regulated procedures, televising the debates could provide a sort of electronic Hansard to further widen the public's access to and awareness of the public business. It could perhaps also improve the standard and relevance of debate. Obviously a number of technical costs and other problems would require study and resolution.

Another possibility I think worth exploring is whether there should be a flexibility to move certain estimates or bills from the Committee of the Whole into special committees, with a proviso that any member of the Legislature who is not on such a committee would be entitled to be party to the committee's proceedings and appear before it and contribute to it. The House, therefore, would not be denied the benefit of any hon. member's special interest or expertise on a subject under a committee of which he or she wasn't a member.

Another item of possible reform could deal with time allotment for debate, bearing in mind that it is in the nature of things that in any parliament, members on the government side often believe that the time allotment for debate is generous, if not more than ample, while opposition members are in many cases contrary-minded. We've heard the expression that "brevity is the soul of wit, " and that being the case, I would say that most of us in here would agree that that sort of soul often receives mighty short shrift. Winston Churchill once expressed of a political foe: "He had the gift of compressing the smallest amount of thought into the greatest number of words of any man that I knew." I say this luxuriance of excess is something that is somewhat too often characterized here. What is fact, though, Mr. Speaker, is that all parliamentary bodies, including this assembly, have some kind of time allotment for debate, however it may be described. Otherwise, in any House any single member theoretically could tie up all the proceedings for the life of the session, or at least as long as his lungs held out.

[ Page 4030 ]

[11:00]

Again, Mr. Speaker, just for the record, because this is common knowledge to everybody in here, in our Legislature there are essentially four main areas of debate: the Speech from the Throne read by His Honour at the opening sitting of a session expressing the general direction his government proposes to take in the months ahead; the budget debate, which involves anticipated public revenues, expenditures and tax measures; ministerial estimates, which permit detailed scrutiny of every minister's programs and expenditures; and debate of general legislation — new laws, amendments to existing laws, and the repeal of laws. There is, of course, the other business of the House: question period, ministerial statements and replies, and a variety of other provisions. The time allotments for all of these activities vary. So the select committee may well wish to look at these allotments and ask whether they are effectively doing their job, and if not, how they can be better rationalized or improved.

Now, Mr. Speaker, just before I close, I'd like to mention that in considering the broad question of the degree of progress to be anticipated by the committee, I would respectfully submit that it isn't unreasonable to suggest that each member of the committee, and indeed each hon. member of this House, apply a simple test. Every government member can ask himself or herself: "If my party were to become opposition at some future date, could I perform my responsibility with any of the rule changes that I may recommend?" And every opposition member might similarly introspect and question: "If my party were to form government, would I find my proposals as acceptable as I now think they may be?" In other words, I think that members on both sides of the House must envision what it would be like if the parliamentary shoe were on the other foot. With that in mind, we should all be able to work toward reasonable and workable improvements, and hopefully lessen the decibels of partisan impulses in favour of consideration of the public good over the longer term; chart how the public can be better served, how the business of the House can be better attended to and how this assembly can better achieve the respect of the public for now and for the future. All of those concepts, I most respectfully suggest, are highly interwoven, and I move the resolution that I have just read.

MR. HOWARD: The motion before the House will undoubtedly receive approval, and we will embark, through a committee, upon examination of a variety of matters, one of which will be the standing orders themselves. I think that within the ambit of the resolution, the words therein that say, "with a view to improving and better facilitating all aspects of proceedings in the House and committees thereof...." Encompassed within that quotation is the full opportunity for the committee to embark upon an examination of televising and radio-transmitting the proceedings of this Legislature to the people of British Columbia. I am pleased that the government House Leader mentioned that as a subject matter. It seems to me that the interpretation of those words which I just made would accommodate that type of examination, that there won't be any difficulty in the committee embarking on an examination of how to transmit the proceedings of this House by radio and television to the people who own this place.

In that regard I want to pay tribute to a former member of this chamber, the former member for Coquitlam-Moody, now Mr. Justice Leggatt, who introduced bills to this Legislature from time to time which sought to declare that this Legislature should have electronic transmission of its proceedings by way of radio and television. Whether we like it or not, that is an integral part of our communications system; it's the electronic counterpart of the written word, and I think it has a place and deserves a place in our Legislature similar to that which newspapers and Hansard had in earlier years of the development of our parliamentary democracy. I would seriously urge that the committee get this matter in its hands, proceed to examine that subject and come back with a formal and positive recommendation as to how we go about doing it.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations mentioned that we should examine these proceedings as though the shoe were on the other foot. In other words, if government were opposition or opposition were government, how would it like certain things to function? There is an element of plagiarism in that statement. I recall reading that in one of the documents prepared by one of the learned gentlemen at the table, saying that's the way we should look at closure. I think that it has got to be recognized that the shoe is never on the other foot. Government is always government. Members of the opposition are always members of the opposition. Individuals may change, but within the institutionalized structure that we have, government is an element within this institution and the opposition is an element. To look at it and say, "If I were government, this would be the case," is not possible. I say that we have to look at it in the totality of what we're trying to do.

There has been work proceeding on the rules for some time now. A draft exists of proposed rule changes. There has been some element of predetermination already engaged in. Those draft changes have not seen the light of day; members of the opposition have not seen them or been involved, in a preliminary way, in looking at what changes might have been contemplated. So there is basically a secret agenda that exists in an attempt to prepare something for the committee, to perhaps present it with a fait accompli or a position whereby the government will say: "That's it." The government might deny it, but work has been proceeding on changes to the rules. That kind of activity — no matter if one says it is only technical, when dealing with words, commas, phrases and grammar — behind the scenes on the rules of this House, which belongs to the people of this province, really precludes any consideration of dealing with things on their merits.

I think we have to look at the rules in the sense of our appreciation of democracy and in the sense of democracy versus a dictatorship, and attempt to understand what we have seen developed in this province, this nation, and indeed in the western world, as a perception of democracy, and whether or not the activities in this chamber and in other chambers in our parliamentary system operate by those rules.

Democracy, as it relates to individuals, comprises just a couple of things: two very important but two very uncomplicated things. One is the right, won by many years of struggle generations ago, to vote: the right of the individual to proceed into an enclosed compartment, without having what that person does viewed by anybody else, and put an X on the ballot to elect a member to represent a certain area, or, in our case, to elect two members to represent certain areas. In between those periods of time when we vote, the only other right in our democracy is the right of petition to government, the right to approach government and say: will you do this or something else, or will you not do something else — on the

[ Page 4031 ]

positive or negative side. We can classify that right of petition by things such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., but basically, in terms of the relationship of the individual to the state, it's the right of petition in between those periods when elections take place. That's all that democracy encompasses.

Democracy can be intruded upon, and it is and has been from time to time. It can be intruded upon by government through legislation; that occurs. It has changed over the years. At one time it was considered wise to deny women the right to vote. The law prohibited women from voting, and that was called democracy. At one time we denied people of ethnic origin, our native Indian people and people of Oriental origin the right to vote, and we called that democracy. The word has a changing application. But I think we have to look at these rules in the sense of what democracy is. It is a moving, flowing thing. It requires vigilance and determination on the part of all of us to ensure that it continues to flow, move and reflect our needs in society in terms of our relationships to government and to the Legislature. That's what this committee should be looking at.

One of the precepts in our democratic structure is majority rule. We have a vote, and the majority position prevails. That is tyrannical insofar as the minority is concerned. It says that the only right of minority, or the only right of the assembly, whether it's this assembly or any other assembly, a government assembly or a group of private people in an organization.... Majority rule says that the only right you have is the right to debate and attempt by debate to influence, but once the vote is taken, that's it. That may make some sense in an organization of people such as the chamber of commerce, trade unions, or service organizations such as the Lions Club, or whatever, where people approach problems on the basis of finding a meritorious answer to them, and are influenced by debate and prepared to say: "Yes, that person, while having a different view than I, has a valid point of view and I'll accept it. He has swayed my view and my intentions." That does not happen in this Legislative Assembly. We do not approach problems on the basis of anything other than stating preconceived notions, having a predetermined opinion about how we're going to vote on any given subject. Majority rule means government dictatorship. The concept of majority rule in a democracy basically means the government's dictatorial authority over the Legislative Assembly. The rules over the years have been built up to support that position. We don't assess subject matters here on the basis of merit; we assess them on the basis of the origin of the idea, generally speaking. I think that is what the committee should be looking at: how can we structure the rules and the functions of this chamber so that it suits the historic inheritance of democracy and not just the view of government? That gets me back to my saying that looking at it as if the shoe were on the other foot, as advanced by the government House Leader, is not the way we should look at that. If we look at it as if the shoe were on the other foot, we simply put one person into the place of the government and say: "Well, if I was there I would want it this way." And the other one is saying: "If I was over there, I would want it this way." That denies what we should be doing about democracy.

Mr. Speaker, I say this with respect; it is not to be perceived as expressing any views about Mr. Speaker or any Speakers in the past. Speakers' decisions over the years have supported the position that government is supreme. Historically we dig back into the dim past to Sir Erskine May's decisions in 1700, 1800 or some other time in England and say that because a certain thing happened there and then it's going to happen here and now, without examining or attempting to examine why that decision was made in 1834, 1905 or whenever it might have been. We simply open the book and say that's what occurred in England at a certain time, and that's forever going to be the case. On those rare occasions when Mr. Speaker has ruled — and it has happened in this chamber, although not during my time here — favourably with respect to a point made by members of the opposition, "favourably" insofar as government is concerned, there has been a challenge to that ruling by government. The majority forces on the part of government then come forward, a vote is taken, they overturn the ruling of the Speaker, and so it becomes a government demand on the office of the Speaker to have rulings which substantiate and support the position that government is a dictator insofar as the Legislature is concerned, that government is authoritarian and has the ultimate power, whatever the stripe of that government may be. I'm not talking about a partisan matter; I'm talking about the general concept.

[11:15]

This Legislature belongs to the people of the province. As the government House Leader said, the subject matter of procedure in this House, our standing orders and Sir Erskine May, Beauchesne and all of the other gentlemen of the past who have set down what has occurred in the past so that we can be guided by it, is not a matter for daily or even annual consideration in the average household. It's not a matter of any consideration whatever, I would think, in the great majority of households — even in the households of members of this chamber. I'm sure that we don't go home at night and say: "Look, did I tell you, my darling, about the rules that go on in here, about standing order 92 or 67?" We don't say that. We talk in conceptual terms at home, not in terms of these rules here.

On an earlier occasion I attempted to propose an alternative to the structure of the standing orders committee so it would have equal representation from the opposition and government. A decision was made about that. I don't want to revive that, but I do want to say that there was some comment in the press about it afterwards. I regret that the chief government Whip doesn't have the opportunity right now, because he isn't in the chamber, to comment about that. He is reporting as saying: "We can't accept that idea of equal representation, because in 1972 to 1975 something else happened." I don't know why he, or why government members in supporting a particular position, always have to have their eyes riveted on the past as if whatever happened in the past is guaranteed to be the thing forever and ever with no alteration in it. That's the way we've got to approach these rules: not with our eyes glued to what Sir T. Erskine May says or what George MacMinn says in his volume, or what Alistair Fraser says in his rendition of Beauchesne, or any of the others. Not have our eyes riveted on those and say: where do we go from here? How do we tinker with these kinds of things in order to serve the general public? I think we've got to look more into the future, hope for the future. Offer some hope to the people of this province that their Legislature is going to serve their interests, and the people are going to feel and perceive that it serves their interests.

Right now this House is almost a...not a house of ill repute, but a House in ill repute insofar as the general public is concerned. The public is disenchanted, disillusioned,

[ Page 4032 ]

maybe even disinterested — not in what we are doing here but in how we are doing it. Through this committee we've got the opportunity to be positive; by dealing with example and concept, we've got the opportunity to attempt hopefully to revive a faith in the public of this province in their institution called the Legislative Assembly and in their institution called government. We have a tremendous inheritance, inherited over generations. We have an obligation to leave this place in a better condition than when we found it. We have an obligation to work to preserve the dignity of our institution called the Legislature and the government. We have an obligation to attempt to ensure that the general public likes having this as a part of its possession. We have an obligation to look into the future and ensure that we leave something for future generations to deal with and to have faith in.

I don't think it's good enough for the committee to be a tinkerer with times or a technician with respect to words. The government House Leader made reference at some length to opportunities for debate: what we do, time allotments and allocations and whether or not they're satisfactory. I think if the committee simply examines the rules themselves in their absolute terms and acts like a mechanic trying to fix up an old jalopy to run down the street for another few years, we will not be serving the general public and we will not be serving democracy. We cannot just look at the words and the times and the standing orders in their precise prosaic construction and tinker with those; we've got to work with a larger concept. The amendment that I put forward on the order paper — which the government House Leader incorporated within the main motion and enlarged upon — has as one of its concepts "the power to adjourn from place to place," meaning, in our procedural nomenclature, the opportunity to sit as a committee here in Victoria or in Prince George or in Vanderhoof, or wherever in this province there might be the opportunity to give those in the general public who are interested in expressing views in a conceptual way about what we do here — not what we do, but how we do it — an opportunity to sit down and discuss their Legislative Assembly and its rules with the members of the Legislative Assembly who will be working under those particular rules. If the committee approaches it in a conceptual way, in a large way, in a way of dealing and perceiving what democracy is and how we can advance the interests of democracy, if we spend our greatest amount of time doing that and our least amount of time tinkering with times and words in the rules, I think we will serve democracy, and that will be to the advantage of all of us.

MR. NICOLSON: This motion presents an opportunity to the House. It presents a challenge to the members and to the people of British Columbia to look at ways in which government in this province, particularly the legislative aspect of government, can be improved. If one looks at the historical trend of such improvements, I think they tend to be toward efficiency and expediency. At the time that Sir Erskine May wrote his first book, I think the House of Commons in Great Britain had something like 14 rules, and the number expanded into the hundreds. Our book is in the hundreds. There are really two different ways in which the parliamentary system can be approached. One is by codifying and the other is by a system which is evolutionary and tries to allow the greatest scope.

In opening debate the minister said that one could tie up the affairs of this House forever, or as long as he could stay on his feet or as long as his lungs lasted. When, indeed, has that ever happened? Yes, some members in this House have gone as long as 20-some-odd hours, and only with the cooperation of the other side of the House in calling some adjournments. Nobody has been on their feet for 22 solid hours, to my knowledge. So are we anticipating, or are we reacting to some sort of transgressions that have already occurred? Indeed, if that were the reason for this motion, I would have to vote against the motion, because I don't see that anything has rendered this House helpless.

It has happened in Ottawa and it's happened in Manitoba, where by ringing bells and by Whips refusing to come to an agreement a vote can be prevented from coming to its completion, but there is no way it can happen in this House. There are ways of closing debate, there are limits on most forms of debate, and it has yet to be demonstrated to me that there has been an abuse of the debate. It is the responsibility of the individual member to decide how vigorously they should oppose and whether the length of a speech should be a measure of that kind of opposition. I have not indulged in what is sometimes called a filibuster. I guess I've never spoken beyond the normal limits imposed on us in the House. But that is an individual decision for individual members under the present rules. So when we look at the business of an impasse and whether it has ever occurred in this House, I say no, it hasn't. So I would urge that members in their input to the committee not be so....

Is this timely? That's another thing. Is it so timely after perhaps the most heated session of last summer and last fall is so fresh in our minds? If input is framed in that context, then it is a very dangerous time to alter rules.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

One thing that does concern me is that if we engage in a wholesale change of rules.... It would seem to me there is a sort of a streamlining and a picking and choosing of the style of a republican system of government when we seek to change rules in Canada, without imposing the fundamental part of a republican system of government, which is the system of checks and balances. At almost every level of government you have three bodies, each of which can impose control on the other. In most states the governor has his power. There is quite often a senate, although not necessarily, and a House of Representatives. So there are the powers of veto. In our system a government has, really, the powers of dictatorship for a fixed period of time. The government never really loses a vote. So if we seek to streamline and introduce so-called efficiencies into the British parliamentary system, and go kind of half-way to a republic system, we will end up with the worst of all possible worlds.

[11:30]

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we do then embark upon this not out of the frustrations of probably both sides of the House of last summer and fall, but in a sincere attempt to bring the Legislature more immediately to the public so that we are not asked that question: "Oh, is the House sitting?" You know, you get that question every weekend you go back to your riding. People say: "Oh, is the Legislature in session?" Other times they ask you why you're in the riding when it's the middle of the summer, because they think you should be in Victoria all the time. So there's no satisfying them. But I would hope that we would work to involve people more in legislation. I would hope that we could bring about,

[ Page 4033 ]

by these legislative changes, the opportunity to refer legislation to select standing committees in order that public witnesses can be brought before committees.

I see my colleague over here listening, and immediately the thought comes to my mind that suppose there are changes to the Wildlife Act. Would it not be better to put such a piece of legislation before a select standing committee and have witnesses come in — guides, trappers, hunters, naturalists, the Sierra Club, and all of these outside groups? They could make presentations, and we could cross-examine witnesses. Could we not get better legislation that way than by simply pushing everything through Committee of the Whole House, which is simply the whole House sitting as it is right now?

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that televising debates could be introduced in such a way that is fair both to government and to opposition. I noted the other day with quite a great deal of anger that there was a televised news clip on unemployment — a subject I feel very strongly about. It showed the leader of the official opposition in Ottawa, and the leader of our party in Ottawa asking a question, but it did not show the government minister giving an answer. That kind of editing is, I think, the kind of danger that does concern people. I would hope that the televising of debates could be truly representative and not biased reporting. In that case it favoured the opposition party, of which I am a member, but nevertheless it was unfair. It would be unfair also if it were on the other foot. I feel the televising of the speech of the Minister of Finance every year without televising the official response of the opposition is not even-handed.

So there are many things that we can come up with. I would also hope that in our debates we will be able to realize that there is a role for Clerks to play in select standing committees, and that some of the problems of committees could be resolved simply by the respect which is supposed to be given to the Chair. Sometimes the respect is to the Clerks, and if they were present in all committees, I think it would help toward an orderly process. It would also set up that practice of not just going by inadequate codified rules but having a sufficient accumulation of practice and precedent whereby we could see that committees function more adequately.

I look forward to seeing this committee get around the province. It should perhaps visit some other legislatures. I think that discussions.... I've found that when visiting legislators have come here, the opportunity for discussing such things as the recent bell-ringing in Manitoba has been very enlightening. I think that we have then a dual purpose in this motion. The ability to adjourn from place to place....

I do have some hesitation about "reporting from time to time." I would hope that what we will adopt will not be piecemeal, that it will be part of a totally considered concept. Little patches and such to our existing orders — little amendments coming in from time to time — could end up in another sort of hodgepodge, rather than something that can be viewed in total and something that will assist in improving the role not just of government but of the opposition as well.

MR. COCKE: First I want to congratulate the minister who introduced this motion and my colleague the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who seconded the motion. I was pleased to see that it was a combination of the amendment on the order paper and the original motion. I was also very pleased to see that the minister's admonition to the committee suggests that there be a full round of discussion vis-à-vis TV in the House. I think our time has come for that particular proposition. I do believe it would improve the decorum. I think it would also improve the level of debate. It strikes me that more attention will be paid to what the folks back home may be thinking about what you are saying. I think that's a very important contribution that can be made.

Knowing the structure of the committee, with six government members and three opposition members, naturally I have some concerns over what may come out of this committee. Probably one of the things that standing orders could do, I think, would be to consider that whole structure of committees. The structure of committees should be based on representation in the Legislature. If in fact the opposition represents more than half of the total House, then I think the opposition should be more than half of a standing committee.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yes, as it was in Ontario, and during our term. In any event, the structure of the committee is one thing, and I think it should be laid down. Right now the structure of the committee is up to the government. When they come in with their convener to a committee meeting like the ones that took place this morning and over the last day or two, the government has six to three to begin with, and they're going to win any vote that they want. So if they decide that the structure of the committee should be six-three, then that's the end of it. I don't think it's right. We are less of a proportion of the House now than we were in the last term. In the last term it was exactly the same; we were that close. I believe that this is something that can be studied and decided, and once placed in this book, then a government cannot come in and trample all over the opposition in terms of numbers. There's no question that you're going to dominate the committee — each and every committee — because you dominate the House. That's the way it should be. But there should not be the structure the way we see it now, a structure determined by the government because of its power of numbers.

There's another thing that I think may be considered. I'm not on the committee, rather thankfully, but a number of my colleagues are, and certainly I'll be talking to them. I'd like to talk to the government members in terms of some of the things that I see are somewhat archaic in our rules. For example, a government member can leave this chamber and leave the precincts and be away for an indeterminate time on government business or whatever his or her fancy decides — it's always government business when a minister is away; we know that — yet a member can only be away ten sitting days in the course of an entire year. We're treating each other like juveniles. A person is elected and takes the responsibility to fulfil his or her duties. I don't believe these kinds of constraints are adult constraints. I think they're just foolish. I note that a rural member agrees with me on that. Rural members are probably the most hit by this particular rule. A back-bencher or an opposition member who needs to go to his or her riding for an extended period of time, because of major problems that have developed, cannot do so without being fined $250 a day, if in fact they're away for over ten sitting days in the course of a year. I think that is just darn foolishness, and I hope that is something else that is looked at in the course of our considerations.

I am absolutely delighted that the committee will be empowered to move around from place to place in the

[ Page 4034 ]

province to listen to what other people have to say. I am glad that the government decided to accept that amendment, because we don't own this place. The folks out there, the 2.75 million citizens of our province do, and I think they should have more access to what goes on here and the reasoning behind why it is the way it is. I think it would be healthy for the Legislature of British Columbia to be looked at by those with an interest in doing so. Our rules, of course, are our whole basis for being able to operate. So that is excellent.

[11:45]

The member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) brought up what I consider to be a very good point, and that's the referral of legislation to committee. There again I'm talking about letting the public in...the light of day.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The House Leader did? Excellent.

It just doesn't happen. I believe that a committee empowered to call witnesses and listen to what the public have to say prior to the passing of legislation is the healthiest thing that could happen. That way we would hear from the folks, and interested groups, just exactly what they feel, in the form of briefs and arguments. What do we do now? We argue among ourselves on a partisan basis, and nobody comes to the bar of the House and is able to tell us anything about what we're doing. If somebody is lucky enough to have the ear of somebody in government or in the opposition — and hopefully it's government under these circumstances, because the opposition can only argue.... I believe that is the healthiest thing we could possibly do for the future of the parliament of this province — giving people the kind of input.... Naturally there are dozens of housekeeping bills in which people don't want to participate in terms of what they have to say. But there are very important pieces of legislation that come before this assembly, and those which affect the lives of people all over our province should be thoroughly canvassed before they are passed. Once passed, it's very difficult to reverse that piece of legislation, because people and governments lose face, and don't want to. But if in fact the arguments can be made in a responsible way in the first place before a committee of our House, then I think we have something we can all live with. That is not to suggest that a government has to cave in in any way, shape or form, but to suggest that people at least have their opportunity. As the government House Leader would know, because of his background in law, everybody deserves a day in court. That gives them that opportunity to come and make their arguments. If they're weighty enough, then naturally we're able to change course before it's too late.

So again, congratulations. I wish the committee well. I hope they can do the job in the time allotted, and that we can all be back here discussing the report coming out of that committee. I hope it's a fair report for all interested people, and I particularly hope it's a fair report for those people whom we here represent.

MR. BLENCOE: I will be brief, Mr. Speaker. I would initially like to indicate that as a member of the opposition I support this amendment. Having been here only a short while, yet having been involved, as the Chairman of the Committee onPublic Accounts and Economic Affairs, in a somewhat controversial committee, I can only say that I welcome the move to try to look at changes in the rules and orders of procedure. I think there is a lot of room for trying, in a framework, to achieve some consensus on these important issues.

Interestingly enough as we debate this particular amendment this morning, we were all entertained by Mr. Jim Hume's column in the Times-Colonist and his views on section 72 of the standing orders in terms of public accounts. I think we have a lot of disagreement on how we would interpret that particular section. I would hope the committee will be able to look at the whole question of witness-calling and the rights and privileges of the opposition to call witnesses. In my understanding, the right of any member of that particular committee to call a witness has been a long-standing tradition. When the witness appears, the committee of course has the right to say yea or nay to the calling of that witness. I think we have to take a look at the whole question, particularly in public accounts, of whether a committee made up of a majority of government members has the power to deny access when a minority opposition member believes it's in the public interest for a witness to be heard, even though it may indeed be embarrassing to the government of the day. I think that's a very important topic, and one that needs to be discussed in full.

What is of concern to the opposition.... As of yesterday we now have the case in public accounts, on a motion endorsed by the majority, that no longer can a witness be called upon request of a member of that committee. If a member wishes to have a witness called, the committee as a whole now has to agree to that calling. I believe, and I think the opposition believes, that that goes against long-standing traditions — and rulings of the Speaker, I might add — of the right of any member, through the chairman, to call a witness to the public accounts committee. Indeed, I would like to refer to a July 18, 1977 ruling on this particular matter which has been missed particularly by the columnist Jim Hume. At that time Speaker Smith said that it is quite true that any member of that committee, through the chairman, has the right to have a witness called to that committee. Of course, the committee always had the right to say yea or nay.

I won't say much more on this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, but having experienced public accounts, I think there is a very important issue here — particularly when you're dealing with the whole question of public accounts: the right of the opposition, or of a minority, to hear — and therefore of the public to hear — a witness on a particular issue. I think there is some concern, particularly now that a number of cabinet members sit on that committee, that if information which witnesses could bring forward could be viewed as embarrassing to the government, there could be a denial of that witness being heard by that very important committee. I'm hoping that that kind of issue will be discussed and that protection of the opposition or minority to hear important information from a witness will not be denied because of the rule of the majority. I think that is a very important question to be looked at.

However, on the whole I think we are embarking in the right direction. I know we have all sorts of recommendations from the Deputy Clerk of this House on where we should be going, and I'm sure we will be looking at those. But at this time they are only recommendations, and as such the rules of the House are as they are laid out; we have to abide by the rules as they are clearly stated at this time. I wish the committee well and I'm sure we all await some important decisions from it.

[ Page 4035 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd say, in the context of the film industry, that perhaps this resolution could be classified as being somewhat of a sleeper, in the sense that a sleeper connotes a low-budget production that would enjoy little media attention but that with careful preparation and craftsmanship could achieve high returns and lasting benefit. This proposal can result in such consequences, and we would certainly hope that all members would work for that.

As a senior legislative columnist recently put it, the fact that it's not likely to touch off massive news-stand sales is really not important. What is important, as has been demonstrated in the remarks of all of the speakers this morning, is that this measure has the capacity to achieve lasting and historic significance. Because it invites consideration of significant and workable change, it could better shape the character of this assembly, its effectiveness, its manner of dealing with the business of the public and give an increased respect for the legislative process, all of which many of us would respectfully submit is much needed.

I would specifically like to thank the members who spoke this morning for their contributions: the hon. second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe) and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) for his moderate approach and very worthwhile suggestions. To each of them both who are not on this committee and as I stated in my initial remarks, I would certainly hope every member of this assembly would make an early contribution to the committee. That will allow the work of the committee as a whole to be achieved a great deal earlier.

Again, I thank the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). I would like to say one thing to the hon. member. We have no intention of having a B.C. senate, so I would suggest that we could put that on the back burner for a while. I'd like to assure the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that there is no element of predetermination and there is no secret agenda. It is certainly no secret that I have been giving consideration to rule improvement for quite some time, and not just this year. I would indeed hope — it may be faint hope — that others in the assembly have done so. I would certainly welcome that.

All hon. members, well know that the committee will be free and unfettered to do that which it chooses but we are not going to suggest for one minute that there are not going to be differences of opinion. We find differences of opinion in here, as was articulated by my friend the member for New Westminster. I again suggest and hope that the committee will solicit and receive the views of all members. We have to bear in mind, and it is deserving of mention this morning before I sit down, that the rules of this House are the servants of this House. They are not supposed to be its master, and that has to be borne in mind.

Both sides of the House have never made any secret of their philosophical differences, and they're strong. They are indeed there, they are continuing and some of them are mightily fundamental. But I'd say that those differences, which are only survivable in a democratic parliament, carry with them responsibilities, among which is the obligation to the general public to provide effective government and effective opposition — and not only to be effective but to be seen to be effective.

Hence I'd say as a final comment that conscientious and sensible updating and redrafting of our standing orders surely would be a noble step toward reaffirming this Legislature's commitment to provide effective and relevant methods for this House to do the business of the people of British Columbia.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Nemine contradicente, I think. That's very good, Mr. Speaker.

I ask leave of the House to withdraw both Motion I and Motion 27 now on the order paper.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call committee on Bill 6, Mr. Speaker.

[12:00]

RESOURCE REVENUE STABILIZATION FUND ACT

The House in committee on Bill 6; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Sections 1 to 8 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report Bill 6 complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Strachan in the chair.

Bill 6, Resource Revenue Stabilization Fund Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I call second reading of Bill 2.

INCOME TAX (HEALTH CARE MAINTENANCE)
AMENDMENT ACT, 1984

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move second reading of Bill 2. I have a few remarks to make.

As was noted in the budget speech of the 20th of last month, the federal share of health costs in British Columbia continues to decline. It is now only about 39 percent of total health care costs in the province. The difference between this level and the more appropriate 50 percent contribution level — and I emphasize the words "a more appropriate level of 50 percent" — represents an annual revenue shortfall to the province of $364 million. In addition, British Columbia is now facing a further revenue reduction as a result of the recent federal initiative to penalize the province for retaining health care user fees in moderation. I realize that the word "penalize" is a strong word; nonetheless, on careful reflection, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is the appropriate term to use in this context. With regard to health care user fees, British Columbia revenue could fall quite significantly — in the neighbourhood of $40 million per year — if this initiative is proceeded with by the federal government.

The purpose of the amendments to the Income Tax Act, in the context of Bill 2, is to address these two funding problems. The problem of federal underfunding of health care costs is to be addressed by the introduction of an 8 percent surtax on British Columbia tax otherwise payable. The earliest date that income tax deductions at source can commence

[ Page 4036 ]

on a half-yearly basis is July 1, 1984. Accordingly the bill provides for a 4 percent surtax on all 1984 British Columbia income tax otherwise payable. Then the surtax will continue at 8 percent of B.C. income tax for 1985.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

I referred at length to this in the budget address, Mr. Speaker. Clearly, while no one is fond of tax increases, I think it is important this morning to put this surtax in perspective. Firstly, there are various options to the government to help offset federal health underfunding. An income surtax is clearly the one measure that ensures that the required tax revenue is paid by those British Columbia citizens best able to assist in this regard. Secondly, the current British Columbia basic tax rate of 44 percent of basic federal tax is the second-lowest in Canada. Only Alberta has a lower rate, 43.5 percent of basic, federal tax. I note parenthetically that the Alberta budget is to be presented sometime next week. I have no knowledge, obviously, but I wonder if there may be some changes in that regard. But as of today our basic tax rate is the second-lowest in Canada, The surtax will, of course, effectively raise our rate. However, other than for higher-income taxpayers, who remain subject to an existing surtax, the resulting British Columbia rate of 47.52 percent will remain the second-lowest in Canada. While the measure just described will not eliminate the $364 million revenue shortfall that I noted a few moments ago, it will clearly assist our financial position, while discussions proceed with Ottawa on health funding. On a full-year basis, $166 million will be raised by this measure. The 1984-85 revenue increase will be approximately $97 million.

The second measure contained in the bill is a direct result of the federal initiatives contained in the Canada Health Act. I believe — and I think it is a view shared by many British Columbians — that we must take steps to ensure that there is no revenue loss arising from the elimination of user fees. The $40 million that these fees now generate have to be replaced by some other funding source or sources. The step that I'm proposing is a levy on tax-paying individuals, but related to family size and collected using the income tax system. The amount of the levy cannot be determined until it is clear what the full cost to the province will be as a result of the federal initiative to penalize the provinces — British Columbia in particular — for retaining health user fees.

I want to restate that in another way, Mr. Speaker, because some interested observers have said: "What will the amount be? What will be raised?" We still await — and I note that my colleague the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) is in the Legislature at this time — we still do not understand nor do we have information which clearly sets out the number of fees which are to be done away with under the Canada Health Act. Until we know that, therefore, we are not withholding information, but the final dollar amount is unknown.

The payment of the levy with respect to the replacement of user fees will apply only to those who actually pay British Columbia income tax. For example, those who file tax returns for the purpose of collecting a child tax credit will very definitely not be subject to this particular levy. The amount of the levy will take into account the number and the relationship of dependents claimed by the taxpayer. While the levy is not an ideal replacement for user fees — certainly the government and I would prefer to continue with the modest user fees which are in place — it will replace these lost revenues and it will also remind British Columbians, as indeed we should all be reminded, and as all Canadians should be reminded, that hospital services cost money. They cost big money. I want to restate that this government's preference in this particular matter would be to continue with the modest user fees that are currently applied to hospital service. The imposition of any new tax carries with it administrative and other difficulties. But it is important that our ability to provide health services for our citizens in this province is not impeded. So leading up to the budget and the introduction of this bill, I reluctantly concluded that if the federal government remains adamant that British Columbia is to be penalized for the user fees that are in place, then alternative revenue sources must be found.

Mr. Speaker, I know that other members in the assembly will want to speak on Bill 2. I now move second reading of Bill 2.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I'd first like to make it very clear that this is one more bill that the opposition will be opposing. As I pointed out to the minister when he introduced the first bill for discussion in this House, it was one we could support, and support it we indeed did. We opposed the next bill that he brought in and we oppose this one as well. Leaving aside all the fancy words, this bill is just one more tax grab. It's increasing income tax. It does give it another title but, Mr. Speaker, you and I both know that all it's really doing is increasing the income tax. When I say "all," I don't mean that that's insignificant. Certainly the government, in going to the people, when it called the election in April of last year and when it talked about restraint — and indeed, it's been talking about restraint now for some two years — has argued that if B.C. is going to remain competitive, we have to take the load of government from the people's shoulders and reduce the costs of government in total, because the imposition of taxes, whether it be taxes on business or taxes on individuals, reduces our ability to compete internationally. Since then the government has been busy raising taxes of all kinds. This particular one is on people who are paying income tax. I have to ask, Mr. Speaker: is this the right time to impose any tax increase, when our...? We can't even call it recovery any more. We used to talk about the fragile sense of recovery that existed in B.C. Well, now I think there's no feeling that B.C. is recovering in the slightest. We can't talk about recovery, so let's talk about depression. When we're in the depths of depression in B.C., as we are now with our rate of unemployment being second only to that experienced in the province of Newfoundland, should we be hitting the taxpayers with one more tax increase? It's a tax increase that the minister tells us is going to raise $96 million in this particular fiscal period. Is it worth hitting the community with one more income tax increase for $96 million, when the minister is, I believe, once again overestimating the deficit for 1984-85, just as he substantially overestimated the deficit for 1983-84? There's no need for this particular tax increase at this time. From the point of view of the economy of the province, we would all be better off if the minister refrained from imposing tax increases. I know the last election is just months past, and it's a good time to hit people with tax increases so you can take them off when you get near election day. But it isn't the right time, not when we're in the depression that we're in right now. That's my first concern.

The minister said a more appropriate level of funding for health care would be 50 percent. Mr. Speaker, I would invite

[ Page 4037 ]

the minister to tell us how he arrived at the 50 percent figure. Is 50 percent more appropriate than 40 percent? Or more appropriate than 60 percent? I don't know. I wonder if anyone has really given any thought as to which is the more appropriate figure. Which expenditure should be borne totally by provinces and which by the federal government? Certainly in the matter of health care, people can travel from one province to another, so there should be some sharing of responsibility, I would suggest. But....

HON. MR. CURTIS: Clearly.

[12:15]

MR. STUPICH: The minister agrees that there should be some sharing. But for him to say that 50 percent is the appropriate figure.... It may be. But I would like to know what justification.... How does he rationalize 50 percent as being the proper figure?

Then he suggests that it would be better if everything could be raised by income taxes. I think that's what he said. Again we're stuck with this business of my taking notes and having to listen, and then having to read my own writing. The tax is being put on income because that's the fairest form — it's being paid by those best able to afford it. Again I have to ask: where is the evidence for that? I'm coming increasingly to the opinion that while wage-earners pay income tax at a rate related to their incomes, other people don't. The people in the highest income tax brackets are the ones who find most ways of not paying income tax. Certainly not in the current period: at the very least, they are able to postpone it for many years into the future. Mr. Speaker, I have to question that increasing income tax is the most progressive way of getting this revenue. Just as I did with raising the question about whether or not 50 percent is the appropriate figure, I have to ask whether the income tax, as it is being administered today, is truly a progressive tax.

This really brings up the question whether, in discussing with his federal counterpart this question of sharing health costs, we should not also be discussing a total review of our taxation system with a view to making the income tax much more progressive than it currently is. The steps taken by the federal Minister of Finance in his latest budget make it less progressive than ever, giving more tax breaks to the most wealthy people, the highest-income earners in our community. Mr. Speaker, if you give more tax breaks to the highest-income people, obviously you're making the system less progressive. The minister, in saying that it's going to be administered by the federal government, is accepting that total formula, and I have to raise the question as to whether it is the best formula. It may still be. This is what I invite the minister to talk about. It may still be the most appropriate and most progressive way of raising revenue for this or any other purpose, but I'd like some evidence from the Minister of Finance as to how he arrives at that conclusion, that the best way is to increase the rate of income tax.

The minister talked about the underfunding by the federal government. Of course that comes back to my original question: what is appropriate? I don't know what an appropriate level is for health. I don't know what an appropriate level is for education. I don't know what an appropriate level is for national defence, except that I'd like to see absolutely nothing spent on it; an appropriate level for everybody would be zero. But I don't expect the minister to agree with me on that.

HON. MR. CURTIS: That's not in the bill.

MR. STUPICH: That's not in this bill, unfortunately. Perhaps we'd better bring in a resolution or something.

Then he said that even with this increase — we're still dealing with the first part of his remarks — B.C. will still have the second-lowest rate of personal income tax in Canada. If indeed we accept his earlier statement — not an argument, but simply a statement — that the best way is to increase income tax, why are we stopping at being the second-lowest in the country? If it is such a good system, a fair system, of collecting revenue for the Crown — looking forward to a deficit this year of $700 million, recognizing that in the last five years this government has run $3.5 billion in the hole on its operating accounts — and that's the best way of getting some money, why don't we go further? Why stop at an 8 percent increase? Using the minister's own argument that it's the best way of getting it, why aren't we getting more? Maybe he feels that going to 8 percent is as much as the economy can stand.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I then have to ask: how did you arrive at the figure of 8 percent? It doesn't relate to his own figures as to the amount we'd be losing by abandoning the user fees or to the amount we're losing through what he calls the inappropriate level of funding. It doesn't relate to any of those figures; it's simply an additional grab of revenue at this time. I have to ask: why 8 percent? Was that as far as he felt he could go? Would he like to go further, because it is the best way? Or is it just that that's the amount of money he feels he needs at this point.

I have a question about the $40 million figure. Again, perhaps I could leave this until committee, but I might not be here that day — it seems that on occasion I'm missing these days. With respect to the $40 million figure for the user fees, I wonder whether that's a gross or a net figure. I'm wondering what it actually costs the system to collect that $40 million. I know there's administration in every hospital in the province. I'm not sure how much administration there is in Victoria looking after that. It may be very little. Maybe we're dealing with something substantially less than that as the real loss of revenue in the event that we abandon the user fees.

In both sections of his speech the minister talked about the federal government penalizing the provinces. The federal government's approach is that it is trying to help those people in the community find it hard to pay the direct costs, the user fees. You'll recall, Mr. Speaker, that when this government came to office just over eight years ago, the user fee was $1 a day. It is now $8.50, a 750 percent increase in eight years. Some people are finding it difficult.

Fortunately I personally have not had to make use of hospital services since 1960. I don't mind paying my share, and I hope that I never have to go into a hospital. I think we all feel the same way: we'd rather pay for it and have it than have to use it and not have it.... Is there anyone you know who goes into a hospital by choice, who decides, "Well, today would be a nice day for me to go to the hospital, or tomorrow," or, "I'll make an appointment and go a week from now"? I just heard yesterday evening about a constituent in the minister's own constituency who has to go in for a cancer operation. He was told just days ago. The operation, which is serious — cancer is always serious, even if it's considered medically not to be serious; mentally, it's extremely serious

[ Page 4038 ]

— is scheduled for a month from now, because it has to be done in Vancouver and they don't have time to fit that patient in. I suggested to that person — not directly; I was speaking indirectly — that he contact his MLA to see if there wasn't something that could be done. I know that if the emergency is serious enough.... Certainly I've found the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to be cooperative in the past when I've had a problem. I would think that if the Minister of Finance were told about it and went to the Minister of Health, something might be done to speed that up. People don't go in by choice; it's the doctor who decides — not the doctor alone; the doctor has to negotiate as well. You don't get into a hospital unless you go through a doctor; then the doctor has to negotiate with the hospital. People aren't going there thinking, well, this is a good place to rent a room and board for $8.50 a day, because it's a better rate than anywhere else. It's a medical problem when they go there. The decisions are not made by the patients; they're made by others.

The federal government, I submit, is not trying to penalize the province. The federal government is trying to ensure that a reasonable level of health care is available to all citizens, without any consideration as to whether or not they are able to pay that bill. That's the approach. It's not a case of penalizing the provinces; it's a case of making the system fair. If indeed, as the minister said, income tax is the fairest way of raising revenue to pay for hospital care, then let's accept his own statement, abandon these user fees and replace them with an even greater increase in income tax — if he can satisfy us later on that that's the best way to go. People don't go to hospitals out of choice. There are many who want to go in for real problems who aren't able to.

I submit that the ideal system for maintaining our hospital system is not direct user fees. With user fees that bring in — either gross or net, I'm not sure which — $40 million, when health care is by far the largest item in our budget, we're talking of a very small proportion of the cost of keeping even the hospitals open. We're not talking about maintaining health services when we're talking about user fees. We're talking about trying to keep out of hospitals people who do find it a hardship to spend the money it takes to get in, and leaving more room for those for whom it is no problem at all. Again, just as we all know people who are anxious to get in for operations that they need — sometimes mentally more than physically, perhaps — we also know people who can well afford to be in hospitals, and who are able to persuade their doctors and the hospital administration that they should be in there longer than would others under the same circumstances.

Hospital services cost money, and the people should be aware of that. They should be aware when they go into a hospital that they're paying $8.50 a day because hospital services cost money. Well, Mr. Speaker, when a person's going into the hospital for an operation, I'm not sure that's the time to talk to them about this cost of the system. I think the time to talk to them is when they are paying other taxes that are going into consolidated revenue. Certainly make people aware of the cost of the system. Certainly talk to the doctors. Certainly come up with alternative ways of caring for people so that they don't have to spend as much time in the most expensive of all institutions. But when a person is facing an operation for cancer, an eye operation or any kind of an operation that is bound to be worrying them to some extent, that is not the time to say to them: "Look, do you really need this? Is this trip really necessary?" Remember the wartime stories, Mr. Speaker: Is This Trip Really Necessary? That is not the time to say to the patient who has finally been able, through her or his doctor's efforts, to get into the hospital and get a bed in the knowledge that the next morning they'll wake up after having been under the surgeon's knife.... That is not the time to worry them with the costs of the hospital system, of medicare or of anything to do with medicine. That's the last time in the world to start trying to frighten them in that way.

The timing is wrong. It's an income tax increase that is going to go into general revenue. It's not associated directly in any way with health care. The legislation in no way at all provides that this money is going to be specifically allocated, and even if it did it wouldn't mean anything. If all of this money were going to be committed to health and hospital care, it's the rest of the budget that could be changed accordingly, and it wouldn't mean a thing. The title is meaningless in the description of this bill. The minister should have been forthright enough to have simply introduced legislation that would increase tax.

The other feature of the bill is the fact that the minister through his cabinet can increase the tax anytime he wants by any amount. Admittedly, he has to take a couple of things into account. The bill makes that quite plain. But it doesn't say how much recognition he's going to give to these things. "In prescribing the amount of the increase in tax, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall take into account the amount deducted under section 20 (2) of the Canada Health Act." Take it into account, but to what extent? They recognize that there is a figure there, but how much attention do they pay to it? Wide-open authority to do whatever they want with the income tax. Never again, with this legislation, would the minister have to come to the House and ask for an increase in the provincial income tax rate. This would give him freedom to do whatever he wants with the Income Tax Act. He can certainly say, "Yes, I took into account what the federal government is doing, and I have come in with an increase," and who can say otherwise? Who can say that he ignored it completely? It doesn't mean a thing to say that he has to take that into account, unless it states that the amount of the increase is going to be directly connected to the loss of revenue. It doesn't say that. It simply says it'll recognize that something has happened.

It also takes into account the provincial minister's estimate of the number of taxpayers whose taxable income for the taxation year will exceed the prescribed amount. It's going to take that into account as well. It might even take into account whether it's raining or snowing on the day the minister makes the calculation. But it doesn't say it won't take other things into account. It says he'll consider these. He might also think, "This would be a good year to give another $500 million to BCR," and he might take that into account. The bill doesn't deny him the authority to do that. It doesn't say that the only things he shall consider in recommending to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council what shall be the change in the Income Tax Act are these two things. He has to consider those two, but he can consider anything else he wants and still be within the ambit of this legislation.

Indeed it is wide-open legislation, legislation that would allow the minister to bring in any income tax change — any increase; sorry, it makes no provision for a decrease — whatever without ever coming back to the Legislature again. Mr. Speaker, if there's no other reason for objecting to the legislation than that, it would be good enough, apart from all

[ Page 4039 ]

the other factors and the questions for which I look to seeing the answers.

[12:30]

Subsection (3). I suppose it has to be in there. I wonder exactly what it means. It simply says that it's going to be administered by the federal government. Well, we have to get agreement for that. I suppose we can assume that the federal government is going to administer these changes, and I think they have been quite cooperative in the past. I expect they would still, but I just think it's a bit presumptuous to say that the federal government is going to administer it for us unless there has been some prior discussion with the federal government. My question would have to be: has there been any prior discussion with the federal government about this method, this formula, for increasing the income tax, and the fact that from here on in the minister, without coming to the Legislature, will be able to get approval for any income tax increase, secure in the knowledge that the federal government will accept that as a reasonable way for a provincial Minister of Finance to impose increases in the income tax rate? Will the federal government rubber-stamp that sort of tax increase?

I would hope I'm right, Mr. Speaker, when I say that the minister has indeed consulted with his federal counterpart, and they have agreed that it is quite reasonable and proper for a provincial Minister of Finance, with the cooperation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to be able to implement any tax increase whatever in income tax, secure in the knowledge that the federal government will administer it. Whatever the answers from the Minister of Finance, we oppose this legislation.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make some comments with respect to the bill before us, and in part in response to some of the comments made by the member for Nanaimo.

Possibly the one comment which caught my attention more than anything else was the member's interpretation of what the federal government is attempting to do with the Canada Health Act. The member suggested that all the federal government is trying to do is to make things nice for everyone in Canada with respect to health. Well, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this Income Tax Amendment Act and the reasons given by the Minister of Finance for the necessity of raising funds to assist in the provision of the funding of the Health ministry and our health programs in the province vis-a-vis the relationship with the federal government and the role that they play in the provision of health care in Canada, through various agreements, for some period of time the federal government has assisted provinces by returning income to the provinces for purposes of cost-sharing health care programs along with other programs. At one time it was generally assumed or believed, perhaps improperly, that it was to be done on approximately a fifty-fifty basis. Across Canada the fifty-fifty basis concept — the old concept of 50 cent dollars — is still discussed.

The federal government has attempted to impose their will upon the provinces with respect to health by introducing the Canada Health Act, which at this time is going through the process in the House of Commons. Amendments have been considered and I understand some have been passed. Unfortunately the amendments compound the problems rather than resolve any of the problems.

Mr. Speaker, the revenue necessary to maintain our health care service, without regard for the need to raise additional revenue by way of this act or others, is very real. As the House would know, this year the Ministry of Health is the only ministry to receive an increase in funding. There is a requirement to produce certain revenue to fulfil the programs which this government has decided shall be available under a health care program. Obviously there are costs associated with that. Therefore we must raise the money. The Ministry of Health obtains its funds from consolidated revenue by way of the estimates. The Minister of Finance is responsible for seeing that that revenue is available to fund the program.

We also agree with respect to the issue over user fees. Members of the opposition disagree, and that's fine. That's a matter of disagreement. But regardless of the percentage that dollars may represent in the overall budget or in the budget of the Ministry of Health, the figure of $40 million given by the Ministry of Finance is, I would suggest, minimal user fee charges, based on what we understand the federal government may be considering as user fees, because they've changed their opinion quite frequently. We probably could be looking at between $40 million and $80 million as the possible liability under the Canada Health Act.

All of the provinces in Canada, without exception, including the Yukon Territory, have advised the federal minister and those responsible for the Canada Health Act....

For one reason or another they have asked the federal minister not to proceed with the Canada Health Act. All the provinces have asked the federal Health minister for a meeting to discuss the Canada Health Act. The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned consultations. That's part of the problem, Mr. Speaker. There have been no consultations of any meaning. The federal Health minister simply will not talk about it, will not discuss the Canada Health Act in a direct way. There have been separate meetings orchestrated by the federal side, but no meaningful meetings with the Ministers of Health; or, as we requested and as other provinces have requested, with the Ministers of Health and the Ministers of Finance, including the federal ministers, to discuss the entire issue. The member for Nanaimo said: "What is an appropriate percentage of funding?" We would like to discuss that as well with the federal counterparts. As I said, we have not said to them: "It must be 50 percent." We would like to discuss it. The Ministers of Health across Canada have been asking the federal minister for discussions for, I think, well over a year, to no avail. There have been some meetings but no discussion.

Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance, as he may be aware of the incredible frustration on the part of the Ministers of Health across Canada, who.... When seeking advice

[ Page 4040 ]

from the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to the funding, the question most regularly asked is: "Where is the funding for what you are demanding under the Canada Health Act?" The federal minister's answer is: "That's Lalonde's problem. It's not my problem." The money must be obtained somewhere. It is the problem of the Minister of Health along with the Minister of Finance to produce the money necessary to pay for the programs. It is inadequate for the federal Minister of Health simply to say: "That's not my problem."

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The Canada Health Act, which is not before this House, unfortunately appears to be heading toward conclusion in Ottawa and could be proclaimed as law. If the Canada Health Act is proclaimed as law in Canada, it will seriously jeopardize the capacity of provinces to maintain health care programs as we know them. The Minister of Finance has introduced a bill which will provide some alternative source of revenue to permit us to retain the level of health care we have now, under what we know about the implications of the Canada Health Act. When this bill was drafted, the amendments to the Canada Health Act had not yet been made known. There could be even more serious implications. The federal government has obliged itself, for reasons, to assist provinces and the territories in the funding of the health care system in the country by mutual consensus — by agreement over a number of years. It has discovered and felt that its obligation to the medicare concept and hospitalization programs in the country.... I think few people would argue that the federal government indeed has a role to play. The federal government has taken a giant step backward in introducing the Canada Health Act. Not only do they wish to be involved financially, they want to run the whole program, and they've introduced an act which in effect tells the provinces how the program is to be run; and if it is not run their way, they are going to withdraw their share of the funding or a portion of it.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) was speaking of the fifty-fifty. If two people or organizations or levels of government are to be partners in an effort and it is a fifty-fifty responsibility, then I think it is reasonable that each of the partners has some type of equal responsibility and authority. But when the federal government attempts to impose upon the provinces its will — its version — and yet admits that it isn't even funding 50 percent, I think it begs the question: who really should be writing the rules? Who should have the responsibility and the capability of designing the program? Should it be the partner who's funding most of it, or should it be the junior partner who is funding less than half and apparently has no desire to modify that?

The reason this bill is before us is that health care funding in Canada is in jeopardy with the introduction of the Canada Health Act. I emphasize once again that it is not one province speaking out; it's all ten and the Yukon Territory speaking out against the implementation of this Canada Health Act which has caused this legislation to come forward. It has not been a partisan attack by all provinces on the current federal government. It has been, I believe, a legitimate attempt by the ministers of Health and Finance of the provinces to sit down and discuss with the federal counterparts what the problem in health care is, including the difficulties of funding. The federal Minister of Health repeatedly says: "Funding is not my problem. That's the Minister of Finance's problem." We've said: "If it is, then pray bring him to the next meeting. Let's have a chance to speak." Absolutely no response. The chairman of the ministers of Health of Canada, the Hon. Dave Russell from Alberta, has asked the federal minister for such meetings repeatedly. All the provinces concur in the need for a meeting. We've asked them. Every province, including Manitoba, recognizes that the Canada Health Act jeopardizes the provinces' capacity to fund the programs and intrudes on a provincial jurisdiction. The Minister of Health for Ontario said that this Canada Health Act is the most serious intrusion that he is aware of in federal-provincial relations.

Mr. Speaker, while none of us, I am sure, are going to actively be jubilant about the necessity to increase taxes, I trust that all of us will recognize the federal government has a very heavy load to carry with respect to the responsibility of such necessary legislation. I would suggest it will not be confined to this province. The federal government is intruding into an area of provincial jurisdiction. It is using its federal capability of attempting to persuade provinces to function its way. When it comes to reasonable discussion about how the provinces can possibly meet those obligations, their answer is: "It's not our problem."

I think it is understandable that the Minister of Finance has introduced legislation which will permit increased revenues for the purpose of providing adequate funding for our health care system. I think it is regrettable that the action of the federal government has made this necessary. We in British Columbia, I believe, have a reputation of providing an excellent health care system to our citizens, and have had for many years. The federal minister herself said we have the finest health care system in the world. And then she says: "So let's change it."

[12:45]

Mr. Speaker, we require revenues to make up for anticipated and real shortfalls in revenue to maintain our health care system. The Canada Health Act, if passed by Parliament to become a law of the country, will succeed in seeing that Canadians receive less health care programs at a higher cost. That is regrettable. Much, if not all of it, could be avoided if the federal minister would simply sit down and speak to those people who have the responsibility of providing health care in Canada. But it's been absolutely deaf ears.

As I suggested, it's unlikely that members will be jubilant about the need to raise taxes, but in defending our level of health care in British Columbia, I think it's justified.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:47 p.m.