1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1981

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4967 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates. (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4967

Medical Service Plan Act, 1981 (Bill 16). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Nielsen)

On the amendment to

section 6 –– 4967

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hall

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. King

Mr. Ree

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Cocke

Ministerial Statement

Patriation of Canadian Constitution.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4985

Appendix –– 4986

FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, when I received my Wednesday's edition of the Bridge River-Lillooet News

I was very shocked to learn that the village had been sold to Arabian

interests. I intend to take this matter up with the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) very shortly.

Today I'm very glad to have in the gallery the editor of the Bridge River-Lillooet News and his wife, Jeff and Willy Den Biesen. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

We are very fortunate in our province to have outstanding people who

have contributed to the standard of living in this province. Today one

of those people is seated in our gallery. I would like the House to

welcome Mr. and Mrs. Clark Bentall. Mr. Bentall and his family have had

an outstanding record of building British Columbia in partnership with

very many good people who have worked with them. They have provided

much employment and a standard of living that has been an outstanding

record.

With them in the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs.

Charles Woodhouse, who are visiting from London, England. I would ask

the House to welcome them.

We also have in our gallery Betsy

McDonald and eight teachers from the Vocational Institute and King

Edward College. I would just like to share with the House the fact that

Betsy Macdonald has had a tremendous record of bringing together new

vocational directions, particularly for single parents in this

province. I would like the House to welcome her and her colleagues to

the House today.

MR. RITCHIE: I'd like the House to

join me in welcoming to the precincts of the building the intermediate

student choir from the Tem-Broeck Elementary School in Clearbrook,

together with their principal Mr. Truscott and Mr. Ken Funk. They're

here to put on a little demonstration, but it's a pleasant one. They're

going to be singing on the front steps of the building, in

appreciation, at approximately 11 o'clock this morning.

MR. REE:

It's always with pride that I have the opportunity to introduce to my

colleagues my son Scott, who is a student at the University of

Victoria. He is in the gallery opposite. With him is a young lady,

Teresa Bohrechier. Teresa is a third-year political science student at

Simon Fraser University and hails from the town of Rossland, British

Columbia. I ask the House to welcome them.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in celebrating

an anniversary. On April 3, 1920, legislation was passed in Parliament allowing

women, for the first time, to seek federal office in this country. Since that

date, although only 35 women have been elected to Parliament. I'm sure

you and all the members of the House will agree that the contribution they have

made to the quality of Canadian law has indeed enriched it, starting in 1921

with Agnes MacPhail and going through the ages until this year when we presently

have the Speaker of the House, Mme. Sauve, and four other members serving in

the federal House. I would appreciate it if my colleagues would join me in paying

tribute to those women.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

On vote 156: minister's office, $186,675.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, committee on Bill 16.

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 16; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 6.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman. may I say for a start that the opposition has made it

very clear that to the extent that this legislation is opposed to

double billing, extra billing, balance billing or whatever you want to

call it, we support the legislation; to the extent that this

legislation supports medicare as we now have it operating in the

province of British Columbia, we support this legislation. However,

when we're dealing with the amendment before us right now, we believe

that this amendment must be passed to improve the legislation, to make

it palatable not only to the doctors but to the people of British

Columbia,

As I've listened to those few remarks from the

other side of the House in opposition to the amendment, I wonder what

happened to those freedom fighters of 1973. I can recall legislation

that I introduced in the House in 1973, and I can recall those freedom

fighters standing up in opposition to that legislation in support of

the people of the province of British Columbia. Where are they now. Mr.

Chairman? I've got a couple of volumes of Hansard here and could take the time out to read the remarks. but I won't to any great extent.

particular, I think it was yesterday that the hon. Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) spoke. I'd like to quote back to him some of his

remarks when he was fighting for freedom in the days when he was not

one of this.... I think it was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea)

who called them "a proud party of turncoats." Before he became one of

them he was a freedom fighter. But what price opportunism, Mr.

Chairman? He's no longer a freedom fighter; he no longer supports what

he said in 1973, when he listed those people who fought against

attempts of the government to take away freedoms, and he named them. I

won't name all of them, because they're not all in the House right now,

but he did include the names McGeer, Williams and Gardom as

[ Page 4968 ]

people

who fought against attempts by governments to take powers into the

cabinet room. That's exactly what we're trying to do in this amendment:

to deny the cabinet the opportunity to take all this power inside the

cabinet room.

He's not with us now, though; now he's one of

that bunch of turncoats. Now he has a different point of view; he

thinks it's quite proper that this power should be taken into the hands

of the cabinet in the cabinet room. It's possibly not even that, Mr.

Chairman: in all likelihood the decision is made in the Premier's

office, transmitted to cabinet and from cabinet to the House. He's one

of the group that supports that way of doing business.

suggested to us that we should be careful about our statements, that

inflammatory statements can be counterproductive. That's great advice

now in 1981. Where was that advice in 1973 from that same person? Mr.

Chairman, you were not in the House then, but there was a Chairman and

certainly the Chairman of that day would be very well aware of the

inflammatory statements that came from the opposition side of the House

when we brought in legislation that they said they supported in

principle but opposed in detail. There was very little support in their

inflammatory statements.

He referred to a couple of steps

the government took to resolve disputes. The hon. member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) dealt with those as well, in particular

the elevator constructors' strike and the firefighters' strike. What is

the difference? Apart from the history which the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke gave to us the other day, there is this other

difference: when we took steps to resolve those two disputes, in the

interests of the people of British Columbia, we took those steps in the

Legislature, in full, open, public debate. There was every opportunity

for everyone in the House to take

part in those debates. In some cases

even some members of the government voted against the government. There

was that opportunity to discuss it, to ask questions and to raise all

the arguments they wanted to, and the decisions were made in open

debate. According to this legislation, the decisions here are all going

to be made either in the cabinet room or in the Premier's office. To my

mind, that is a very essential difference. It's one of the reasons for

the amendment before us right now.

He told us the amusing

story about the lawyer who argued one side of the case on one day and

then on another day he argued exactly the opposite. When he was

questioned by the judge, he said: "My lord, this time I'm right." Well,

I suppose the Attorney-General would say the same thing. He would say

that it was reprehensible for the government of the day to take powers

into the cabinet room, and that it was wrong — that in those days he

was wrong. Today when he said that cabinet should have all power to do

everything that it wants — of course, in the interests of the public;

we accept that.... He said that it would be in the interests of the

public; he didn't say as he sees it, but he meant it. Of course, it's

okay to do it now, because he's a member of that government, but in

those days it was all wrong. Here is one quotation from Hansard

from those days: "I suggest, first of all, that the commission" — and

here he's speaking about the Land Commission — "to be established

should be independent from cabinet control." That's quite the opposite

of what he's proposing right now.

A further quotation: "The

legislation is a clear indication that this government is prepared to

act with dictatorial powers, and that's contrary to natural justice."

Where is the natural justice in this wording before us? The amendment

does provide for some sort of justice and for some sort of input from

the people being affected by the legislation, but the unamended

legislation does not provide for any justice at all.

Again

quoting from Mr. Williams: "It places it solely, completely, absolutely

and irrevocably under the control of the cabinet committee," which is

exactly what

section 6, unamended, does. In the words of the present

Attorney-General, "It places this arbitration member or committee

solely, completely, absolutely and irrevocably under the control of the

cabinet committee; the terms of reference, the name of the person —

everything." That's a quote from the now Attorney-General, then a

member of that glorious band of freedom fighters of those days — and as

I say he identified three of them who are presently members of the

House: McGeer, Gardom and Williams. He didn't say it in words, but he

did say: "Trust me. We'll act in the interest of the public."

The

hon. member for North Okanagan, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs.

Jordan), didn't use the words "trust me." But, Mr. Chairman, she

certainly did in 1973, when she went around this province, particularly

in the Okanagan Valley, and sneeringly say: "The government of the day

is saying 'trust me.'" Now at that time we had given them no reason not

to trust us. There had been no incident or case in which we had broken

faith with the electorate, with the public or with the Legislature.

Nevertheless, she used that phrase over and over. She had the temerity

to stand in the Legislature a day or two ago and, although not using

those words, said: "Trust me. We'll act in the interest of the people

of British Columbia in applying this particular

section of the

legislation." Trust them, Mr. Chairman? This party and this government

which very soon after it was re-elected in 1975 got rid of almost every

one of the regional colleges in the province? Trust a group like that?

Mr.

Chairman, this is on the amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to

ensure that it will not be left entirely to the Premier in his office

or to the cabinet in the cabinet's office. They're arguing that it's

okay to leave it to them because they are to be trusted. I am arguing

that they are not to be trusted. They have indicated by their deed that

they are not to be trusted.

They're going to pick the

arbitration committee. These are the people who, when they were

re-elected, took the Land Commission, got rid of the good people who

were on it, and appointed people who had been most active in the fight

against the Land Commission. Trust people like that?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I must remind all hon. members that we currently are on

the amendment before us. I would ask the member for Nanaimo to bear

that in mind as he continues in this debate.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I accept your remarks, and I believe I am doing that. I

am saying that it's not in our hands to trust this particular

administration with the operation of this

section in the interests of

the public. Certainly, there are at least two speakers — and I think

more — the Minister of Tourism and the Attorney-General, who have both

said that they can be trusted in applying this legislation. My argument

is that they can't be trusted. My argument also would be to throw some

of the Attorney-General's words back at him and say that no cabinet

committee should be trusted with this kind of responsibility. Certainly

this group in

[ Page

4969 ]

particular has shown that they are not to be

trusted in exercising this kind of authority in the interests of the

public of the province — the interests as they see them, maybe, but not

necessarily in the interests of the people of the province as everyone

else would see them.

The Eckardt commission has been

mentioned already. Would you trust a group that would appoint one of

their own as a sole commissioner? The doctors are afraid that that may

very well happen in this instance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both sides of the fence. The dirty tricks group.

MR. STUPICH: Both sides of the fence.

Mr.

Chairman, I'm sure you would call me to task on this too, when I say

that this group opposite believes that everything they have done is in

the interests of the public, as they see it. I'm satisfied that during

the period between 1972 and 1975, when they went around this province

telling the lies they did, they did it because they thought it was in

the interests of the public. That's what they said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must again ask that accusations against members, whether inside or outside the chamber....

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't members then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Some were.

I would ask the member to withdraw the word that was just used.

MR. STUPICH:

I'll withdraw the word, Mr. Chairman. I suppose if I said that when the

Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was president of the Social Credit

Party, and not a member at the time, she went around the province

telling deliberate lies about guns and ammunition, that would be out of

order. Even though she did it in the interests of the public as she saw

them, it would still be out of order, would it?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the accusation of either lying directly or indirectly is

a matter that I'm sure all members are fully aware cannot be used in

the Legislature. Also, hon. member, the Chair is having some difficulty

in relating those remarks to the amendment which is currently before

us, and I would again ask the member to return to the specifics of the

amendment, bearing in mind the "strictly relevant" aspect which guides

us in committee.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman,

consistent with what you have just been discussing, I was going to ask

if it was the intent of the Chair to ask speakers to refer, at least in

some manner, to the amendment — if that is what we're speaking on. If

not, if we are to be permitted to discuss anything that may come to

mind, including any elections or campaigns or actions of any minister

now in the House or previously in the House, we'd simply like to

understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken and certainly reflects what the

Chair has been trying to get across to members on both sides of the House for

the last two days. I would again ask all members to bear in mind the "strictly

relevant"

section that guides us in this debate in this committee.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly accept your advice that I should direct my

remarks more directly to the

section and the amendment before us. The

section does read: "Any dispute between the association and the

commission respecting the renewal...."

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear that member withdraw

those accusations of lying that were directed towards a member of this

House. There is only one member of this Legislature who has ever been

proven in court to have lied to the Legislature, and he sits on that

side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon.

members, a possible guideline that we could all give consideration to

would be to strictly forget the use of that word in this chamber,

reflecting in any way upon any hon. member of this chamber. If members

were to use that particular guideline they would greatly enhance the

decorum and the level of debate in this chamber — on both sides of the

House.

To satisfy the point that has been raised, would the

member for Nanaimo withdraw any such imputation or the use of the word

as it was referred to by the member?

MR. STUPICH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH:

I do have to say, though, that the

section before us, unamended and as

supported by the bon. Attorney-General, the Minister of Tourism and

others who have spoken, says that it depends upon trust. Certainly in

my mind, and I think in the minds of other members of the public, there

has to be some question as to whether any cabinet committee should be

given that authority, whether any cabinet committee can always be

trusted to act in the interests of everyone concerned — any cabinet

committee at all. That question has to be raised.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Find another way to say liar.

MR. STUPICH:

There have been several cabinets in the history of the province of

British Columbia. I'm saying any cabinet committee should not have this

kind of authority.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to standing order 40(2). I

find the member's statements. quoting me as saying "trust me,"

offensive. I have never made that statement in my life.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

I might ask the opposition to at least give another member the courtesy

of making a point of order. I find it offensive in terms of that

member's positioning of the word and the inferences he's making. I have

never, ever had the audacity to say to anyone: "Trust me." I find it

particularly offensive coming from that member, who at this time is the

only member of this House who's been accused in the court of British

Columbia of having what the judge called "convenient amnesia," which I

believe is a judicial way of expressing another term.

[ Page 4970 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dealing with the

matters as they arrived in reverse, firstly, I must ask the member to

withdraw the comment made at the latter part of her point of order. It

is not a parliamentary term to be used. Secondly, if the member for

Nanaimo feels that he made any improper imputation, as was suggested by

the minister, would he so withdraw. I must confess the Chair did not

hear the remark, but in the interests of proceeding with what,

hopefully, will become a debate, could we proceed in that way.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, my term "convenient amnesia" is on

record in the annals of the courts of this province, and it is a fact.

What I'm concerned about is this member twisting and making inferences

which are not based on fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Nevertheless, hon. member, an imputation, indirectly or directly, is

one on which the Chair must ask for a withdrawal. Again, the member

would greatly help maintaining some order in the debate if the minister

would simply withdraw any imputation of impropriety. In the interests

of parliamentary decorum, would the minister so do.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Chairman, if my use — and I say this only in the interest of

respect for your position — of a term used by a judge in the court of

British Columbia about a member and having it repeated in this debate

is offensive to the member, it's a fact which can't be changed, but in

the interest of respect to you I withdraw. Perhaps it should be

withdrawn from the records of the courts of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, on that particular note I think it's worth pointing out

that this is the highest court in the land of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

On a point of order, the statement the Minister of Tourism has made

does not impugn any member of this House. She's repeating a statement

made by a judge against a former member of this House. She didn't name

Bob Williams, but Bob Williams is not a member of this House. He gave

up his seat for $80,000. He's no longer here, and consequently I don't

think there's anything wrong in her having made reference to what a

judge, in his decision, said about one Bob Williams.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, the point is taken.

Honestly, hon. member for Nanaimo, I can't recall whether the member withdrew the remark or didn't.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Chairman, if I may help, I think I was supposed to withdraw

something to the effect that I said she should be trusted. If that will

help, I'll withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe there was a further....

MR. STUPICH: Whatever it was, I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, that greatly helps the Chair.

Now we're back to the amendment on

section 6. The member for Nanaimo, has the floor.

MR. STUPICH:

When I was last interrupted I had started reading

section 6. Picking up

where I left off: "...any dispute between the association and the

commission respecting the renewal, amendment or replacement of the

agreement be resolved by a single arbitrator or by an arbitration board

appointed or constituted as provided in the order." The order will be a

cabinet order, and that's the part of the legislation that we just

can't support. We have offered an amendment. There has been some

criticism on the other side of the House that the amendment is not the

best way of dealing with the situation. Several of us have offered to

withdraw our amendment the moment the government brings in an amendment

that will provide some protection for this particular group in the

community. I have no particular brief for any group in our community

who are asking for an increase in pay in excess of 40 percent — there

is some argument as to how much — in one year. I don't have any support

for that. I don't know the arguments, I don't know the figures, I don't

know upon what it's based, but frankly I just think that's too much to

ask in one year. I don't know whether the government's offer of 15.2

percent is a reasonable one. But on the other hand I would not want to

say to any group in the committee that this decision should be made by

the Premier in his office, passed on to cabinet, and the cabinet will

then say to the doctors, "This is exactly what you're going to get,"

through an arbitrator appointed by them. We've been told that the

government needn't appoint a single arbitrator; it may appoint more

than one. We have been told that they might even consult, but we've

also been told that their prime interest would be to protect the

interests of the public as they see fit.

Mr. Chairman, the

situation we're in right now is that I believe that this legislation as

it is written, and with the arbitration as it is, is provocative. I

believe it's saying to the doctors: "You've been offered 15.2 percent

and you can have 15.2 percent. If you do not accept that, we'll decide;

we'll make the decision in cabinet room as to exactly what you're going

to get." It may be less; they run that risk. "We're going to name

the guy who is going to arbitrate the dispute. He may offer you nothing

at all. You take this 15.2 percent or you might do a lot worse. There

is always the possibility that you'll get a little more, but we're

going to name the guy who's going to make the decision, and we're going

to give them the guidelines," In other words, the decision is going to

be made in cabinet.

The decision to give them 15.2 percent

has been out for some time; it's a very hard line to take. I'm not

saying it's right or wrong, but I'm saying it's a very firm line that

has been drawn — a line that risks the double billing, extra billing,

balance billing or whatever it is, that risks the very future of

medicare, that opens the door to opting out. Can you imagine for one

moment, Mr. Chairman, that the decision to risk all of that happening

was actually made by the commission without advice from cabinet? Can

you imagine that the decision was not made, indeed, by the Premier

himself, and that he was the one who drew that very hard line? Knowing

that that's the attitude of the government, what choice do they have in

the face of this kind of legislation before them? They have a choice of

trusting the cabinet to appoint someone that they could accept as an

arbitrator, the possibility that that might happen. The government has

indicated for several months of negotiation that that is not going to

happen, that they have decided exactly what the doctors should get in

the interests of the public. The decision has been made, and yet the

doctors are supposed to believe that the cabinet, in the

[ Page 4971 ]

interests

of protecting the interests of the public, would change its position at

this late date and would appoint an arbitrator or an arbitration board

that could be acceptable and that would bring down a resolution of the

dispute that would be acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, the best way

to protect the public is to protect the equal rights of each and every

group that comprises that public. The moment we take away the rights of

any small group, we have opened the door to taking away the rights of

another group, and another group, and larger groups, until all the

power in the province will finally be in the hands of that cabinet in

that cabinet room, as long as they remain in office. Whether it be this

cabinet or any other cabinet, that kind of power should not be kept in

the secret room of a cabinet meeting. At least the accusations that

have been made against the NDP administration were with respect to

things that were done in full, open public debate; that's the

difference.

Many instances and examples of arbitration

committees have been quoted from this side of the House with respect to

every other piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I defy the government

spokespersons to produce any other piece of legislation that gives the

cabinet the authority to set up this kind of an arbitration commission.

There may be one; I certainly don't know of it. There is nothing like

it that I know of that gives the cabinet the absolute power, without

any input from any of the people being affected, to make the decision

that will govern their livelihood.

Mr. Chairman, it is

unprecedented; that's why we're opposing it. We are against the extra

billing, whatever it's called; we are in favour of medicare; we are

unalterably opposed to opting out; but we are also opposed to this

particular cabinet asking people to stand up and trust them to name an

arbitrator who will be, in the interest of everyone concerned —

including this minority group....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You want to be on both sides, don't you?

MR. STUPICH:

It's not a case of being on both sides. The minister is challenging me,

saying that I want to be on both sides. What I want to do is be fair to

everyone concerned; what I want to do is say that no group should be in

this position where that particular group of cabinet members in secret

will decide who is going to say what, who is going to make the final

decision for the doctors. That's what he wants; that's the kind of

authority he wants; that's Social Credit authoritarianism. They used to

talk about the socialists and the authority we were trying to take into

the cabinet room. We would never have tried anything like this. We

wouldn't have wanted to and we would never have dared. But this group

thinks that because they're there and because it's them, it's okay to

do it; it must be good, because they want to do it. This is the same

group that comes from a party of people who, because they knew they

were in such disrepute, appointed an ethics committee, and it's never

met since. And we're to trust them with this kind of legislation! The

minority group of doctors is being asked to trust them to bring down a

resolution of this dispute that will be in the interests of the people

generally.

The government was offered an opportunity to

bring in an amendment of its own; they don't like ours. They said that

maybe it needn't necessarily be three. Okay, it needn't be three. They

say it isn't the best route to go to have one from each group and a

chairman. But certainly there has to be some protection for the

minority group affected, so that they know they have some way of

getting in on the discussion.

The way this legislation reads

now, if unamended, gives the cabinet and the Premier complete authority

to name the guy who is going to lay down the rules; and the rules as

well will all be laid down in that cabinet meeting. If I were one of

the group affected by this, I would assume that the gun was loaded and

pointed right at my head, and that I had no choice in the matter other

than to opt out. They are not given any choice.

As I say,

it's not that I have any particular brief for this particular minority

group. You'll recall how the Hitler thing all started — group by group.

They didn't protest, because it wasn't happening to them. There's quite

a speech about that by Martin Niemöller; we could go into it now, but

there's no point in it. Group by group, people lost their freedom and

their rights, and because it wasn't affecting the next group in line

they didn't fight: they didn't bother.

This is the first

group that's being taken on by this administration in this particular

way. We have to protect their rights in order to protect the rights of

the rest of the people in our province.

Those freedom

fighters of 1973 sold their principles for power. It's been said that

power corrupts. I can’t accuse any of them of being corrupted, that

would be unparliamentary. But I wonder what did happen to the

principles that those freedom fighters espoused in 1973, when a little

bit of authority was being taken into a cabinet room — nothing like the

authority to deal with the minority group that is before us in this. At

that time we provided for all kinds of appeals, hearings and everything

else. Here the complete authority to nail down the settlement, to lay

down all the terms and to change the contract in every way, is taken

into the secret room of a cabinet meeting — the authority to deal with

this group and from there on the authority to deal with the next group,

and who knows what comes next.

Mr. Chairman. we said to the government: "We'll withdraw our amendment.

You come up with another one that gives them some protection, so that we'll

know that the next group in line will also have some protection." The government

has said that they don't agree with the details of our amendment; but they

have failed to come forward with an amendment of their own. In talking about

this, we're hoping that they will realize that we are unalterably opposed

to any kind of double billing, extra billing or balance billing, that we are

completely in support of medicare as it is operating in the province of British

Columbia, and that we are unalterably opposed to opting out. But we have to

continue something we've been doing since 1933 in the history of the NDP

and of the CCF: that is, standing up and fighting for any minority group which

finds its rights challenged by government. That's what we are doing today,

and has what we're going to do in this fight.

MR. RITCHIE:

On a point of order, the member for Nanaimo has been all over the

ballpark. I've been listening to it in the office. He's been making

accusations which are really describing his own actions when he was

Minister of Agriculture, when he appointed his own political hacks to

the B.C. Marketing Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is most unorthodox to gain the floor for the purpose of making a speech. There

[ Page 4972 ]

are many opportunities available in committee for members to address the particular issue before us.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to make a correction in a statement I

made this morning. This morning I said there were four women in the

House of Commons. I meant that there were four women on the opposition

benches and nine women on the government benches, for a total of 13

women.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few brief remarks.

First of all, I wish to go on record as supporting this amendment. I'm

sure that won't come as any great surprise to anybody in this House.

I'm supporting this amendment just on the grounds of fair play. Because

I did not speak in second reading of this bill, I very briefly want to

say that I, along with my colleagues and it would appear every other

member, am opposed to extra billing, balance billing, double billing or

whatever term the people may use.

It might be of interest to

this House that, not anticipating this debate today, some three or four

weeks ago I sent out a householder questionnaire and one of the

questions dealt with extra billing by doctors. I should tell you that

of the many hundred replies to that questionnaire, only four

respondents answered in favour of extra billing. It surprised me that

anybody would. On closer examination I found out that the people who

replied that they were in favour of extra or double billing did not

give their names or return addresses, for whatever that's worth. In any

event, I wonder how many of the people on the government benches have

taken the trouble to phone individual doctors or medical associations

within their ridings, or how many doctors from their tidings have

phoned them. Not very many, I'll bet — in terms of the amendment before

us today.

The question I have of the government is: why is

the government applying this type of arbitration clause —

section 6 and

section 8, but we're dealing with

section 6 at the moment — to the

doctors when they they don't apply this type of clause to any other

professional or labour group in the province of British Columbia?

Teachers and others, even the Ministry of Highways, as my colleague

from North Island pointed out yesterday.... When the Ministry of

Highways has an arbitration case, a dispute over land expropriation or

whatever with somebody in the province, these people have the right to

choose their own arbitrator, believe it or not — even Highways. Yet

here we have a government bringing in a heavy-handed arbitration clause

that you will find nowhere else in the statutes of British Columbia.

It's a denial of natural justice, as was put forward yesterday by our

leader and many other people on this side of the House — a

straightforward denial of natural j justice to a relatively small group

of people.

It's interesting to note that, in my view, most

people in this province do have a sense of fair play. I think most

people like their doctors — I really do. People think that doctors

generally make too much money, but that's not always the case; some

make a great deal but some just get by like we do, believe it or not. I

think that if there were a fair increase in doctors' salaries, people

of this province would accept that. But what people in this province

will not accept is unfairness. That's what we have in

section 6 that we

are debating an amendment to here today: an unfair situation where the

government makes the rules; they set the goal posts. They decide before

the arbitration case proceeds what the final settlement is going to be.

They have that ability under this

section and that is unfair, in my

view.

I think the doctors in this province, generally

speaking, with some exceptions, are pleased with Bill 16 to an extent.

As long as they knew that when arbitration proceedings took place there

would be a fair settlement and the ruling would be impartial, I think

they would accept it. I don't think the doctors of this province want

to see medicare scuttled any more than does the general population of

this province. To us it's a matter of principle. Not only the question

of medicare. It was our party that introduced medicare, first in

Saskatchewan and then right across Canada — a principle that has been

adhered to and must prevail. All people in this country, in my view,

are entitled to decent medical services for a minimum fee. Medicare

must not be destroyed. More than that, what we're dealing with here, as

I said before, is simply a question of fair play.

I wonder why the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) who is sitting across

the way from me right now, reading the Blues or whatever — has not spoken in

this debate. That minister was elected and assigned to cabinet as Minister of

Labour to uphold the concept of natural justice in labour relations in this

province. That minister has been very strangely quiet in this debate. Is he

going to get up and speak? Is he going to get up and uphold the principles and

the duties he was assigned — and have the trust of the people of this province?

I'm not sure about that. In any event, is that minister going to speak?

I doubt it; it doesn't look like it.

The

real culprit in this whole dispute is the Premier of this province. It

occurs to me — and it's quite obvious — that a number of people on the

treasury benches are in favour of supporting the amendment that we have

proposed or of bringing in their own amendment in the interests of

natural justice and fair play. There is no question in my mind that the

Premier of this province has laid a heavy hand on those cabinet

ministers. I think what he said is: (1) "Look, don't oppose me or I'm

going to heave you out of the cabinet"; or (2) "You oppose my will and

we'll call an election." Obviously, if they call an election now,

they'll lose — no question about it — so he's got them trapped.

least the Minister of Labour should get up right after I sit down,

which will be in about one minute, and make a definitive statement on

where he personally stands on this amendment and

section 6 of this act.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I will give the floor to the minister, who I

can see now is prepared to get up and possibly suggest that he will

introduce his own amendment to this act and settle this problem once

and for all, so we can get on with the business of this province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the debate which has continued today on

this amendment, the various comments that have come from the other side

have been very wide-ranging, as you have pointed out. The selective

reading of

section 6(

l) perhaps adds to the confusion in the minds of

some. The amendment, which is perhaps in more precise language and, in

the opinion of the government, much less flexible, ties the hands of

the government to some degree with respect to permitting the

flexibility that may be requested by either the BCMA, the Medical

Services Commission or other interested parties as how best to resolve

the problem if arbitration is necessary. I emphasize: if arbitration is

necessary.

[ Page

4973 ]

might say that arbitration was suggested as a manner of resolving this

dispute during the negotiations which took place late last year and

early this year. The concept of arbitration was not accepted by the

British Columbia Medical Association, and as late as last Monday night

they reiterated their stand that they were not in a position to

consider arbitration as a method of resolving the dispute.

is not our intention to have this dispute go on for a long period of

time, thereby allowing the citizens of the province to suffer from lack

of decision on the matter, to wonder what services will be available to

them and under what conditions and what they may be liable for with

respect to the costs. We want the situation resolved as quickly as is

reasonable. The amendment fails to take that into consideration. It

provides either side the opportunity for stalling. In part, the

amendment says: "In the event of the failure of either party to appoint

a representative, the minister shall make such appointments." But

there's no reference to what period of time should be considered prior

to their failing to appoint.

Under the

section as outlined

in the legislation, the cabinet may — not shall — by order direct that,

in accordance with the order, any dispute between the two may be

resolved by a single arbitrator or by an arbitration board. We believe

that is completely flexible. It leaves open the opportunity for all

parties to have input should they desire to have input.

It's

of significant interest to me that the opposition has taken on the role

of speaking for the doctors. I don't know whether it would be possible

for the opposition to share with me any official designation they've

received from the BCMA. I can tell the House that the BCMA has not been

in contact with us officially to say that they oppose this form of

arbitration or to offer any suggestion as to what arbitration should

be, other than — and I repeat — to say last Monday night that

arbitration was not within their consideration because the board had

not given them that mandate. Perhaps somebody in the NDP, the

opposition, has met with the board of the BCMA, and they have given

them the mandate to consider a form of arbitration. I would certainly

like to see a copy of that direction, because the BCMA has not advised

government or the commission, to my knowledge, that they have changed

their position of last Monday night — that is, that they have no

mandate to consider arbitration.

The discussion which has

taken place in the House with respect to the amendment is of no

surprise to members on the government side. We knew that somewhere

within this bill there would be a point which would provide the

opposition with the opportunity of attempting to show that they're on

the side of the citizens of the province by voting against extra

billing, but that they're on the side of the doctors by coming up with

some point which, in their minds, would show that the government is

attempting to be unfair or heavy-handed.

It's not surprising, perhaps, that

section 6(

l) was chosen to make this

point, and so the debate has continued on for a couple of days. A couple of

days would provide an opportunity for those who are to take

part in a meeting

tomorrow at the BCMA to know that the bill has not yet passed, and that the

champions of the little people are taking up their case. During that period

of time, because of the wording of the amendment and the debate that has taken

place, the word has been spread among doctors in British Columbia by unnamed

persons that they should have something to fear, that the government is about

to develop a kangaroo court, that they should be very concerned — not only concerned,

but fearful; not only fearful, but that they should consider where their political

allegiance should lie. I believe it is unfortunate if that is going to occur

and if the doctors who take their place in that meeting tomorrow will attend

the meeting to decide what their next move may be with the thought — as expressed

by members opposite — that they are in great jeopardy of having their freedoms

removed and are to be faced by a kangaroo court indicating — in the words of

the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — that the cabinet will dictate the settlement

to be achieved by the arbitrator.

I find that particularly offensive for any arbitrator or members of a board

of arbitration who may be named to have been judged already by the member for

Nanaimo — that whatever decision they may be asked to bring down will be one

that has been previously decided by cabinet. In fact, it may make it very difficult,

depending on the sensitivity of any such person we may approach, as to whether

they would accept such a position, having already been accused publicly by the

member for Nanaimo of being nothing but a parrot of cabinet. There are some

very distinguished individuals in British Columbia who could be considered as

a single arbiter or members of an arbitration board. I would suggest that these

people are of such character and integrity that they would take the role they're

asked to carry forward, and they would do so with all the integrity that their

background would suggest. They would not take on such a role if they were to

be manipulated in any way by any person. I reject completely the accusation

or suggestion by the member for Nanaimo that any single arbitrator or any arbitration

board would do nothing but follow the dictates of the cabinet as to the resolution

of the problem and the amount of the settlement; he suggested that would take

place.

believe that the conditions, as outlined in

section 6(l), provide the

widest opportunity to develop a formula of establishing arbitration, if

arbitration is required. I have indicated to the British Columbia

Medical Association at the meeting last Monday that we were prepared to

consider any alternatives that they may have in mind. At that time they

told us they had no alternatives in mind other than obtaining, on

behalf of their members, that which they had previously sought. I in no

way wish to interfere with the meeting which the doctors have announced

will take place tomorrow. It's not government's intention to attempt to

appear inflammatory, although the opposition would have everyone

believe that that is so. We do not intend to make a last-minute phone

call to the BCMA and say: "Don't have your meeting; don't opt out;

don't do what you may wish to do." It's their individual freedom and

right to hold their meetings and come up with any resolutions which may

come forward.

I certainly hope that the BCMA will advise the

commission as to what conclusions may have been reached at their

meeting. If they choose not to do that on their own, we will certainly

attempt to discover from them what resolutions may have been passed and

whether we can respond to them in any way. I wish to make it clear that

the members of the government, in meeting with representatives of the

BCMA. made it very clear that we were prepared to negotiate and discuss

any problems that they may see before them, other than the specific

resolution of settlement, which they did offer and which we could not

accept with an increase in excess of 40 percent. We believe that the

section as outlined will accommodate the situation we have before us.

and other members of the government have stated that the BCMA could

very well be asked to play a major role in the selection of any of the

personnel who may be asked to

[ Page 4974 ]

take

part in an arbitration procedure, if an arbitration procedure is

required. It is not the government's desire to have a procedure stymied

in any way by the lack of cooperation of any of the principals who are

involved in this dispute. It's our desire to have this dispute resolved

quickly, fairly and equitably.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Members

of the opposite side selectively choose words from the section. The

member for Nanaimo referred to subsection 2(

a) which says: "the

interests of the public" will be taken into consideration. They will be

taken into consideration by the arbitrator in resolving the dispute.

But — straying as he did — also to be taken into consideration is "the

reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the work

performed, the responsibility assumed and the nature of the services

rendered." If an arbitrator were to take on this responsibility, taking

into account those terms of reference, it is only reasonable to assume

that the arbitrator would take into consideration what is fair

compensation for the nature of the work of medical practitioners. We

have absolutely no disagreement or argument that doctors should be well

paid and fairly paid, and that it should be equitable to professions

elsewhere — even within their own profession, and we very often leave

it to the doctors to make the decisions as to how money for services

will be distributed amongst themselves for services.

I know

there are other members who wish to continue spinning on this debate in

the hope that it will not possibly be passed before that Saturday

meeting of the doctors, because that might interfere with some of the

political plans which are underway.

I might, just for public

information, advise the Chair that to this point, and to my knowledge,

no member of the government has been asked to appear or take part at

that Saturday meeting. I have not yet been advised if any member of the

House has been asked to take part, or assist in planning as to what

could be done from that Saturday meeting. I suppose we'll hear about

that information later.

Just recapping very briefly, we feel

that the

section can stand on its own. It offers every opportunity for

fairness and equity, and in no way does it dictate that the cabinet

shall appoint a single arbitrator. It provides the cabinet with the

capability of appointing a single arbitrator if necessary or a board if

necessary. It in no way prevents representatives of the commission or

cabinet from approaching BCMA or other associations or organizations

and asking them for their input as to the specific personnel or the

procedures which could be required to establish an arbitration board.

The

amendment which we have before us is one concept of many. It's a

concept that could be considered within the terms as outlined in

section 6(1). But other than for the political purpose for which it

was introduced, I don't see that it improves the situation at all. In,

fact, it has probably provided an opportunity for inflammatory

statements to be made in the House, which I'm sure are not providing

the medical practitioners in the province any particular relief from a

problem which I believe we can resolve with relative ease.

MR. HALL:

When the minister was taking his place in this debate, I thought we

might hear a contribution that would tell us something about how he

looked upon the principles of the procedures that are suggested in his

legislation and the principles that are contained in the amendment. We

didn't get that. We got a rehash. We got an accusation of motivation on

this side which is not provable and far from the truth. We've put this

amendment forward in the interests of fair play, that's all. The people

on the other side can shout as much as they want, but whenever we see

injustice being performed in legislation, this side will always be

providing amendments. That's been our record for a long time and will

continue to be the record.

The minister just finished his

remarks by saying that the concept which is in the amendment is one of

many. It's interesting to note that it's a concept which is contained

in almost every single statute of this province where arbitration

occurs, some of which have been put in place by that government

opposite. That kind of concept is totally accepted in the statutes of

our province. It's one which we've read into the record — the Highway

Act, GAIN legislation and all the labour legislation, The right of an

affected party to be represented in an arbitration procedure has been

taken away. We're trying to put it back with an amendment to this

legislation. That's the simple fact of the matter. You can dress it up

in as many words as you like and talk about flexibility. We heard that

pious speech from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon.

Mr. Hyndman) the other day which did no service whatsoever to his own

cause by weaving, bobbing and ducking among the facts of the matter

that say everybody is entitled to be represented in an arbitration

hearing. He dodged that issue. He used a plethora of synonyms. He

talked about this particular amendment we're discussing as being narrow

and inflexible. Yet the fact of the matter is that it occurs in every

one of those statutes.

We pointed this out in second reading

when we adopted the principle of making sure that extra billing will

never take place in this province. We mentioned it in our speeches on

this side of the House, that people are entitled to be represented on

arbitration boards. That was the first time it was mentioned. You've

heard since then, Mr. Chairman, a number of excellent speeches

recording why this amendment has got some history, some genesis —

looking, as I say, at the statutes of the province. We can review

those, but I don't want to take up all that much time.

certainly reject the suggestion from the Minister of Health that we're

simply standing here delaying matters. The bill is retroactive. What

are we delaying? Everybody out there knows there's going to be no more

double billing. What's the minister frightened of? He never meets the

doctors; he says that himself. Until March 9, 12 seconds is the total

amount of time he's spent with the leader of the BCMA. Yet he tries to

tell us now that he knows the innermost thinkings of the doctors this

weekend. He knows nothing; that's the trouble.

Mr. Chairman,

we've seen a couple of attempts in the debate on this amendment to

justify the government's arbitrary action, a couple of speeches by

lawyers. I can only say that their wits, their brains and their

arguments are for hire. That's the best I can say about them. There's

still no word from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). It's my

contention that the majority of the cabinet had not seen

section 6 when

this bill hit the legislative floor on Wednesday. That's one of the

reasons it's taken so long to get through this piece of legislation. If

they had seen it — and I doubt that they had — they certainly didn't

understand it.

[ Page

4975 ]

Other speakers have described the consternation that overtook the

treasury benches on Tuesday when they read

section 6, which our

amendment seeks to improve, and realized the full import of it. In

fact, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health was told on Tuesday to buy

time — I believe he was told by one of his colleagues — and to retire

for the day on Wednesday evening at 6 o'clock. He was told to buy time,

retire for the day, regroup and to come back on Thursday morning. We

had given a commitment during debate on

section 6 to get it through in

that one day. Our critic said that when he opened. We said that in our

speeches. That minister adjourned the debate on Tuesday between quarter

to six and 6 o'clock upon instructions from one of his colleagues on

the treasury bench, all because of the amendment. I can count, and

there appear to be 28 over there; there appear to be 26 over here. If

you need to adjourn, put it to a vote. But no, they wanted to regroup.

What

happened overnight to our amendment, Mr. Chairman? Who was the

heavyweight in cabinet who said: "Don't accept that amendment?" Who was

the arm-twister in cabinet? My contention is that it was the member for

Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett), the Premier of the province — a

veritable Ayatolla Kelowna. He was the one who wanted his own way. He

was the one who wanted to push this through — no second look, no fair

play; ram it through their own individual Star Chamber court on

arbitration.

Mr. Chairman, since debating this amendment,

we've had the opportunity of reading the remarks of the Minister of

Health. We've also had the benefit of just hearing some. Reading the

remarks of the Minister of Health in this morning's newspaper, what did

he say? In this morning's Province he's talking about the debate on the

amendment and regretting the time that it's taking — remember, he was

the one who adjourned the debate. For one thing, he said: "If the bill

had been passed Wednesday night...." We were all ready; our 26

members put our hands up or down, as the case may be. He adjourned the

proceedings on Wednesday. "...as was originally planned" — and we'd

given our commitment — "the government would have been able to tell the

doctors the arbitration method planned, and possibly even name the

individual arbitrator appointed before the executive meeting." Well,

now, Mr. Minister, let's not be so coy. Tell us. Do it now. Stand up

now and seize your microphone with both hands and tell us what is the

method of arbitration planned. Maybe we'll withdraw the arbitration

amendment that we've put through. Don't be coy with the province. Tell

us what you've got planned. Tell us the name of this single arbitrator

and put an end to the wonderment of the Minister of Consumer Affairs

about the flexibility. Where is the flexibility? The minister has got

his mind made up: a single arbitrator. He says that in the Province ,

and in his words just now he talked about a single arbitrator.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Why don't you quote the paper instead of ad-libbing it?

MR. HALL:

I'm quoting him: "...and even name the individual arbitrator appointed

before the executive meeting." Why doesn't the minister do that to the

House? Why does this bunch of Socred cabinet ministers always tell the

people outside instead of bringing it in here first? That's what I want

to know. Tell the House; tell us of the flexibility; tell us of the

method you're going to use. If he's that sure of his ground, share the

information now and share the information before the meeting. Then all

those worries that you've just expressed in your speech — all the

worries that you've just tried to accuse this side of generating — will

be put to rest. Name it now. No, don't play the fool here, sir. That's

why I'm supporting the amendment. It's the only way that people should

be dealt with by a government looking after the public interest. That's

why it should be supported: everybody is entitled to be represented in

arbitration hearings. This is the first government that I've ever seen

that is trying to take that away, and I shall support the amendment.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I hope that I can contain myself. I do want to stay on

the amendment as it applies to arbitration, but I would like to draw a

parallel between the NDP type of arbitration and the arbitration that

is being proposed here. To do that I must go back in history just a

little bit to their term in office and how they applied arbitration to

a producer group in this province. The arbitration at that time was not

by an appointed or professional arbitrator, but it was by some of their

own appointed political hacks. Mr. Chairman, the group that I speak of

included such names as Rusty Freeze and Barbara Wallace, who were

appointed to the B.C. Marketing Board as NDP appointees. It was during

that great crisis. when the socialist government attempted to take over

the poultry industry in this province, that they attempted to lay down

rules that growers would have to apply to arbitration as it is talked

about here, Mr. Chairman. At that time they had already, of course,

acquired control of the major portion of this industry, as is planned

in the Waffle Manifesto to socialize the country. They succeeded in

acquiring a major portion of the poultry industry and British Columbia

processing. I'm glad to see the ex-Minister of Agriculture is here to

hear this, because I like to look him in the eye as I talk about this.

Mr.

Chairman, once they got into the position of owning and controlling,

they then decided that they had to have a better pricing formula and

also a better method of quota allocation. This couldn't be settled

easily, because the growers said: "No, if you do that to us, we'll go

broke and you re going to take our farms as well; arbitration is what

we need." So anyway, what they did was this: with their political hacks

in this appointed position known as the B.C. Marketing Board, they

worked on the chairman of the board and they were going to arbitrate

this with the chairman of the board. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you

that I was that chairman. So what I'm saying here is the truth. It's in

the records and I will make sure that I keep it up to date in the

records, because in spite of the hypocritical arguments that I hear

coming across the floor, particularly from that member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich) and the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), I really have to keep

reminding the public at large of their type of arbitration.

Mr. Chairman, many meetings took place with the chairman of the

board at that time, and the chairman reached a point of exhaustion, it

was so hectic and so demanding. Their final offer was — and I hope all

those in the gallery and in this province hear this: "Accept it or

we'll kick you out of office." The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs.

Wallace) was one of those who said it. As a member of that board at

that time, the member for Cowichan-Malahat said: "Accept our offer or

we will kick you out of office." I was the chairman at that time. I was

the one being threatened. This is a fact. And I refused. In order to

try to arbitrate this in a very kindly way.... I'm glad the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is here now as well; actually there are

only seven of

[ Page 4976 ]

them in the House — disgusting. Anyway, we're talking about a very, very important issue here.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: You can't count, obviously. Please protect me, Mr. Chairman. They're getting out of hand over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you could return to the discussion before us, the Chair would appreciate it.

MR. RITCHIE:

I'm on arbitration, as it is applied in

section 6 of the bill. We

reached a point where the chairman said: "No, I'm not going to sign

away the future of these producers. You're going to have to kick me out

of office." During the arbitration process I suggested to them that I

call every producer together in a hall, and that they come to that

meeting and speak to them. They agreed to that. They agreed then to

back up and not kick me out of office, and that we would go to this

meeting; and we did. I put the story to the producers. I said: "This is

what will happen if I sign this agreement. Do you want it signed? If

it's going to be signed, it will effectively put you out of business —

arbitration." Well, they voted, and they all said no: "In no way will

we allow the NDP government to force anything like that on us." They

voted against it.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat stepped to

the podium, in this arbitration process of theirs, and said to the

people: "We know what is good for you better than you do yourself." And

they signed an illegal agreement. So they got the message that night.

She signed it. I believe it was the next day that I was in Victoria. I

went to the office of the then Minister of Agriculture, the member for

Nanaimo, and I said: "Mr. Minister, this is an illegal agreement that

those people of yours have signed on these producers. This cannot

stand." He had no comment.

I'm going to conclude by saying

that it's a real shame, as we debate this question of arbitration, that

these people on the other side should say the things they're saying,

when in fact the records show that their sort of arbitration is

dictatorial: "Take it our way or be kicked out of office." Terrible!

Whenever one has lived through that process.... It is something I

understand fully, and anyone else who has lived through it fully

understands just what it means. But what is most disgusting is to hear

the things being said by them as they put forward their amendment. It's

absolute nonsense. I say that their whole issue is just political

games. With them, it depends on whose ox is being gored. They want to

be on both sides. They want to be in bed with the doctors and they want

to be in bed with everybody. But it won't work, because the public out

there know that this is a political game they're playing; otherwise the

Leader of the Opposition would have been here for the main vote — the

vote against balance billing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to contain your remarks to the amendment before us.

MR. RITCHIE:

I will. I'll get back to arbitration. I find I really very difficult.

I'm surprised this has gone on as long as it has. Whenever we hear

remarks being made, as have been made in this House today by the ember

for Nanaimo particularly, and by the member for Surrey, who himself has

little respect for fair arbitration.... We know by the records how

he works it.

I'm going to conclude by saying that it is

unfortunate. It reminds me of a little farm story: you don't get down

into the mud with the hogs, because you'll come up all covered with

mud, and only the hogs will have enjoyed it. I hope this thing will

clean up and that we'll get on with some fair and honest debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I know now that under this

section we have

the latitude to talk about everything under the sun. We've just heard a

nice homey little story. The former Minister of Agriculture is going to put

the record straight in a minute or two.

think there's a much more important principle that we're talking about

right now. First, I want to put the record straight with respect to the

reason for this amendment, and secondly, to put the record straight

with respect to what the minister said the other day in describing that

11 o'clock meeting. I want us all to remember his words.

believe he got a wire this morning. If he hasn't got one now.... I

understand that there's a very good possibility that somebody out there

would like you to put the record straight. If you don't, I will. I

noticed you trying to dance around it a minute or two ago. I just want

to remind the House what the minister said in terms of whether or not

the doctors would accept anything other than their hard-line position.

He said that the alternatives authorized by way of a motion of the BCMA board that evening — for them to give the government — was that basically

unless the government or the commission agreed to meet the association's

schedule — their fee guide — unless any further agreement.... This Hansard

is kind of messed up here. The protective clause — it's broken down.

We were advised that this was their minimum position: if the government or

commission were to accept the demands of the association — interpreted to be

90 percent of 47.8, which perhaps the association interprets as 90 percent of

41.6 percent — we guaranteed this so-called protective clause would be Continued

in any future agreement and they would not invoke balance billing on April 1.

I asked if there were any other alternatives. I was advised that the board

offered them no other mandate than making this demand to prevent balance billing.

I asked if there was any room for negotiation or arbitration. I was advised

that the only mandate provided to spokesmen was that they previously advised

that unless the government or commission agreed to meet the association's

schedule on any further agreement or retained the protective clause, then balance

billing would occur effective April 1. We were not in a position to make a counter-offer

because we were advised by the representatives that they were not in a position

to negotiate. So no counter-offer was made.

This morning I checked with Norm Rigby, the executive director of the association,

just to be sure. He informed me — as he informed everybody last night on "Pacific

Report," but I just wanted to make sure it was clear.... What did

Dr. Rigby say? He said they offered to go back to the table. You don't give

us that information at all.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Really? Were you there, turkey?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: "Were you there, turkey?" the minister says. Were you there?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I was there.

[ Page

4977 ]

MR. COCKE: All right, one or the other of you is telling a falsehood.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're making that accusation.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The Chair heard the remark the Minister of Health attributed to another

member. I ask the Minister of Health to withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has withdrawn the unparliamentary expression. The member for New Westminster continues on the amendment.

MR. COCKE:

The minister indicated — because I wasn't there — that there was no

offer. Mr. Chairman, you see, you don't negotiate with the government.

The negotiations are between the commission and the members of the

negotiating team for the B.C. Medical Association. That night an offer

was made, according to Rigby, to go back to the table, to collective

bargaining. The minister has misled us with this statement, stating

that there were no alternatives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the hon. member for New Westminster to withdraw the word "misled".

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word.

Let

me remind you, Mr. Chairman, what was said in Hansard in description of

that 11 o'clock meeting. "We had been advised by the representatives

that they were not in a position to negotiate. No counter-offer was

made." Those three cabinet ministers weren't in a position to make a

counter-offer that night — that's not the way you negotiate — but the

government was in a position to send their team back to the table as

requested by the BCMA.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: When was that requested?

MR. COCKE: Eleven o'clock Monday night, or Thursday night, or whenever that dark meeting was.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Do you have a copy of that request?

MR. COCKE: The minister asks: "Do you have a copy of that request?"

I got a phone call this morning. I talked on the phone this morning with a person

who was there. As a matter of fact, I watched the gallery the day the minister

made that statement. It struck me, when I looked up in the gallery, that the

executive director of the medical association shook his head when he heard that

statement, and I thought: "Well, well. Maybe the minister isn't being

quite as candid as he should be with respect to the description of that meeting."

The minister is trying to incite something. He's holding his own gang in

line by stating that the doctors were hard-line. It's absurd what we've

got ourselves into with this piece of gross workmanship. I think it was probably

a mistake in the first place.

MR. BARRETT: Is Rigby accusing him of saying a falsehood?

MR. COCKE: Rigby says that they offered to go back to the table. The minister says: "No such thing."

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, one of them's not telling....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Or the interpreter isn't.

MR. COCKE: Or the interpreter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the third party.

MR. COCKE: Or the third party

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If we could contain our remarks to the amendment, the committee would much appreciate it.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, we have moved an amendment in line with the School Act.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said the other day in that

great speech that it was quite an incompetent thing we did. All we did

was copy the words out of the School Act. So if there was incompetence

in legislation, then that probably happened a long time ago. The only

incompetence around here is the incompetence of this minister in

humbling himself to the Premier who is too proud to take this thing out

and make it fair. Beyond that, he charges that the medical association

left no alternatives; but at 11 o'clock that night they offered to go

back to the table. He said that they had to make up this legislation

quickly at 11 o'clock. this has been ready for weeks.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: How many weeks?

MR. COCKE: Oh, you know, this minister is such a....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You know everything. What's the date of the bill?

MR. BARRETT: You should resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I would once again ask the hon. Minister of Health and

the hon. Leader of the Opposition to please not interrupt the member

who is taking his place in debate.

MR. COCKE: I think what we have probably seen — the display that we've seen — in defence of this situation.... I'll

bet you that they're thinking over there: "I wonder if we made the

right appointment, I'm thinking of the Premier now: "Why would I have

appointed a totally incompetent minister when we're in a time of crisis

with the doctors?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, can we return to the amendment and forget personal allusions.

MR. COCKE: Illusions, okay. It is an illusion, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 4978 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's spelt with an "a, " and it refers to alluding to another hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I see — allusions.

Mr.

Chairman, I just want to run over these words again. "We were advised

that negotiations were acceptable at any time, except the minimum

required would be balance billing, and they would have no mandate to

offer more than that at that time. It was decided the next day to

respond by legislation." Did they make that legislation up overnight?

Is that why this gross

section is in here? I don't think so. I

understand by reading a column in the paper by a usually reliable

source that it was piled up at the Queen's Printer for some time, ready

to go at the drop of a hat. The only problem with it was this: none of

the competent legal minds over there read it before it hit the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. COCKE:

Surely there's one, and possibly there are two, because I saw a great

deal of surprise and shock when we introduced our amendment. They had

it photostated and sent it around to the lawyers. When that occurred

the Premier went red in the face, slammed his desk, walked straight out

the door and they called adjournment.

Remember, we said we were prepared to go all night without looking at the clock. You know that.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE:

He knew that. We'd agreed not to look at the clock, and the Minister of

Health jumped up and moved adjournment. They're in deep trouble.

They've brought in a one-sided piece of legislation. We're not opposed

to all of it; we're quite happy with the

section dealing with balance

billing. We're going to outlaw it and we're glad to do it. But when

they bring in a one-sided arbitration process that cannot be described

as an arbitration process at all, we have to at least put forward an

alternative. We've done it, but we now know there was another

alternative offered that night, and that alternative was collective

bargaining; that alternative was to go back to the table.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Is that right?

MR. COCKE: Yes.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Were you eavesdropping or what?

MR. COCKE: Eavesdropping. I got the bug out of our caucus room and I moved it up there into your office.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: That wouldn't be surprising coming from you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all hon. members come to order, please. The member for New Westminster is on the amendment.

MR. COCKE: They came very near. Naturally we didn't expect them

to accept our amendment, but we expected to see what used to happen when there

was a politician leading that group over there. W.A.C. Bennett would have taken

a look at that and said to a couple of his boys: "Hey, go out and draft

something that's along that line. Bring it in, and we'll get their vote.

We'll get their support, because it should be changed." He would understand,

but the new leader understands nothing except that his own way must be had all

the time. A while ago he was described by the second member for Surrey (Mr.

Hall) as the Ayatollah Kelowna. I think that is probably as good a description....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, I will once again ask you not to allude to other members

of the House in debate. We have standing order 61(2), which asks us to

be relevant when we debate in committee, and I'm sure the hon. member,

who has spent much of his debate speaking to the amendment, can

continue in that manner.

MR. COCKE: I am delighted to

say again that at least we could restore some respect for the law if

the government would either accept this amendment or bring in one of

their own that provides an even-handed way of dealing with this

question. Failing that, what can we do? The minister says something

about: did we draw up the doctors' agenda? What a cockeyed insult! What

an absolute insult to the doctors, that anybody outside their group....

HON. MR. NEILSEN: You seem to know all the details about their meeting.

MR. COCKE: I know nothing about their meeting.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: You know nothing about anything.

MS. BROWN: You were there and you don't know about it. The way you report it is not the way it happened.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: What was that, Rosemary?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, I will once again ask all hon. members, including the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) and everyone else who was interrupting, not to interrupt.

The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't have it very much longer.

are determined to press this vital issue, and to press this vital issue

does not mean anything more than we're in favour of fair play, period,

amen. In the Highway Act it's not too much to ask that you have fair

appeal procedure and arbitration, each side being permitted to appoint,

and then those people have the right to select a mutually agreeable

chairman. It's the same in the school process. If the minister wants to

go to the Arbitration Act, let him go. But these are all even-handed

ways of dealing with things.

I think the minister has used

the doctors for his own political reasons, and I'm ashamed of him. He

had our support for this bill and still has it for the principle of the

bill, but we cannot accept lightly this total deviation from fair play.

We just cannot accept it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr.

Chairman, I'll only be a few moments. I've been sitting here trying to

determine just what it is the opposition is trying to do. The member

who just

[ Page

4979 ]

took his seat is accusing the Minister of Health of this government

of using the doctors for political reasons. I would say that those

members are using the people, especially the elderly people of British

Columbia and those in lower income brackets, for political reasons.

Those merchants of fear have carried on this same tactic over a number

of years in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon.

member, at this point I must remind all members of the committee that

when the member for New Westminster digressed, the Chair had to ask him

to confine his remarks to the amendment before us. I will ask the

Minister of Forests to do the same.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, to the amendment, and attempting to determine what the

real reason for this amendment is. They are actually assuming that

there are no other processes involved and that there will not be a fair

method of arbitration set up by the Minister of Health. Of course, that

is the popular political thing for them to say. But I would refer to

the fear tactics that are commonly used in trying to bring into

people's minds that somehow their medical services are in jeopardy and

that there will be some who will not be able to afford these services,

Yes, they say that they're not in favour of balance billing, and at the

same time they're dragging this thing on, knowing that many people in

British Columbia are watching with a certain amount of fear in their

minds as to their ability to acquire and achieve the medical services

that so many of them need, especially the elderly. We saw that type of

fear tactic used, just as is being used on this amendment, during the

1979 provincial election when people were told that medical care was

not going to be available to them, that they were being booted out of

the hospitals. They are using that same tactic today in the debate on

this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please relate his remarks to the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, I'm discussing the amendment and the reason for it, in no

broader terms than has been discussed by members opposite and by the

member who just took his seat. This fear tactic, which I'm sure is the

reason behind this amendment, was the same tactic used by members of

that party in the recent Mount Paul Hospital incident in Kamloops. Even

though the Minister of Health had given assurance to residents of that

hospital that they need not worry about their hospitalization — they

could remain in that hospital — members of that party in Kamloops took

upon themselves to try to convince the people there that there was some

doubt, that perhaps they would be moved. That's exactly what's

happening in this amendment before us now.

MR. LEA: On a point of order. I think it's going to be a rather

unusual point of order. I think that it's only fair that the government

be allowed to express their political views in this Legislature, and so should

we. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that every time one of the members, be it

on that side or this side, starts to express a political view — and that's

what we're doing here — then the Chair intervenes and says that you can't

talk about anything political in this House. I believe that the minister is

perfectly within his right to express politics. I think the Chair should start

to give a little bit more latitude to both sides.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I'm sure the Minister of Forests appreciates your remarks. However, in

spite of what I've just heard, there is much latitude in this House for

political debates. Unfortunately, in Committee of Supply we are bound

by our standing orders. I will once again recite them to you. It is

standing order 61(2) which states: "In Committee of Supply all debate

must be strictly relevant to the item or clause before the committee."

I would ask all members to contain their remarks to the clause that is

before us. I'm sure that all members understand that. We have an

amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Good grief, Mr.

Chairman, I'm convinced now that I have done something wrong when I get

support from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

AN HON. MEMBER: It's clearly out of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It must be clearly out of order.

However,

Mr. Chairman, the amendment has caused a considerable delay in the

ability of the Minister of Health to get on with the job of resolving

this very serious issue. We don't want to see the medical-care program

in British Columbia in any way jeopardized; we don't want to see fear

struck into the hearts of those people who perhaps will I not be able

to pay if, in fact, some form of extra billing does proceed. I think

it's very unkind to those people, and I cannot possibly accept this

amendment. It simply says, Mr. Chairman, that the members opposite

refuse to accept the fact that we are the government in British

Columbia and that it's our responsibility to see that this matter is

resolved. The fear tactics that they have used over the years —

actually mean, dirty-tricks tactics — that strike fear into the hearts

of the people of British Columbia, I think, are completely uncalled

for. I urge that we get on with the passage of this legislation, so

that the Minister of Health can get on with the job that he has to do

in resolving the dispute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before

recognizing the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke I'll remind the Minister

of Forests and all members that parliamentary language is always a

feature and a courtesy in the House.

MR. KING: Mr.

Chairman, I think the Minister of Forests is a brave man to refer to

"dirty tricks"; he's a brave man indeed. The Minister of Forests has

talked a little bit about delay in passage of this bill, and he's

afraid that the debate in this House as to whether or not a group in

our society is receiving a fair method of resolution of a dispute will

inflame this debate. Well, Mr. Chairman, as far as the doctors of the

province were concerned, their feelings were inflamed when the bill was

introduced. I would quote just very briefly from the Times-Colonist of March 31, where Dr. Alex Mandeville had this to say:

"B.C.

Medical Association president Dr. Alex Mandeville immediately branded

the legislation introduced shortly after 10 a.m. by Health minister Jim

Nielsen a 'double cross.' 'They have double-crossed the doctors of

B.C.' But he indicated doctors will obey the law. 'We never never took

a hardline,' Mandeville said. 'We tried to be reasonable, but they've

taken a club to us; they've conscripted us. They don't even do this

sort of thing in Poland.' "

[ Page 4980 ]

Now,

Mr. Chairman, that was the view of the leader of the B.C. Medical

Association, and as I understood it, it was related mainly to the

arbitration process that's contained in the bill. So there was no

question that their attitude toward the provision was quite inflamed.

They're angry, and I think they have a right to be angry in that

respect. I would very much like to get to a debate on the amendment and

stay away from recounting the political history of this party, that

party or anything else. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr.

Ritchie) has indulged in that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Really,

what's pertinent here is whether or not the government, which has a

majority in this House, is prepared to take a second look at one

provision of a bill that, I think, should have the unanimous consent of

the House, and could easily attain the unanimous consent of the House

if the government were prepared to be a bit flexible, a bit reasonable,

and say: "Look, the essential part of the bill is that which prohibits

extra billing in the province" — we all agreed on that — "therefore, in

terms of setting up a mechanism for final dispute resolution, can we

not reason together a little bit?"

It's been amply

demonstrated that this particular mechanism in this bill is unique in

the province of British Columbia; there is no other precedent in law in

this province for the particular kind of arbitration process which the

government has designed for the doctors. It's one-sided, arbitrary —

and from that point of view, as certainly most of the lawyers on the

government side must know, it's destined to failure, when one party to

the process sees it as unfair. The strength of arbitration, the

strength of a final resolution mechanism, is that both parties who are

utilizing that system can see it to be fair, even-handed and impartial.

The government has prevented that from happening in the section.

Mr.

Chairman, unless they accept the amendment to the

section which the

opposition has put forward, they are simply creating unnecessary

trouble for themselves, unnecessary hostility within the Medical

Association and unnecessary unrest and concern in the public out there.

suggest that debate on this

section in the House in some way

jeopardizes the medicare system in the province is a false argument,

because the bill has a retroactive provision. It's going to apply from

April 1, I believe. So to suggest that we should remove ourselves from

a debate on what is a very important principle in this matter is a bit

of a cop-out, and I think it shows a bit of contempt for what the

Legislature is all about. There's no reason why we should pass a bad

law, a discriminatory law, just to expedite the government's time

schedule for getting this bill through the House. That's not what the

Legislature is all about. It's retroactive anyway, as my colleague has

indicated.

My colleagues — particularly the member for North

Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who made a very eloquent speech yesterday —

pointed out to the Attorney-General and others that there are forms of

arbitration law available in many statutes in the province of British

Columbia — the Highway Act, certainly under the Labour Code of British

Columbia, the School Act. There's even an arbitration system under the

GAIN legislation. All of it is founded on the principle that both

parties in dispute will have some role in selecting the people to sit

and serve on that arbitration mechanism. That's fundamental. It seems

to me to recognize natural justice in the case. That's why they're

designed that way.

Why is it that the government has adopted

an altogether different approach with respect to this statute? It's an

approach which gives the government — a party to the bargaining process

through a branch of government........ Why is it that they have to give

themselves the sole right to name the arbitrator or arbitrators, to

define the terms of reference, to have control over the issue to be

arbitrated — that will be dictated to the doctors arbitrarily — and

then to empower that arbitration apparatus to vary and change the terms

of a contract? All of those powers are unprecedented in arbitration

law. The Attorney-General knows that. He was Minister of Labour in this

province for a number of years. The two sections that are really

offensive here break precedent with any standard of fair play, in my

view, and break faith with the concept of natural justice.

certainly see no reason on earth why the government wouldn't show some

good faith, some give-and-take, some recognition that if this is

amended they have the unanimous support of the opposition in dispensing

with this bill and getting onto other business. They have that

assurance. Why are they so rigid? Why are they so intransigent? My

colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has pointed out that under

the W.A.C. Bennett leadership there was always a preparedness to take

a second look, to show some leadership both in the Legislature and out.

There wasn't this rigid, petulant attitude that they have to

demonstrate and enforce their majority no matter what the circumstances

of the case. There's no compromise, flexibility or spirit of

cooperation in terms of dealing with either the Legislature or a group

in society. It's really a condemnation of leadership in that party that

we're bogged down on an issue that could be resolved so easily with a

degree of reasonableness and some give-and-take in the matter.

Everyone

is now at the stage where they're imputing that it's all for political

reasons that the opposition is delaying this thing. If that were so,

the government has a very easy remedy. It doesn't weaken their position

a bit to set up a system of arbitration that complies with one of the

other statutes of the province — be it the School Act or whatever. If

they feel that the opposition is taking a political stance, certainly

that would cut the ground out from under the opposition very quickly,

and we'd be happy to see that. It's not a political issue at all. It's

an issue that this particular provision, which we seek to amend, is

patently unfair, unprecedented in law, discriminatory, arbitrary, and

smacks of a dictatorial attitude by this government. We cannot accept

that. It's our responsibility and duty to seek to improve this

legislation in order to maintain some standard of fair play and

reasonableness, whether it's the doctors or any other group that's

involved. Quite frankly, I'm appalled that the government has become so

defensive and petulant about this whole matter that they sit there with

their heels dug in, not prepared to discuss or consider improving the

legislation before them, which many of them know in their hearts is

wanting. I'm appalled by it. I just don't understand a government that

takes this rather rigid posture, digs in, and is not prepared to listen

to anyone else, to take any advice or to compromise one inch on a

matter that could be highly divisive in terms of interests in the

community. The best service they could give to preventing that division

and to restoring some stability to the health scene in the province of

British Columbia would be to show some concern, some sensitivity and

some spirit of give and take. It's only outright stubbornness and

intransigence that is preventing that from happening in this House

today.

[ Page

4981 ]

I urge the government to have a hard look, and if they don't like

our amendment, a couple of members of a committee can go out together

and sit down and draft an amendment that is acceptable to both sides of

the House. That would be an altogether reasonable way of resolving this

matter, and I commend that course of action to the government.

MR. REE:

It is with extreme regret that I stand here today to debate this issue,

and that it has come to the point where we have to have legislation

placed before us. This legislation, and in particular

section 6,

indicates we're concerned about the public interest, and it's the

public interest that has brought the legislation to this floor.

I'm

sorry the doctors have taken the stand they have. I don't see how it is

possible for the people of this province to appreciate, approve or pay

for the extent of increase that the medical profession have asked for.

I think the government has acted responsibly in bringing this

legislation at this time, legislation which provides for many means of

resolving the problem. It provides for continuing negotiation — which I

encourage the medical profession to take advantage of — and, failing

that, an arbitration clause which is quite valid and with tremendous

precedent in law in this province and the democratic parliamentary

system we've had for hundreds of years in Canada and England. There is

precedent in law where we've had single judges, courts of origin, and

the appellate courts where we've had respect, fairness and equity

administered. I think that is quite possible and will be accomplished

whether we have a single arbiter — if it has to come down to that — or

an arbitration board of three or five people appointed. I think you'll

get the same equity, justice and responsibility we've had in our

systems of law through the hundreds of years we've had their benefit.

cannot possibly accept the amendment that has been placed before us by

the opposition. Some people have said it was hastily drawn. I don't

think it was hastily drawn; I think it was incompetently drawn. If you

turn around and take a look at

section 6 they have just amended

subsection (1). To do a proper, responsible and competent job of

amendment they should have included the other subsections of

section 6

where reference is still made to a single arbiter. I think that's an

indication of the competence, intelligence and abilities of our

opposition.

I can understand why they are concerned with

section 6. When they draw up something of this incompetence, this wording....

MR. BARRETT: That's from the School Act. Are you attacking the School Act?

MR. REE:

The Leader of the Opposition may have taken one clause out of the

School Act, but he hasn't looked at the rest of

section 6 of this bill,

and neither have the rest of his party. To come in with a proper

amendment they would have done a proper amendment on

section 6 and

deleted all reference to a single arbiter. It's quite obvious they

haven't got the competence to look at a whole

section to bring in

amendments. When they have that lack of competence and lack of ability

I can understand their concern, because the way they operate I would be

concerned if they were in our position. Fortunately they are not over

on our side of the House, and fortunately they are not governing this

province. Fortunately for the people of B.C. that's why we were

returned in 1979.

I can understand why they've brought in

that form of amendment. They bring in amendments where they wish to

control everything on a straight and narrow path. That is the method of

the opposition party: bring everybody down; tell them what path they

should follow. This is the sort of thing. There are no options

available for people of enterprise or initiative. No, everybody's got

to go down a straight and narrow...lower everything to the same

common denominator.

I cannot begin to support any type of

amendment indicative of the lack of competence that has come from that

side of the floor. I'm going to have to vote against it.

MRS. DAILLY:

Well, if I had any doubts about supporting our amendment, the last

speaker certainly cleared those doubts from my mind. I'll come back to

his points later.

I rise to support the amendment. I hoped

the day would never come when I and my colleagues would find that they

would not stand in this House to support legislation that protects

people in this province and ensures that they have a fair opportunity

to settle, and which provides equality for our citizens whether they be

doctors or not. That is the essence of our amendment.

I've

listened to this debate. I've heard most of the speeches. The most we

hear from the other side is an attempt to smokescreen our amendment by

suggesting that we are being political. When I hear that over and over

again from the Social Credit members, it makes me realize and it

reinforces in my own mind that the Social Credit Party members have no

understanding of what true commitment is to proper and fair

negotiations with people whom the government has to deal with regarding

salaries. They have no commitment. As far as I can see, they also have

no philosophy when it comes to medicare itself.

Without

straying too far from the amendment, I would like to say that the most

disappointing thing for me throughout this whole debate has been not to

have heard one member on that side of the House say that they believe

in the philosophy of medicare — not once! I have yet to hear the

Minister of Health state that. As a matter of fact, in his introductory

remarks the Minister of Health never once expressed a commitment to the

philosophy of medicare. When I think of the history of the former

Minister of Health and his history of hotline programs in this province

prior to the 1972 election, it doesn't surprise me that that minister

would not come out with a solid commitment to medicare. As a matter of

fact, in his speech referring to the matter of mediation and to the

whole medicare philosophy, the minister stated — this is what I gather

— that the only reason the Social Credit government is concerned about

keeping balanced budgeting is, and I quote: "The Minister of Health

will probably develop very rigid positions with respect to the

participation of any province which may permit balance billing, extra

billing or similar programs under their medicare program." What comes

through is that once again the Social Credit government have no

philosophy, no commitment, and they're being very expedient in handling

this bill.

I would like to hear one member stand up over

there and tell us that they believe in medicare. I think at least that

would be something positive to come out of this debate. But they're

more concerned about losing the funds from the federal government if

they don't continue to keep balance billing.

But back to the amendment. I find it unbelievable that the people over there would stand up and say to us that we're

[ Page 4982 ]

holding

up something here, when they know very well the bill is retroactive,

and that they would say to us that we haven't drafted our amendment

properly — that's another argument. As we have said quite clearly, if

there are parts of our amendment that do not satisfy them, why don't

they recommend it and bring it forward to the House with corrections?

We would be only too pleased to clear that up.

The only

thing that I and my colleagues can see that could possibly explain the

stubbornness and almost apparent stupidity of the government in not

accepting this amendment is that apparently there must be something

political going on here. In my humble opinion, they are playing

politics with this vital question, and they alone. If they were not

looking at this from a strictly partisan point of view, why would they

not therefore accept an amendment to what they know at the moment is

upsetting the doctors of this province? If they truly want peace with

the doctors in this province, why not accept an amendment from the

opposition — and clean it up, if you're not happy with it — which will

take away some of the sting of this bill which they are presenting to

the doctors? They won't do it, so who is really playing politics here?

Are they hoping that they can put in such a heavy-handed arbitration

procedure that the doctors will have no choice but to return to the

negotiating table? Someone may say, "Isn't that great!" but at what

price? If the government is willing to do that it shows that this

government is willing to do anything for the sake of political

expediency. It means that they're ready to throw out fair treatment and

equality for the doctors of this province. They want to take away from

them the right to fair negotiation and fair settlement which has always

been accepted by the people of this province.

I can't really

understand why we are still debating this bill, unless for some reason

the Social Credit government themselves want to delay this. There is a

simple way of expediting this debate right now: accept the amendment of

the official opposition.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr.

Chairman, I rise at the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition.

We've had a lengthy debate characteristic, I suppose, of recent years

of the New Democratic Party where an issue, no matter how trivial and

how small, is quite capable of occupying the House for days and days.

The big issues which used to characterize opposition debate disappeared

when the Liberal Party disappeared from the House. Indeed, I suppose if

one looks for new and imaginative ideas one still finds them from those

parties who are no longer in the House. That is probably the main

reason why the debate has collapsed in terms of constructive ideas and

we remain bogged down in trivia day after day after day. What runs as a

general theme through the trivia that appears to occupy this House day

after day, week after week and month after month is the rigid,

labour-oriented thinking of the NDP. Anything that doesn't fit into the

ritual framework of trade unionism, which is a total preoccupation of

that socialist party, is unacceptable to them. So they bring forward an

amendment to this particular bill not designed to bring harmony to the

people of British Columbia but to cast one more profession in this

province into the rigid mould of trade unionism. That rigid mould is

based upon the idea that there must always be confrontation' and

bargaining, that there will be strikes as an inevitable outcome of that

process, and therefore only those things which are cast in the rigid

trade union NDP mould will be satisfactory for anybody anywhere in the

province.

The members opposite laugh that uneasy laugh that

always comes with lack of solid, constructive ideas. That uneasy laugh

comes when the people opposite are called to account for their lack of

imagination in debate and for their lack of constructive new proposals.

I submit that the outcome of this unfortunate disagreement between the

medical profession and the people of British Columbia — not the

government — over balance billing is only going to be settled by cool

heads; not by partisans chosen by the medical profession and not by

partisans chosen by the government, should they be so unwise to do such

a thing, but by people who the general public will recognize and trust

as the type of individuals who will act with fairness and judgment.

hope that the issue can be resolved by fair and honest negotiation as

provided for in

section 2 of this act, because it became very clear to

those in government, who must act as the first line of defence for the

general public, that what was involved here was not a serious and

honest attempt on the part of the negotiators for the medical

profession to arrive at an acceptable fee

schedule for the taxpayers of

the province. Clearly, when the amount of funds which was set aside as

the pool for doctors was growing each year at a rate greater than

inflation, to then take that pool and at taxpayers' expense increase it

by a further 47 percent in a single year would be totally unacceptable

to anyone, except possibly the people who would be the recipients and

the beneficiaries.

The members opposite have recognized that

circumstance. They realize, as do government members, that there was no

intention on the part of the negotiating team to arrive at a fair

agreement by which doctors would be remunerated for their services.

What was clearly intended was an attempt to trigger a balance-billing

system. That's why we have this bill. Because there was a blatant

attempt — if I can use that word — to trigger a system which the public

of British Columbia overwhelmingly rejects. That leaves us with no

other choice, however reluctantly we may have made this move, but to

bring in a bill which makes it clear to the medical profession and to

the people of British Columbia that balance billing will not take place

in this province. All right, that's fair enough. That's the main intent

of this bill. We all agree.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what we have

to do is come down to how you settle what the fee

schedule should be,

having eliminated balance billing. What

section 2 does, Mr. Chairman,

is say, "Let's negotiate seriously," because that really has not taken

place up until this time. I think there is a fair and reasonable

expectation that will be the outcome, because now all of the false

reasons for having negotiation will be eliminated. We get down to what

should have been done by people of good faith a year ago.

Now

we come to

section 6. What happens if that process fails? Mr. Chairman,

all we're saying is in that doubly unfortunate circumstance. the only

way the matter will be resolved in such a way that the public of British

Columbia are protected and are being served is to have someone they

trust to make the judgment. That's a very different circumstance to

having some kind of muscle confrontation in the trade union sense — in

the narrow rough-and-tumble of trade union negotiations where the

disciplinary force is the marketplace; and where the industrial trade

unions, from which the philosophy of the NDP has sprung, which has

infected the minds of the members opposite to the point where they can

think of nothing else.... That has made them unfit to serve the

broader interests of the public of British Columbia. Until that

[ Page

4983 ]

party

over there learns that to have government you must do more than serve

the B.C. Federation of Labour, you must do more than try and twist

every circumstance into B.C. Federation of Labour thinking and the

labour-confrontation mode of dealing with every circumstance of the

province...until you learn to drop that attitude that is evidenced

by this particular

section of this bill, then you should not aspire to

government. While that may be your total world, it isn't the way the

broader interests of the public of British Columbia can be served.

Mr.

Chairman, to have the time of this House and the interests of this

Legislature continually channelled down this direction by overburdening

debate in a narrow range of thinking, as has taken place ever since the

responsible opposition disappeared from the Legislature of British

Columbia, is again to leave the people of this province ill-served by

the very balance in the nature of the debate which takes place.

So,

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the NDP: "Withdraw your amendment in this

debate; permit the medical profession and the Medical Services

Commission to get down to honest negotiations, as they should have done

some time ago." If the government of British Columbia, in the event

that that fails, is unsuccessful in setting terms of arbitration in a

manner which the public of British Columbia distrusts, then you've got

cause for criticism of the government; then you can honestly say:

"These people have failed to serve the mandate they received" — not

from the trade unions or any special-interest group, but from the

public of British Columbia. Then is the time for your raising these

issues in the Legislature and, if we're wrong, justly criticizing the

government. But instead they say: "Don't even commence until we try and

reduce the disagreement with the medical profession to a trade union

level, to industrial labour confrontation. Don't even start until we

can do that sort of thing." To me that only reflects the narrowness of

the New Democratic Party.

It's a trade union party, Mr.

Chairman; it's not a broad social movement. It's not something which

serves the interests of the public-at-large; it's something which

serves the trade unions. If everybody in British Columbia, including

the medical profession, wishes to march to the military tune of the

trade unions, then they should be happy with that kind of opposition

and the sort of thinking they generate. But if they say no, we want

freedom, progress, flexibility, prosperity and all those good things

that go with the non-trade-union philosophy, then they will stick with

this government, as they have done election after election after

election and as they will continue to do in the future. I tell you, Mr.

Chairman, just as the NDP have lost 14 elections, they'll lose 14 more

if they stick with this kind of amendment in debate.

If I haven't said it up until now, I reject this amendment.

MR. COCKE:

I always find it amusing when the second member for Vancouver–Point

Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) takes his place in this House. He brings comic

relief in here every time; he never fails. We will miss him. Mind you,

I'll be delighted that we'll have an NDP alternative who will be here

next time. I really will miss that member, because he reduces our side

to amusement every time he stands on his feet and speaks.

takes a debate around the principle of fair play, and he somehow

manages to turn that around and tell amusing anecdotes about the NDP's

affiliates and our narrow way.

This medical association is not a trade union. The clause we are championing

here, offering to accept any fair and even-handed amendment the government can

bring down on this section.... That's what we're talking about.

We're not talking about the B.C. Federation of Labour or anybody else. There's

no labour bias in this situation. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann)

yesterday drew the House's attention to the Highway Act and the fact that

if there is a dispute over land expropriation.... That can hardly be deemed

a labour situation.

HON. MR. FRASER: Don't refer to him. He voted against you when you were in government.

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, that minister is getting a little excited. He's the

Minister of Highways, and he, above all, knows that, in contrast to

what we have before us, the arbitration

section in the Highway Act is

fair and evenhanded when an appeal is sought.

"Why

would we amend?" they keep asking. We're only asking that a small

portion — subsection (1) of

section 6 — be amended. Why are we asking

that that happen? We're asking that that happen for this reason: that

that first subsection gives a party to the dispute the right to call

the shots on the culmination of that dispute. Don't forget that the

medical commission is an arm of government. It takes all its

regulations and rules from government. This arm of government is then

given the right to choose who shall decide the culmination of those

negotiations.

There's no way one can misread this:

"The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by order, direct that, in

accordance with the provisions of the order, any dispute between the

association and the commission respecting the renewal, amendment or

replacement of the agreement be resolved by a single arbitrator or by

an arbitration board appointed or constituted as provided in the order."

What's

a cabinet order? A cabinet order is a decision taken by cabinet and

placed on an order-in-council which comes down and states: "This is the

group that will decide," or, "This is the person who will decide what

is fair and equitable for the doctors." Can anybody tell me that there

is an expectation across there on the government side that there would

be any kind of support for this in the medical profession or among the

medical associations? What kind of expectation would that be? It would

be imagination gone wild.

The minister has suggested that

somehow or other the NDP is trying to incite the medical association. I

will say that facts are actually contrary. We feel that the medical

association at least understands that there are some parliamentarians

in here who respect the rights of all people in our society, including

doctors.

For the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, to indicate that

somehow or other this is in response to our labour bias is ridiculous.

We have an Arbitration Act in this province. I have a copy of the act

right here. Why didn't the ministers who were responsible for this

drafting refer to that? It's even-handed. As I said, they could have

gone to the Highway Act. They could have gone to any statute in this

province to get guidance on arbitration procedures and come up with

something that isn't biased and unilateral like this.

couple of ministers have suggested that the amendment that I moved —

and, incidentally, this bill was brought in in haste — wouldn't fit the

situation. It fits the school situation — the School Act — but it

wouldn't fit here. You know how

[ Page 4984 ]

W.A.C.

Bennett would have handled that. He would have immediately sensed that

a mistake had been made: he wouldn't let arrogance get in his way. What

he would have done is taken a look and said to some of his legal people

over there: "Let's bring in our own. They'll withdraw theirs, and

everybody will go home happy." That did not occur. We don't

particularly want our name — my name — on an acceptable amendment.

Don't even amend the amendment — no subamendments. Bring in your own.

We telegraphed that message right at the outset. At the beginning of

this debate we said: "You bring in an amendment that is even-handed and

we'll support it; we'll stand up and vote for it. We'll vote for the

entire bill, and that's it." Is that too much to ask?

The

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — that great man of wisdom — has

suggested something about coming down on both sides of an issue. There

are no...

MR. KEMPF: That's exactly what you're doing.

MR.COCKE: ...both sides of an issue, Mr. Chairman. There's only one side to this

issue, and that is the issue of even-handedness and fair play. Now I

understand that the member for Omineca doesn't really know much about

that — or certainly doesn't seem to.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I ask the member for Omineca to come to order, and I ask

the hon. member for New Westminster to address the Chair.

MR. COCKE:

Just as an aside, the member for Omineca dredges up a little history —

a bit of a confrontation that he and I had in Houston. I wanted to

democratize the health delivery system up there, and he was in

opposition to it because it took away his power.

MR. KEMPF: You were a dictator and you know it.

MR. COCKE: The former mayor of Houston, my goodness, that great democrat.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Let's get back to the amendment, all hon. members. Of course, we cannot

interrupt the member who has taken his place and is speaking in the

debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there was another

very interesting occurrence today, apart from the rather amusing speech

by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He

departed from his old freedom-fighting speeches that he used to make in

this House. We can all remember them. He was freedom-fighting over

everything. Now he is so close to retirement that I hope one day,

before he leaves this place, he's going to get up, apologize for having

supported this kind of legislation and make one of his freedom-fighting

speeches as a swan song.

MR. MACDONALD: He'd make a great opposition member.

MR. COCKE: Would he ever! He's a great author too — Politics in Paradise .

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

believe that if this government will just take a responsible position

on this amendment, bring in their own, or at least have a meeting — I

recommend it very strongly — between the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams), the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), and have a discussion about what is legally

prudent, have a discussion around fair play in legislation, then Monday

we might look forward to something responsible having been done in this

House.

Mr. Chairman, they have statutes coming out of their

ears. The people that I asked to have this meeting are people that know

perfectly well that all they have to do is give some guidance to

legislative counsel, and they in a matter of minutes can draft a

satisfactory amendment to this bill.

I see before me

something that anyone — anyone in their right mind — would know must be

changed. Nod, if you're going to do something.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you Winken or Blinken?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE:

A reply that I get for a very serious request was: "Are you Winken or

Blinken?" The member for Omineca mumbles "Hypocrite!" Thank you, at

least you've had the courage to say it out loud.

Mr. Chairman, I would never ask that man to withdraw anything. The voters in their own time will take care of that.

would like, Mr. Chairman, to take you to

part 6 of the Labour Code. It

says in this part: "The arbitration board includes a single arbitrator

or another tribunal or body appointed or constituted under this part of

a collective agreement." What they're talking about here, what they

talk about in every statute, is a way of getting some even-handedness

in legislation. I recommend it. Seriously and for heaven's sake, please

let's see this legislation amended so that we can all accept it.

Mr.

Chairman, are you fidgety? Am I sort of standing in the way of

something that is about to happen but won't happen if I continue on

till 1 o'clock. Oh, dear me! I notice that all the government members

are here. I notice that I have ten more minutes in whi