British Columbia Hansard — Wednesday, March 6, 2002

H0306pm-21

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

3rd Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Wednesday, March 6, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Volume 3, Number 21 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 3RD SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Committee Clerk................................................................................................................ ......................................................... Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. Internet: www.legis.gov.bc.ca/hansard

Party Standings: Liberal 76; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 1. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind L) .................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) ..........................................

West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (L).........................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon. Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L).......................................................................

Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon. Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................

Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon. Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ......................................................

Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon. Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon.

John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon. Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)...........................................................................

Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Wednesday, March 6, 2002 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 1531 Introduction and First Reading of Bills Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 8) ......................................................................................................................... 1531 Hon. K.

Falcon Statements (Standing Order 25B) Youth traffic safety........................................................................................................... ....................................................................... 1532 K. Krueger Pacific NorthWest Economic Region.............................................................................................. ...................................................... 1532 B.

Penner Pulp mill investment in Prince George .......................................................................................... ...................................................... 1533 P. Bell Oral Questions Funding for mental health services............................................................................................. .......................................................... 1533 J. Kwan Hon. C.

Hansen Capital funding for health care projects....................................................................................... ........................................................ 1534 J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hawkins Hon. C. Hansen Gravel extraction from Fraser River ............................................................................................ ......................................................... 1534 J. Les Hon. S.

Hagen Funding for policing in small communities...................................................................................... ................................................... 1535 D. Chutter Hon. R. Coleman Lobbyists registry............................................................................................................. ....................................................................... 1536 J. MacPhail Hon. G.

Plant Point of Order ................................................................................................................. .......................................................... 1536 Hon. G. Cheema Second Reading of Bills Medical Services Arbitration Act (Bill 9) Hon. C. Hansen................................................................................................................. ................................................................. 1536 J.

MacPhail.................................................................................................................... ...................................................................... 1538 Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 1541 Second Reading of Bills Medical Services Arbitration Act (Bill 9) (continued) B.

Lekstrom.................................................................................................................... ..................................................................... 1541 J. Kwan........................................................................................................................ ........................................................................ 1542 L. Mayencourt .................................................................................................................. .................................................................. 1544

Committee of Supply Estimates: Ministry of Health Planning Hon. S. Hawkins ................................................................................................................ ................................................................ 1546 J. MacPhail.................................................................................................................... ...................................................................... 1548 L.

Mayencourt .................................................................................................................. .................................................................. 1553 B. Locke....................................................................................................................... ........................................................................ 1556 R. Visser ...................................................................................................................... ........................................................................ 1558 J.

Kwan........................................................................................................................ ........................................................................ 1559 Point of Order ................................................................................................................. .......................................................... 1565 Hon. C. Clark J. MacPhail Point of Order ................................................................................................................. .......................................................... 1568 Hon.

C. Clark J. MacPhail Committee of Supply Estimates: Ministry of Health Planning (continued) Hon. S. Hawkins ................................................................................................................ ................................................................ 1568 J. MacPhail.................................................................................................................... ...................................................................... 1568 Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room Committee of Supply Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management J.

Kwan........................................................................................................................ .......................................................................... 1571 Hon. S. Hagen .................................................................................................................. .................................................................... 1571 P.

Bell ........................................................................................................................ ............................................................................ 1580 B. Bennett..................................................................................................................... ......................................................................... 1580 Estimates: Ministry of Provincial Revenue Hon. B.

Barisoff............................................................................................................... ..................................................................... 1584 I. Chong ....................................................................................................................... ......................................................................... 1587 R.

Lee......................................................................................................................... ............................................................................ 1590 Estimates: Ministry of Management Services Hon. S. Santori ................................................................................................................ ..................................................................... 1590 J.

Bray........................................................................................................................ ............................................................................ 1591 I. Chong ....................................................................................................................... ......................................................................... 1593 R.

Lee......................................................................................................................... ............................................................................ 1593 Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Hon. R. Coleman ................................................................................................................ ................................................................. 1596 D.

Jarvis...................................................................................................................... ........................................................................... 1598 B. Penner...................................................................................................................... ......................................................................... 1599 K.

Stewart ..................................................................................................................... ........................................................................ 1600 R. Lee......................................................................................................................... ............................................................................ 1601

1531 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 The House met at 2:02 p.m. Prayers. Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, as you've already heard, the government is in possession of a secret New Democrat report which suggests that the leader of the New Democrats is in fact celebrating a milestone in her life. Let me say that all members of this House, I'm sure, want to wish the member for Vancouver-Hastings all the best on this exceptional day and this exceptional milestone. We hope that she has plenty of time for her family and for her personal life.

In fact, she can take as much time as she wants for that. [Laughter.] Let me also say that we also wish many happy re- turns of the day to the member for Chilliwack-Sumas. J. Kwan: I, too, would like to join with the House in celebrating and honouring the member for Vancouver- Hastings. J. MacPhail: Did you leak it? J. Kwan: I must admit it was the NDP caucus leak. Likewise there was a Liberal leak, and today we are also celebrating the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management's birthday. So we, too, would like to wish him a very happy birthday. [1405] Mr.

Speaker: The Premier rises on a point of order. [Laughter.] Hon. G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just wanted to point out that our birthdays were bigger than their birthdays. J. Kwan: I'm sure that on this auspicious day some- body up there was looking out for all of us, because there is now a balance in the House on both sides. I'm sure both members are thrilled to bits that they get to celebrate their special day here with all of us in this Legislature. I must say, though, specifically of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, that she doesn't look a day over 20.

And let me tell you, she does not act her age. Happy birthday and many happy returns. Introductions by Members Hon. T. Nebbeling: W e h a v e f o u r g u e s t s i n o u r gallery. Two of them are from Scotland. They are Mar- garet Mackay and Chrisie-Ann MacArthur. They are together here as guests of Norm and Maureen Morri- son. Norm and Maureen Morrison are from North Vancouver, and they are the parents of my executive assistant, Tim Morrison. I would like the House to make them very welcome. Hon. G.

Plant: I am informed that we're joined to- day in the House by some articling students from the legal services branch, as well as some co-op students who are here to no doubt learn about this particular institution and the marvellous way it functions. The articling students are Bobby Bandechha — I apologize if I've mispronounced that — Debbie Chan, Martin Schmieg, Suzanne Sheena, Jennifer Wispinski and James Chen. The co-op students are Becky Black, Joanne Caen and Joseph Rochon. My goodness, I'm not doing very well.

I really do hope that we will all wel- come them and George Faddis, who is the senior solici- tor accompanying them today. J. Bray: I t ' s m y p l e a s u r e t o r i s e a n d i n t r o d u c e 3 2 grade 11 students from a local school in my riding that is celebrating its 126th continuous year of service. These 32 grade 11 students are from Victoria High School, and they're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Brian Bradley. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome. L. Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to intro- duce a very fine friend of mine — i n f a c t , m y b e s t friend — M a r c S e g u i n .

H e i s v i s i t i n g h e r e f r o m m y riding of Vancouver-Burrard. By strange coincidence, it is also his birthday. We celebrated today by taking a tour of the Legislature and actually going up to the very top, where Captain Vancouver sits on the top of the rotunda. I'd just ask that the House make him feel very, very welcome. Mr. Speaker: It almost calls for a rendition of Happy Birthday, except I've heard some of the members sing. Introduction and First Reading of Bills DEREGULATION STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 H o n . K .

F a l c o n p r e s e n t e d a m e s s a g e f r o m H e r Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled De- regulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002. Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 8, intituled Deregu- lation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, be read a first time now. Motion approved. Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased today to introduce Bill 8, Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Bill 8 amends several statutes to remove nearly 600 out- dated or unnecessary regulatory requirements and red tape as part of our commitment to restore British Co- lumbia's economic competitiveness and prosperity. [1410] Bill 8 is but one step towards meeting our new-era commitment to cut the regulatory burden and red tape

1532 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 within this province by one-third within the next three years. H o n . S p e a k e r , w e d e f i n e r e d t a p e a s t h o s e n o n - essential procedures, forms, licences and regulations that add to the cost of dealing with government, and anything that is obsolete, redundant, wasteful or con- fusing and that diminishes our province's economic competitiveness and stands in the way of job creation or simply wastes taxpayers' time and money.

Bill 8 cuts red tape by repealing the following stat- utes: the Community Regulation Act; the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act; the Curfew Act; the Dogwood, Rhododendron and Trillium Protection Act; the Library Foundation of British Columbia Act; the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Develop- ment Act; the Ministry of International Trade, Science and Investment Act; the Northern Development Act; the Pawnbrokers Act; the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act; the Public Service Bonding Act; the Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Re- lief Act; the Tobacco Fee Act; the Trade and Conven- tion Centre Act; the Universities Real Estate Develop- ment Corporation Act; and the University Endowment L a n d P a r k A c t ; a n d b y a m e n d i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t - utes: the Dike Maintenance Act; the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act; the Financial Institutions Act; the Health Act; the Livestock Act; the Local Government Act; the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3); the Name Act; and the Wills Act.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Bill 8 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) YOUTH TRAFFIC SAFETY K. Krueger: Children born in 1986 are receiving their driver's licences in B.C. today. People too young to be prosecuted in adult court for offences are hop- ping behind the controls of high-performance cars and letting their hormones and blissful sense of invulner- ability hurtle them down the road. In the middle seventies my wife and I started our family in Prince George, and there was at that time a horrific sequence of car crashes where young lives were snuffed out, young bodies shattered and young faces disfigured for life.

There is no grief so inconsol- able as a parent's grief over a dead child. The community, the police, the experts, the injured and their families came together. They struck a theme called "Take the Car Out of Carnage" and attacked the behaviours which were killing the kids, and it worked. ICBC took up the challenge and expanded it provincewide. The people leading the traffic safety initiatives were few but dedicated and talented. Teach- ers, communities and police pitched in, and it worked. Recognizing that some adults won't change, the pro- gram focused in part on curriculum.

When my own children were babies, they always had infant car restraints. They grew up hearing the traffic safety messages. If they thought I was tempted to run a yellow light, they'd yell: "Fools rush in, dad." They'd watch the speedometer and shout: "Speed kills, dad." Once when I protested that it was too much trou- ble to fasten all the car seats for a half-block trip, there was a shocked silence.

Then a little voice said: "Dad, d o e s G o d s a y i t ' s o k a y t o b r e a k t h e l a w i f y o u ' r e j u s t going five doors down to grandma's house?" In the early nineties a new hotshot executive at ICBC killed the program. The word was: "Elementary school kids don't drive." The kids getting driver's li- cences today were seven years old when that stupid decision was made. Today they are wrapping high- speed cars around poles, racing in city streets, drinking and driving and ignoring safety equipment in their highly engineered vehicles.

The grief of their shattered parents, friends and families cries out to government — a caution to us all. No corporation operating for profit has a mandate to teach traffic safety to six-year- olds, but in 2012 they'll get driver's licences. PACIFIC NORTHWEST ECONOMIC REGION B. Penner: Shortly after last year's election the Pre- mier asked me to lead B.C.'s participation in the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, or PNWER for short. P N W E R , f o r m e d i n 1 9 9 1 , c o n s i s t s o f f i v e U .

S . s t a t e s : Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska; two Canadian provinces, B.C. and Alberta; and the Yukon territory. I t ' s b e e n s a i d t h a t i f P N W E R w e r e a n a t i o n , i t would rank twelfth in the world among leading indus- trial countries with a population of 19 million people and a gross regional product of $671 billion (U.S.). [1415] Last year B.C. hosted PNWER's annual summer meeting at Whistler, and it was a huge success. More than 800 delegates attended, including U.S. Ambassa- dor to Canada, Paul Cellucci, two Governors and hun- dreds of state legislators.

The Premier used this opportunity to communicate key messages to our neighbours, and we are still get- t i n g v e r y p o s i t i v e f e e d b a c k f r o m o u r A m e r i c a n c o u n - terparts on his speech. Since then, PNWER has taken the lead in organizing a regional partnership for infra- structure security. Post-September 11 it's become very obvious to all of us in the Pacific Northwest that we have a common interest in protecting our intercon- nected pipelines, power lines and telecommunications networks.

Following a meeting of key public and pri- vate sector stakeholders on November 30, PNWER will host a table-top security exercise entitled "Blue Cas- cades" this May. The Canadian and U.S. federal gov- ernments have shown tremendous interest in this ini- tiative.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1533 I'm slated to become president of PNWER at this summer's annual general meeting in Portland. I've al- ready been making efforts to meet with legislators at various state capitals. This gesture has been very warmly received, and our neighbours are glad that B.C. is once again engaged in the region. When I was in Olympia just a couple weeks ago, I was told it was the first time in their memory that a British Columbia MLA had spoken with them and met with them during their session.

PNWER is a great vehicle for promoting B.C.'s interests in the region and for reiterating the Premier's commitment to re-establishing B.C.'s presence in the Pacific Northwest. Mr. Speaker, I'll endeavour to keep members up to date with future progress of PNWER, as time permits. Thank you. PULP MILL INVESTMENT IN PRINCE GEORGE P. Bell: As the Minister of Energy and Mines would say, more good news. Actually, it's great news. Today the Prince George Citizen published an

article indicat- ing that a major B.C. forest company is considering the possibility of building a new pulp mill in Prince George with a possible investment of $1 billion. An Hon. Member: More great news. P. Bell: More great news. This isn't even close to being a done deal yet, but for the first time in ten years it demonstrates a willing- ness by the private sector to invest in our province. We need to do whatever it takes to bring this project to fruition, and I am personally committed to working with this company. Projects like this are key to revital- izing the economy of B.C.

This government, through its deregulation initiative, can ensure that B.C. will secure projects of this nature. It's interesting to note that there was not a single pulp mill or, in fact, any private sector investment of this nature in the nineties in B.C. In fact, this project alone would exceed the entire investment made by the province's forest industry in either 1998 or 1999. I believe that the willingness of the private sector to consider this type of investment demonstrates their belief that this government is on the right track.

With this type of investment B.C. will enter a new era of prosperity — more great news. Mr. Speaker: That concludes private members' statements. Oral Questions FUNDING FOR MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES J. Kwan: In years previous, including last year, the budget document specifically stated the amount of money to health care, particularly to mental health. Yesterday we heard from the Minister of State for Men- tal Health a rhetorical commitment from him to fund mental health services at the necessary level. We know from the government's own document that hospital beds will close and the waiting lists will grow.

We know that the health authorities are being forced to make cuts. We know that from the Minister of Health Services, who says it will be up to the regional authorities to decide where they spend the money. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health tell us exactly how much money the health authorities are getting for mental health services? Hon. C.

Hansen: As part of the redesign of the way health care is working in British Columbia, we're actu- ally giving the authority to the health authorities around the province to make sure that they integrate care. [1420] A s t h e m e m b e r k n o w s , m e n t a l h e a l t h i s v e r y much….. It's very important that care be integrated with other care delivery at the community level. We're doing that, but the one thing I'd like to point out is that in terms of the funding for the mental health plan, this is the first time….

It's one of the few areas where dol- lars are actually targeted within the performance agreements with the health authorities. In addition, this is the first time that we've rolled out three-year funding. It's the first time that we have set out targets in terms of outcomes that we expect the health authorities to deliver on. J. Kwan: Nowhere in the estimates book does it identify the amount of money dedicated to mental health services.

Last week we saw the downloading from the Minister of Education of funding and of deci- sions to cut programs in the areas of school and educa- tion, just so she can rise up and say: "Hey, you know what? We didn't make these cuts. The health regions did. The regional authorities did." The CEOs of the health authorities are accountable only to the Minister of Health. What assurance can the Minister of State for Mental Health give this House that the decisions of the CEOs will be made in the best in- terests of those individuals and families who need mental health services in their communities? Hon. C.

Hansen: Unlike the previous government, we're not measuring the success of programs by how much money is spent on them. But the money for men- tal health is protected. The money for mental health has been transferred to the health authorities. The health authorities will be held accountable for deliver- ing on those programs. More importantly, they'll be held accountable on delivering better outcomes for patients.

To answer the member's last question, when it comes to accountability — unlike the previous gov- ernment, which tried to blame the health authorities — this is a government that's going to be accountable for the improved health service delivery in this province. That's what we will achieve.

1534 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 CAPITAL FUNDING FOR HEALTH CARE PROJECTS J. MacPhail: W e h a v e a d i f f e r e n t s t o r y t o d a y . N o t one single dollar is targeted for mental health in the budget — not one single dollar. But the budget documents also have a startling message for small communities. The message is that if you want to keep your hospital, you'll have to pay with deep cuts to services. The confidential documents con- firm that the health regions don't get any funding for capital expenditures.

Some small communities all over the province are right now fighting to save their hospi- tals. Each MLA knows this. A question for the Minister of Health Planning. The Minister of Health Planning has completely washed her hands of this problem by saying, "That's not our issue; it's the responsibility of the regional health au- thorities," just like they did in education. To the Minis- ter of Health Planning: why are British Columbians footing the millions of dollars for her ministry when she doesn't hold herself accountable to anyone for the cuts her government is making? Hon. S.

Hawkins: I'm surprised that this member has the audacity to ask about how money is spent in h e a l t h c a r e w h e n t h e y d i d n ' t k n o w w h a t t h e y w e r e doing. They never planned for health care. We've in- herited a system from them that left a fragmented, un- coordinated, unmanaged health care system. We've done more in the last nine months in planning, manag- ing and setting up the foundation for a system that's going to deliver better health care. You know what? When we went around the prov- ince, what people told us was that they wanted the politics out of health care decision-making.

We've given it to good people to look at the needs of their communities and manage and help us make those de- cisions. We expect them to be accountable for them. We expect them to help us deliver better patient outcomes than the last ten years. J. MacPhail: So far we know from the government: no money for mental health in the budget. No money for capital expenditures in the budget. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. [1425] J. MacPhail: The budget documents also lay out in detail every capital project that now won't get funding or will get closed down unless it's paid for with deep cuts in services.

The Ministers of Health say: "There's no problem. The regional health boards will make the decisions." Guess what. The regional health boards don't have any local representation — none whatso- ever. We know from the Premier yesterday that they're not going to get local representation. To the Minister of Health Planning: will she com- mit that she will direct health regions to conduct for- mal public hearings on the decisions to cut capital programs so that the public can actually be heard, so that local communities can have at least one iota of input into the cuts that are being made in their com- munities? Hon.

C. Hansen: I find it surprising that this mem- ber is going to stand up and criticize our approach to capital spending when, after the 1996 election, the first thing they did as a government — 28 days after the election — was freeze every single health capital pro- ject that they had promised. We are honouring the commitments to the projects that were in construction, which were already commit- ted to by the previous government — whether they were well-thought-out or not — because we have those obligations. Second, we made a limited… Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C.

Hansen: …number of promises to voters in this province around capital projects, and those are going ahead, funded under the former model — which is a model that's driven out of Victoria, where the debt- servicing costs are not carried by those communities and regions that are impacted by it but are carried by Victoria. What the member saw in my briefing documents were projects that the previous government had com- mitted to. They were not proceeding on them. They had not proceeded on them.

The member says that "with funding…." That's like saying: "I've got cheques in my chequebook — means I must have money in my bank." That's NDP philosophy. The list of capital projects that were listed in my briefing books that are not committed to under the old model are being reviewed by the health authorities as to whether they make sense on going forward in the future. There have been no projects cancelled. There are projects that are being reviewed at the health au- thority level. GRAVEL EXTRACTION FROM FRASER RIVER J. Les: My question today is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.

I'm picking on the minister today — not because we happen to share a birthday. It's much more down-to-earth than that. Until a few years ago gravel was removed from the Fraser River. This activity had been going on for many, many decades and obviously is necessary to manage the river so we don't have problems with flooding and seepage. It creates a lot of jobs and also provides a lot of material for the construction industry.

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1535 For the past four years, however, this activity has been banned by the federal and provincial govern- ments. During that period of time we've been assured over and over again that this activity would be allowed to recommence. To date, nothing has happened. Can the minister tell my constituents why gravel is still not being extracted today from the Fraser River? Hon. S. Hagen: I'd like to thank the member for Chilliwack-Sumas for the timely question on a very important topic.

It's particularly important to the peo- ple who live along the Fraser and the municipalities along the Fraser. As the member knows, the parties have gone through lengthy consultations and have looked at all of the scientific data. Last fall an agreement was reached to allow gravel extraction to resume subject to a num- ber of requirements, including appropriate permitting and consultations. In this process opportunities for gravel extraction were found for both the spring and the fall of this year, 2002.

It's my understanding that the consultation re- quirements of the federal government are presenting a challenge for the spring window, and I would refer the member to the

article in the Vancouver Sun this morn- ing where it lays out some of the problems the feds are facing. It also quotes the mayor of Chilliwack, who says: "If first nations want to take the gravel out, that's perfect. I don't care who gets the royalties. The gravel's got to come out of the river for flood protection." I can assure the member that we are working coop- eratively with the federal government to ensure that this is dealt with as quickly as possible. Mr. Speaker: The member for Chilliwack-Sumas has a supplementary question. J. Les: I thank the minister for his response, Mr. Speaker.

However, the window of opportunity this spring is almost closed. With these missed opportuni- ties mounting, so are the economic costs and, obvi- ously, the potential for flooding. What steps does the minister propose to take so that gravel can once again be removed from the Fraser River? [1430] Hon. S. Hagen: I understand and I share the mem- ber's frustration, believe me. Last fall I was under the impression that we would be able to extract gravel in a substantial manner, with no negative impacts on the environment, beginning early this year.

What I can assure the member and his constituents and all of the people who live along that area of the Fraser is that this government will do everything possible to ensure that gravel extraction begins as soon as possible. He also understands that the provincial government has in fact issued the relevant permits, and we'll continue to work with the federal government to ensure that federal permits are issued as soon as possible. FUNDING FOR POLICING IN SMALL COMMUNITIES D. Chutter: My question is for the Solicitor Gen- eral.

A number of mayors and constituents in my rid- ing have called my office to ask about the govern- ment's plans to change the funding formula for polic- ing in small communities. Could the Solicitor General tell us what changes, if any, have been made and how they will affect policing services in these communi- ties? Hon. R. Coleman: Through to the member, there have been no changes made to the policing formula in the province of British Columbia to date. What we did is….

Back in the UBCM convention in the fall, in Sep- tember, the Premier and I met with 14 communities who were facing the challenge of coming close or going over the threshold of 5,000 people. When a community reaches 5,000 they automatically pay 70 percent of their policing costs. There are 700,000 people in this province living in communities under 5,000 in rural areas, which pay little or no policing costs. We undertook to look at the formula in conjunction with UBCM, come up with a consultative process and move forward through the next year or so to come up with something that might work for those communities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yale-Lillooet has a supplementary question. D. Chutter: Under the previous government, changes were often made to provincially funded local services with little or no assistance to help with the transition. Could the Solicitor General tell my constitu- ents how he intends to help small communities imple- ment these changes through the transition to policing services? Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing, to the member, is that I would caution him on prejudging the process and what would be required as we go down this path.

The reality is that we have sat down with the UBCM, through the president of the UBCM, and agreed that as we come through with a number of options and fund- ing formulas, we will take those funding formulas — after we've had a look at them and the Ministry of Fi- nance has had a look at them — forward to a sympo- sium of smaller communities throughout the province, as coordinated by the UBCM, so that we can have that consultative process take place.

When we have com- pleted that consultative process, we will then go for- ward and find a funding formula that works for com- munities, one that allows us to engage in our long- range plan for policing in British Columbia, which would be a five-year plan for policing that works for everyone in British Columbia. And as we complete that… Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Thank you, hon. member.

1536 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 Hon. R. Coleman: …process, we will then come up with a phase-in plan that will work for everyone that would be affected by that funding formula. My concern would be that as…. Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. LOBBYISTS REGISTRY J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago now, we saw the details of the government's determi- nation to privatize health care services in British Co- lumbia. We saw that $700 million worth of services are up for grabs. I'm sure that the private sector is salivat- ing at the windfall of generosity.

I'm sure that their lobbyists will soon be beating a path to the doors of the CEOs of the health authorities. To the Attorney General: last year the Lobbyists Registration Act was passed. So when will it be pro- claimed — before or after the coming frenzy that will be hitting our health authorities? Hon. G. Plant: We're working on it, Mr. Speaker. [End of question period.] Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: In Committee B, this House, I call Committee of Supply. First of all, I call second reading of Bill 9, Medical Services Arbitration Act.

For the in- formation of members we'll be moving after that, if it passes, into Committee of Supply and be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health Planning. In Committee A, Douglas Fir Room, I call Commit- tee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Man- agement, followed by — if time allows — the Minis- tries of Provincial Revenue, Management Services, and Public Safety and Solicitor General. J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. Did the House Leader call Committee A now? Mr. Speaker: No. [1435] Hon. G. Collins: Mr.

Speaker, just so we don't have to disrupt the House when 4 o'clock comes, we have an agreement that Committee A will start at 4 o'clock, just for members' information. Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Committee of Supply in Committee A at 4 o'clock. Mr. Speaker: The Minister of State for Mental Health rises on a point of order. Point of Order Hon. G. Cheema: I have an obligation to declare an interest and withdraw from the debate on Bill 9, so that's what I'll be doing. Second Reading of Bills MEDICAL SERVICES ARBITRATION ACT Hon. C.

Hansen: I move that Bill 9, Medical Ser- vices Arbitration Act, be read for a second time. On February 8 of this year, an interim decision was handed down by former Chief Justice Allan McEachern in a process of binding-interest arbitration between the province of British Columbia and the British Columbia Medical Association with regard to doctors' compensa- tion issues. This binding-interest arbitration was trig- gered by a clause in the framework memorandum be- tween the government and the BCMA which had been signed by the previous government. Yesterday our government responded to Mr.

McEachern's interim arbitration decision. Our response is in three parts. We will provide an increase of $392 million for doc- tors' compensation in the coming fiscal year and retro- active compensation for the 2001-02 fiscal year. Secondly, we are introducing this legislation — Bill 9, the Medical Services Arbitration Act — to remove the risk of unsustainable increases in health care cost and inflexibility that prevents us from creating a health system that puts patients first as a result of binding- interest arbitration that could occur in the future be- tween governments and doctors.

Finally, we are making a commitment to strengthen the relationship among government, doctors and health authorities to serve the interests of patients. Doctors are an important and integral part of our health care system. Our government and all British Columbians place great value on the work that they perform. The actions that we are taking in response to the arbitrator's interim award reflect that value. As indicated in the provincial budget presented on February 19, government will provide doctors with funding increases worth an additional $392 million for this coming year.

This represents an extremely gener- ous settlement, one that is more than fair for doctors in British Columbia, who will continue to be among the highest-paid in Canada. Among the provinces, currently British Columbia s p e nd s t he m o s t p e r c ap i t a o n d o c t o r s e rv i c e . I t r ank s second on fee-for-service payments per physician and has the most generous benefit package of any province. We are doing this because we value doctors. We want to attract and retain doctors to give patients in the province the health care that they depend on.

We want to ensure that we are providing an attractive and com- petitive quality of life for our health care professionals, particularly in rural and remote communities. [1440] For the current fiscal year, 2001-02, doctors will receive almost immediately a 6.2 percent payment based on their fee billings for the period from April 1, 2001, to October 30, 2001, and, as soon as possible in the future, a further 11.6 percent payment retroactive to November 1, 2001. Eighty million dollars will be pro- vided retroactively for on-call services in the 2001-02

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1537 fiscal year. We will discuss the distribution of this funding with the BCMA and health authorities. These amounts that we are committing to are consistent with the arbitrator's decision.

Although the arbitration decision neglected to allocate any increase to physicians on salaries, ses- sional payments or service contracts, government has decided to allocate a comparable retroactive increase to those physicians so as not to create inequity with fee-for-service physicians, which leads me to talk about the very significant problems the arbitrator's decision presented for government, doctors and health care generally in this province.

Our first concern is that the interim decision man- dated an initial package of compensation and hinted at further increases of a magnitude that the taxpayers of this province simply cannot afford. It did not create an affordable, sustainable framework for the relation- ship between physicians and government. Health spending has more than tripled in British Columbia since 1985 from the $3 billion that was allocated that year to more than $10 billion in 2002. Health spending now accounts for 41 percent of the total provincial budget.

Health spending in B.C. now absorbs all our reve- nues from the provincial income tax, federal transfers, MSP premiums, tobacco tax and the recent increase in the provincial sales tax combined. In fact, the in- creased compensation pressures for doctors and other health professionals in the coming year is greater than all of the new revenue that will be generated by in- creases to the MSP premiums, the provincial sales tax and the tobacco tax combined.

The $392 million in- crease in physician funding alone represents almost all of the revenues derived from the increases in the sales tax, which was $250 million, and the increase in the tobacco tax, which was $150 million. W e c a n n o t c o n t i n u e t o a l l o c a t e m o r e a n d m o r e funding in the way we have, because these increases are simply not sustainable. In today's environment the risk of further increases through this arbitration process creates uncertainty for physicians, for patients and for taxpayers.

Further increases of this magnitude are unaffordable, and an uncertainty inherent in the arbitration process prevents us from putting the prov- ince's financial house in order. Furthermore, the arbi- trator's decision did not allocate funding increases in a way that begins to address inequities, shortcomings and the need for health care system redesign and fi- nancial certainty. Doctors have told us that the way physicians are currently compensated is not working for many of them. For example, the interim decision discussed on- call compensation on an hourly basis.

This would lead to a piecemeal process where some communities would be left with only part-time, sporadic coverage. Patients need to know that a doctor will be there for them and their families in an emergency. We need to work with the BCMA towards a sustainable on-call model. As well, compensation increases for doctors in alternative payment situations have lagged well be- hind fee increases. We want to create greater flexibil- ity in the area of physician services to make it easier for doctors to participate in new ways of working and being compensated. One of the things that we have made quite clear, Mr.

Speaker, is that we're not going to force any doc- tor off fee-for-service, because there are many doctors in this province that see that as the mode of operation that they think is most important to them, but we certainly want to recognize there are more and more doctors who want to move towards alternative pay- ment arrangements and out of the fee-for-service model. They are looking for new opportunities to provide care in alternative ways and greater balance in their lives than they can find in the fee-for-service system.

The arbitrator's interim decision did not address these structural problems in the ways in which physi- cians are compensated, and we have been left with the status quo. This will prevent us from managing health care dollars properly and effectively to meet patient needs.

That is why we have introduced this legislation, the Medical Services Arbitration Act, to remove the option of binding-interest arbitration from key agreements between the government and the BCMA. [1445] Bill 9, the Medical Services Arbitration Act, can- cels the binding-interest arbitration process between the government and the BCMA and the February 8 interim award decision. It removes particular sections and specific wording from key agreements between the government and the BCMA that would permit or require binding arbitration as the ultimate way to settle our differences.

Sections of these agreements that provide for a process of rights arbitration to settle differences within existing agreements are not af- fected by this legislation. We are going to fund the amount of the 2001-02 retroactive payments in that decision, but for the fu- ture we have to work with doctors to reform the sys- tem to change the way health dollars are allocated, to make the dollars work for patients and to make health care sustainable.

Binding-interest arbitration is also not the best way to build the relationship of trust and cooperation we need in British Columbia to save and renew a public health care system. Doctors are an integral and important part of our health care system, a n d w e n e e d t h e m t o b e p a r t o f t h e c h a n g e s w e a r e committed to making in our health care system. The funding enhancements we are providing are an op- portunity for government, health authorities and doc- tors to work together to achieve common goals.

Government will begin immediately to work with the BCMA on the distribution of retroactive payments for fee billings for 2001-02, as well as any changes in fee-for-service rates to take effect after April 1, 2002. We wish to use this new allocation to address some of the significant inequities among physicians. We will

1538 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 work with the BCMA and the health authorities on the new rates for alternative payment methods: ser- vice contracts, sessional payments, salaried arrange- ments and also remuneration for rural and remote doctors. We will work with the association to consider the best way to distribute and implement the non-fee items of the $392 million increase, including the de- sign of new provincewide on-call programs. D o c t o r s h a v e b e e n u r g i n g u s t o m a k e t h e s e r e - f o r m s . W e n e e d t h e i r h e l p t o d o t h i s .

I t i s t i m e f o r doctors to share the responsibility of helping us make these new dollars for medical services work for pa- tients. We need to work together to design programs that will compensate doctors appropriately and fairly for delivering the right services when and where pa- tients need them. Our government has made a com- mitment to British Columbians to create a health sys- tem that is sustainable and that puts patients first. Bill 9, which will remove the risks of binding arbi- tration to sustainability and flexibility in our health system, is an important step towards that goal.

I urge all members to support the passage of this legislation. Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 9 continues with the Leader of the Opposition. J. MacPhail: Well, isn't this interesting — this piece of legislation. I was listening very carefully to the Minister of Health Services, who I guess has a new responsibility for negotiating with the doctors. I wonder when that changed; it was the responsibility of the Minister of Health Planning, according to their own website. H e re we hav e t he M i ni s t e r o f H e al t h S e rv i c e s s t an d - ing up and literally negotiating through legislation.

I was listening very carefully to see whether he was going to describe any recent meetings that had actu- ally occurred up to and including today. Maybe he was excluded from those meetings; I don't know. [1450] Here he is somehow saying if you put velvet over a hammer, that's fine, and that doctors should be grateful because there's what the public may see as a substantial amount of money involved here. In one way, yes, the doctors did get a velvet glove over their hammer. Previous health care workers just got the ham m e r.

Y e s , t hi s M i ni s t e r o f H e al t h S e rv i c e s , wh i l e bringing in legislation that's unprecedented…. Once again, that's true: the government is a first in Canada. There's no question about it. They can take pride in being first in bringing down the hammer on doctors. There's no question about it. Doctors are supposed to be grateful because they covered that hammer with a glove. They got money; they got a substantial amount of money. We'll talk about that in a moment. They got a nice letter from the Minister of Health Services.

The other health care workers — whether it b e n u r s e s o r l a b t e c h n o l o g i s t s , h e a l t h c a r e a i d e s , housekeepers, laundry workers — didn't get a letter. They got a piece of legislation without any notice whatsoever — a complete shock to them, not even a phone call. Oh yes, I'm sorry. There was a phone call at 11 a.m. when the legislation was introduced at 1 p.m. That's true; they did get that phone call. They didn't get a nice letter explaining why it was necessary. Doctors got that, and doctors are supposed to be grateful for that, I guess.

They're supposed to be grateful for the velvet glove, and they're supposed to somehow be quiet because the minister is out there spinning that each doctor gets an average of $50,000 increase. Lots of British Columbians would say: "Wow, $50,000. That's more than I make in a year." That's what the minister's counting on — that that's where the debate will go. But what exactly did the minister do? What did this government do, actually? I'm not actually sure whether the minister has direct responsibility for this issue, unless he was part of these very recent discus- sions up to and including today.

I don't think he was. What exactly did the government do in this piece of legislation? Well, they put our whole health care system at risk. Whether we approve of it or not, phy- sicians are the gatekeepers of our health care system, a n d t h a t ' s a n i s s u e t o b e d e b a t e d . A s i t s t a n d s n o w , physicians are the gatekeepers to virtually every as- pect of our health care system that this government is currently funding. They eliminated funding for the s e r v i c e s t h a t a r e n ' t p h y s i c i a n - d i r e c t e d , s u c h a s m a s - sage therapy, podiatry and physiotherapy.

Here we have the gatekeepers of our health care system with no avenue open to them for dispute reso- lution ― none whatsoever. I suppose they could try to come into the Legislature, storm the doors of the Leg- islature and have a say in terms of what their negotia- tions should be, what their compensation should be. Or maybe there are going to be some Liberal MLAs who are actually going to rise and negotiate on behalf of the physicians in their communities, because this is where the negotiations are being done. We just heard it from the Minister of Health Services.

He's started negotiating with the doctors in a piece of leg- islation. I'd like to know ― perhaps just help me; it's true I'm getting old…. When there is the ability of 76 duck- lings in a row to bring down the hammer of legisla- tion on the one hand and doctors' rights to negotiate on the other hand, how could anyone possibly call that negotiations? To date, what we have seen by this Liberal government is their way of negotiating: to slap down the most draconian legislation in the Legis- lature, ram it through with their unbelievable major- ity and say: "Well, we tried. That was negotiation. We tried.

What do you mean we didn't negotiate? Of course we negotiated. Didn't you see that discussion we had in the Legislature? How dare you say we did- n't negotiate?" That's all doctors have available to them now. That's all they have. What does that do to our health care system, with doctors as gatekeepers? Mr. Speaker, I w a n t t o m a k e i t v e r y c l e a r t h a t I a m u s i n g t h e t e r m gatekeeper in a very positive way. The physicians in our society take their role as gatekeepers, initially, in

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1539 the health care system extremely responsibly and seri- ously. Let's just see what the gatekeepers of our system now have available to them and what that means for our system. I guess they don't have arbitration be- cause, as the minister just said, there are risks to arbi- tration. Yeah. When you enter into a dispute resolu- tion mechanism where there are two parties, unless you're some sort of bizarre, authoritarian, tyrannical group, you expect there to be give and take, that you don't have the ability to impose your will unilaterally.

When you have negotiations there has to be some dispute resolution mechanism. Sometimes there are risks in a dispute resolution process, but unless you're some sort of dictatorship, that's what taking a bal- anced approach is all about. [1455] It turns out that this government is a dictatorship. That's what we know today. This is the new addition to the extreme Liberal agenda: they truly are dicta- tors. Even though Bills 27, 28 and 29 were unbelieva- bly draconian, this government has actually outdone itself in this legislation by outlawing any sort of dis- pute resolution. That's brand-new.

Here we have physicians with no dispute resolu- t i o n m e c h a n i s m . T h e g o v e r n m e n t i s s a y i n g t h e y ' r e going to negotiate and therefore are clearly admitting there are matters unresolved. What may the doctors have available to them? I don't know. I only know what's been reported. Many of them — or some of them, actually…. I won't exaggerate. There's no need t o e x a g g e r a t e o n t h i s p i e c e o f l e g i s l a t i o n ; i t ' s s o e x - treme in itself. What some physicians are saying is that they'll be forced to withdraw their services.

There we have the whole health care system being put at risk because of this legislation. Nobody else is putting it at risk. The government can't stand up and say: "Look what happened in the past. It was the last ten years that created this." I'm surprised the minister didn't actually mention fast ferries. He knows why he can't. It's because this is entirely of this government's making. Let's just talk about when situations like this have arisen in the past, when previous governments have negotiated contracts with the physicians.

Previous governments were actually honest with physicians during an election and said, "If we're elected, we won't be honouring that contract," and then entered into negotiations with the doctors and settled the mat- ter by agreeing to arbitration. That's the difference: honesty during the election about what they were going to do, unlike this government who said, "Don't w o r r y , d o c t o r s ; w e ' r e y o u r b e s t f r i e n d s , " t h e n m o - ments after they were elected said that this arbitration process is good news.

Not only is the arbitration process good news, the arbitrator himself is the ap- propriate person, so…. Misleading during the elec- tion, misleading after the election, and then the big hammer of dictatorship — that's what happened to- day. Maybe this minister wasn't paying attention in 1991. He could have replicated what happened in 1991, which is when the then Leader of the Opposi- tion said: "We won't honour that contract. It's an ev- ergreen contract with no chance of negotiation.

If we get elected we won't honour it, but we'll enter into negotiations with the doctors." That's exactly what happened, and then the matters were put to arbitra- tion, and arbitration continues until today. I dare any government member to stand up and say that somehow that was bad and this is good. I dare any government member to do that. They won't be able to, because then they'd have to admit that they lied during the election. I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. My apologies. I withdraw. They misled the public during the election. They misled the public when they appointed the arbitrator.

Today we have the truth. [1500] The Minister of Health Services thinks it should all go away because he's putting $392 million on the ta- ble. That's tod ay . Who k nows what the hec k he 'l l do six weeks from now? Maybe the Minister of Finance, w h o ' s r e a l l y i n c o n t r o l o f t h i s f i l e , w i l l c o m e t o t h e M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h S e r v i c e s a n d s a y : " I ' m s o r r y . Y o u know what? Our economic agenda is failing even more miserably, and we can't raise taxes again so soon after we raised taxes the last time. I'm sorry. There's no money available.

You'll have to go in and renege on what you committed to the doctors." What avenue will the doctors have available to them if that happens? You know what? I'm not making that scenario up — given what the government's performance has been and what their actions have been today — where the Minister of Finance woke up one morning and said: "Oh my god, I've got to deal with this arbitra- tion. Let's raise taxes." Didn't he say he had 24 hours to think about that? I guess he was cranky. He didn't h a v e a g o o d s l e e p .

H e f o r g o t t h a t h e k n e w a l l v e r y well and good what this arbitration was going to cost. He woke up and said: "Oh, I'm going to raise taxes." He's taking a lot of heat now for breaking that promise and raising taxes. Who knows? Maybe the Minister of Finance will have another bad sleep and have to come back in and say: "Oh, I'm sorry. I have to reverse myself again. You can't have that money, M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h S e r v i c e s , t o g i v e t o t h e d o c t o r s .

Just go and tell them, will you?" The doctors will say: "But you said you'd negotiate." And the Minister of Health Services will say: "Well, I am negotiating. I'm telling you I don't have any money to give you. What do you think I'm doing? Of course I'm negotiating." They'll say: "But you're not negotiating. Negotiating is give and take and listening to reason and understand- ing what the pressures are on the system." He'll say: "Well, I've just heard from the Minister of Finance that I don't have money, so thank you very much for coming to negotiations.

Goodbye." What will the doctors be able to do if that scenario occurs? Nothing — nothing legal, anyway. And that's

1540 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 where our health care system rests today — nothing legal. I expect that as British Columbians understand this and as they get beyond this veil that the Minister of Health Services is trying to put over this scenario by saying, "It's $392 million, and it's an average of $50,000 per doctor. What is your problem…?" As the public lifts that gauze that this government tries to put over every draconian action they take and when they see how our health care system is at risk, they will be even more frightened today than they were yesterday.

Be- lieve you me, there are fears about our health care sys- tem like I've never seen before. Somehow the government thinks they can do all this because they have an inability to pay. Well, my gosh. They didn't have an inability to shovel it off the back of a truck to corporations on day one in office. They didn't think for a moment that there would be any problem just taking the big public purse and emp- tying it onto the desks of the corporations, saying: "Here, take this money. Don't worry. It's only day one. We know what we're doing. But don't worry.

We'll be able to fill that public purse up again." You didn't have any trouble doing that. All of a sudden, now there's no money. There's no money to honour the arbitration. I wonder if those two events are linked. I wonder if there's a linkage between their going into that big corporate boardroom on Howe Street and taking the purse, clunking it down and shaking it so it's almost empty and now opening it and saying: "Oh my gosh, there's no money." I won- der if the government links those two events.

Well, the public does. [1505] Do the doctors have any other avenue where they can actually bring their expertise to the attention of the public? Well, no. Yesterday we learned from the Pre- m i e r t hat p hy s i c i ans are b arr e d f ro m s i t t i ng o n he al t h authorities. They're not going to be able to sit on health authorities. The physicians themselves said it was aw- ful during the 1990s, because they had one representa- tive guaranteed on each health authority, but they did- n't get to choose; they only had input into.… A range of people could be nominated for that.

This scenario of disbarment from health boards was worse . Well, their worst nightmare has come true. The Premier confirmed it yesterday. Physicians will be barred from representa- tion on health authorities. So that avenue is closed to them. Doctors won't be able to go to health authorities and say: "My gosh, the government's being a dictator in terms of how we're treated. Can I make my point at the health authority?" They won't have any avenue there either. So what will doctors be able to do? Nothing legal. Nothing legal.

I remember clearly the now Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, saying during the dispute where the doctors did withdraw their services in northern B.C: "Give them 100 million bucks for that on-call issue. Put a hundred million dollars on the table and deal with that part of the problem." I wonder how that compares with what the Minister of Finance is giving doctors today. But that was then. He was spending, I guess, other people's money. The now Premier was spending other people's money back then. Somehow, when it's his own responsibility he doesn't want to actually take that responsibility.

He wants to bring the heavy hand of legislation down onto physicians. In speaking with the B.C. Medical Association — my office spoke with them just this afternoon — they have some concerns. There's no question. Some of the concerns they've already listed in public about break- ing the Canada Health Act and there being no dispute resolution mechanism. They have some questions, as well, and they're questions that should be part of nego- tiations with the dispute resolution mechanism. But they don't have any avenue here.

Certainly, the Liberal MLAs aren't speaking on their behalf and aren't bring- ing their points of view forward. Or maybe this will be the exception when Liberal MLAs whose health care is being affected will actually get up and speak. They have some concerns that the arbitration had a payment for matters such as on-call and recruitment, and they're wondering…. The government yesterday announced a similar amount of money, but is that for one year? Is it for two years? Is it an ongoing payment? Is it a one- time payment? No answers — none. [H.

Long in the chair.] Again, as the Minister of Health Services conducts negotiations in this chamber, which he did in his open- ing remarks, there are questions from the doctors themselves about whether there is a provincewide formula on how to apply the on-call provisions. Will it be a community-by-community negotiation where one community will be pitted against another? Will there be any discussion about levels of service that need to be provided? Agreements that are already in place for on-call and attraction and retention — do they prevail, or are they wiped out by the fiat of this legislation?

Are some of them wiped out? Are all of them wiped out? How do those things work? [1510] If the doctors don't agree and go, "Aye, aye, sir," what do they do? Will we now have a situation where Richmond can afford to pay more for doctors on call, and therefore all the doctors from Bulkley Valley– Stikine will leave and go to Richmond? That could be a possibility. Who knows what this government's got in its mind? Who knows, and when will we hear about it? Will we hear about it during some lobbed question from a backbencher to a government minis- ter? I can just imagine it: "Tell me, Minister of Health Services….

My community doesn't have any doctors left in it because you didn't honour the on-call arbitra- tion clause. What are you going to do about that?" Of course that will be after the fact, when all the doctors have left the community. Is that a potential scenario? You bet it is. As physicians themselves point out here in our conversation with their association, it took the gov- ernment three weeks to consider the arbitration. Now,

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1541 in one day — maybe a couple of days…. I bet you any- thing that this will have royal assent by tomorrow. I bet you anything that we'll see the Lieutenant-Governor in here rushing through royal assent for Bill 9. It took them three weeks to consider the arbitration, and now they're pushing through their response to the arbitra- tion — that heavy hand of legislation — without any opportunity for the public to absorb what's happening here — none of it. Such an open and accountable government…. Isn't it interesting?

What's open and accountable about this government ramming through a major, major change to our health care system — which is perhaps as debili- tating as we have ever seen — by making it illegal for the gatekeepers of our health care system to have any way to resolve their concerns? There are another couple of points that I need to make, but I need to yield for an introduction. A. Hamilton: I seek leave of the House to make an introduction. Leave granted. Introductions by Members A.

Hamilton: I t i s m y p l e a s u r e t o w e l c o m e t o t h e House a group of exchange students from the city of Quebec, accompanied by teachers Rob House, M. Bruno Audet and Stéphane Gradine, who are visiting Esquimalt high school in my constituency. Would the House please make them welcome. Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much, member, for yielding the floor. Debate Continued J. MacPhail: Where is the openness and account- ability here?

This is why I was pursuing the Premier so carefully in his estimates yesterday about the health authorities and about what community representation there will be on the health authorities, so that commu- nities would actually have some local voice in what's happening to their health care system. The Premier stood up — I was shocked, actually — and said, "We're not having constituency-based health authorities," as if it were a crime to have community input, community representation. We will not be doing representation from communities.

So we don't have any physicians, health care workers — health care workers are pre- cluded from sitting on the health authorities too — or community representatives on the health board. I said: "We now have a health board that stretches from the west coast to the Alberta border, with dozens of small communities in there, and they're not going to get representation on the health board." I guess there's no community input through the health authority, and there's certainly no opportunity for the public to have their voices heard on this legislation.

I predict that we'll see the Lieutenant-Governor marching down the aisle here tomorrow. If I'm wrong, I'll be delighted, but I predict she'll be here. [1515] Why is that? To preclude physicians from taking this government to court. Not only do they not like to negotiate, they don't like that messy court stuff where they have to be held accountable through our legal system. They like just to say, by the stroke of a pen: "Oh, we're sorry. You can't bring any legal challenges to this legislation." That's a new and improved…. Ac- tually, it isn't new and it isn't improved.

It's the same sort of bar to any court challenge that existed in Bills 27, 28 and 29. We have an arbitration system here that isn't work- ing, says the government. It was too risky. Oh, I feel so badly that it was so risky. Arbitration doesn't work; job action doesn't work. What does work if someone dis- agrees with this government, and who gets to deter- mine? Do the physicians now go into negotiations about how the fees are changed as a result of this lift? Is it across the board, or has that already been deter- mined for what the government is doing out of its own playbook?

Will that create confusion and trouble? I wonder if there'll be services that the government is saying now won't be listed. Will there be delisting of services? Will MSP now cover only this range of ser- vices as opposed to the full range of services that it now covers? These are questions that I have, but I know I won't get answers to them, and I know the public won't get answers to them either. The best the Minister of Health Services can do is say: "Aren't we nice guys because we gave you so much money? Don't worry. We'll go into negotiations.

We won't give you any opportunity to resolve those negotiations, but don't worry. Turn on your TV, and you can see the negotiations as they hap- pen in the Legislature." I predict that this legislation will be law as quick as you can say "breaking a con- tract." Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be voting against this legislation, as we have for every piece of legislation that is another broken promise by this government and that breaks another legal binding arrangement. B.

Lekstrom: I rise in the House today to express my concern about Bill 9 and voice my opposition at this point. Although I find the decision of the arbitrator to be quite amazing, circumstances were not taken into ac- count in this decision, which has brought about Bill 9. There are sections of Bill 9 where I stand — and I've spoken in this House before — on my basic principles of existing agreements. For that reason — although I believe Mr.

McEachern erred significantly in the deci- sion of this arbitration by not taking into consideration the province's ability to pay and the financial situation — the way I read the document, I have grave concern with that. I d o h a v e f u n d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e s t h a t I ' v e s p o k e n about before on the issue of existing agreements. For

1542 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 that reason I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill 9, and I will not be supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker. J. Kwan: I want to just review for the House a little bit of the record of this government to date on all mat- ters relating to negotiations or agreements — just to see, really, the sorry state that this Liberal government has brought British Columbia to. [1520] Casting our minds back to last year, we'll recall that there was an emergency session called in this Legisla- ture. It was to deal with the nurses.

The Liberal gov- ernment says the nurses are demanding too much, and we cannot honour what you're demanding because British Columbians cannot afford to do so. This Liberal government has demonstrated through those actions that they have no capacity to negotiate with the nurses, the health care workers or the health care professionals in British Columbia — irrespective of the fact that they mouth the words that they value the work of these health care professionals and the nurses in their jobs and the work that they do and how they care for the patients.

At the same time they find they have zero ability whatsoever to engage in, quite frankly, good-faith ne- gotiations with the health care workers, the nurses and the health professionals. What did they decide to do? They decided to bring in legislation in an emergency sitting in this House with a big hammer that came crashing down on these workers who provide for qual- ity care, the full range of quality health care services to patients in British Columbia and to their families.

Then, when we engaged in that debate, I recall ask- ing: "Why don't we engage in the process of arbitration wherein when you have a dispute between parties, you go to a third party, somebody who is not biased one way or the other with any side, and bring this third party in and ask him, her or them — it could be a panel of people — to review the matters and then make rec- ommendations?" If those recommendations were not binding, at least you'd then have a starting point to engage in discussions and negotiations and hopefully bring the parties closer.

Well, the government then said: "No can do." They couldn't do that, because the parties are too far apart, and that wasn't possible. Then we said: "Okay, what about taking the option of a binding arbitration?

If you think you cannot nego- tiate bringing the parties together, then the fairest way to go through the process of a dispute of this nature is to go to a third party and then have a completely inde- pendent person — a fair-minded person — go through this process and evaluate the matters and come for- ward with recommendations that are binding." Well, government then said: "No, couldn't do that either." That was with the health care workers, with the health care professionals, with the nurses. That's what this government did — came in with a big hammer and legislated what they wanted without negotiation.

Then we saw later on the same year, last year, the transit issue where — fair enough — it was TransLink who couldn't bring the matters to resolution. Knowing the relationship of the Premier and the then chair of the TransLink board, George Puil, everybody understood that there would be opportunities for this government to work with TransLink to bring a resolution to the transit dispute. Well, they couldn't do that either — couldn't lend a hand in that process. W h a t d i d t h i s g o v e r n m e n t d o ?

I t c a m e i n w i t h a n emergency sitting once again in this Legislature and brought down another hammer, only this time with the transit workers. They couldn't negotiate. They couldn't go through a fair process of arbitration for recommen- dations for further negotiations. They couldn't go through a process of arbitration with binding recom- mendations. They couldn't go through a process of working with the partners in the system to bring for- ward resolution to disputes.

Then this year we have the teachers, the educators in our school system, both K-to-12 and post-secondary, colleges and universities — all of them, even the groups that weren't under negotiations. I guess this government couldn't stand the process of negotiation. So with the teachers, what did they do? They couldn't negotiate and bring in an agreement with the teachers in the K-to-12 sector. They couldn't agree to bringing an arbitrator into the process for recommendations.

They couldn't bring an arbitrator for binding recom- mendations to end the dispute of the educators and bring resolution to the matter. [1525] This government once again, in another emergency sitting of the House, brought in heavy legislation — heavy legislation that tore up collective agreements, which they said they wouldn't do during the election. They forced the teachers back to work, creating hard feelings with all of the sectors — health care and educa- tion — that provide essential, critical services to British Columbians.

To the teachers, before they had the emergency sitting, the government said, "We'll bring in essential legislation that will bring the parties in the dispute closer together, and we'll be able to find resolution" — only to find that their own essential services legislation further harmed the process of negotiations. It further escalated the conflict between the two sides to the point where this government called the emergency sitting. With Bills 27, 28 and 29, not only did we see the big hammer being brought down for educators.

Through those bills the government brought down changes — particularly in the health care sector — to the legisla- tion that they had just brought in, in the last sitting through an emergency sitting, by tearing up compo- nents of that agreement which they had forced the nurses and the health care workers to take. They've torn that up and said: "Oh gee, that didn't work. We were wrong then." Mind you, it was only last summer when that piece of legislation was brought to this House. I have to ask: what works with this government?

In all of the sequence around negotiations in these sectors, this government has proven that they are not able to

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1543 negotiate with anybody and come to a resolution on any of these issues. They did not find that there could be any fair approach, even involving independent peo- ple to come into the process. Even then, they thought that couldn't be a fair approach in settling disputes. Then, just when they finished passing emergency resolutions that were debated deep into the evening, into the early hours of the morning….

No sooner was that legislation passed than we find ourselves in the House once again with emergency sittings, tearing up those provisions that this government had brought forward in the health care sector. "Oops, those didn't work. We didn't know what we were doing then, so we'll now have yet another emergency sitting with changes to the legislation." Now we find ourselves dealing with the issues with legislation once again, for the doctors. You know what? This Liberal government is very fond of blaming the previous government, the previous administration.

But let's just review, for a little bit, the history around the arbitration process with the doctors. I t w a s i n f a c t t h i s M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h S e r v i c e s t h a t appointed Justice McEachern to the process. It was this minister who said that this justice is fair-minded, has a high level of integrity and has the full support of the p ro v i nc i al g o v e r nm e nt t o m o v e f o rwar d o n t hi s b i nd - ing arbitration process. It was this minister who said that, not the previous administration. It was this minis- ter who had done that work.

Now, lo and behold, maybe the member for Van- couver-Hastings was right, because one morning the Minister of Finance just woke up and decided: "Oh my god, what have we done?" [1530] He'd had a bad night of sleep — maybe he had a nightmare or two — and he decided that this arbitra- tion decision was one shock. It was all brand-new in- formation; he didn't know anything about it.

It was as though he had a mind-lapse of some sort and then de- cided that the decision from Chief Justice McEachern was a complete surprise and something that this gov- ernment could not manage, when in fact it was this government that engaged in that process as well. They know full well about the issues the government was faced with around the settlement of the doctors. The government is demonstrating through this process, quite frankly, that they can't negotiate with anyone on anything at any time at all, whether it be health care workers, teachers, educators or transit workers.

They cannot engage in negotiations with any- one. They can't utilize any process other than the big hammer of legislation through the Legislature by bringing the 75 — 75 — trained seals into this House, thumping their desks and bringing through legislation.

I'm glad the member from Dawson Creek has the integrity to stand up in this House and say: "I cannot support this; it's the wrong approach." I think the mem- ber understands the signals this government is sending to everybody, whether they're in the public sector or the private sector — that this government has zero ability to negotiate on anything, at any time, anywhere. Not only can they not negotiate, but even after they bring in their legislation and after they table legislation in this House to say that this is going to work, months later they discover: "Oh gee, we were wrong. That did- n't work.

Got to bring in legislation to wipe that out." It's therefore breaking legislation that they themselves brought in, tearing up those pieces of agreements — I shouldn't say agreements; those forced agreements — from this government. That's the process this govern- ment has demonstrated on all negotiations to date, since they became government — I guess about nine months now. I worry from the point of view of the message this g o v e r n m e n t i s s e n d i n g .

N o t o n l y d o t h e y t e a r u p agreements — which they said they wouldn't do — not only do they force agreements on people that they can- not engage in negotiations with, they put in the provi- sions of the legislation to say to people: "When we tear up these legally binding agreements with you, you will have no legal recourse. You will have no ability to sue the government for breach of contract." This is what this government's approach has been on all issues to date.

Yet the process through the justice system is one that we value above all else, I think, in a democratic s y s t e m , i n a d e m o c r a c y : t o h a v e o u r d a y i n c o u r t , t o have the judge make a fair decision on matters of dis- pute. The government has even stepped in to prevent that from happening — taking away the right, the au- thority, of British Columbians to have their day in court. That's been the process, to date, with this government. [1535] When we look at the issues around the doctors and the binding arbitration, which this minister had par- ticipated in….

This Minister of Health Services has said he values and honours the work of Chief Justice McEachern and says that this government has the full support of this arbitrator, the Chief Justice, in their work. And only now we find that that, too, was wrong. That was a false statement. This government perhaps never had the intention of honouring the arbitration.

Perhaps this government never had the intention of coming to an agreement in a mutually agreeable way with any sector at all, because they know at the back of their minds that when things don't seem to be going their way, all they have to do is call in the House and bring in the trained seals and have the legislation slammed through.

Then all will be settled, with the exception of the damage that will be left on the trail — the damage in relation to engaging in negotiations in good faith, the impression that this government has zero ability, zero intention, to do that; the damage of sending hypocriti- cal signals to the health care workers, doctors and teachers — all the people this government has resorted to this tactic with — to indicate to them that really this government doesn't value their work and their com- mitment, further harming the relationship with these sectors when British Columbians depend on the exper- tise of these individuals in providing services; in caring for the patients, the sick and the ill; working with the families to explain to them the illnesses that their loved

1544 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W EDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 ones are faced with and how to manage it; and, in the case of the teachers, with the students in their learning environment. This, of course, comes right on the heels of the shortage of professionals in all of these sectors. The government, at every turn, has said to these people and is demonstrating in every shape and way they can that they do not value our professionals in these sectors. How does this government then expect that we would be able to attract more doctors, nurses and health pro- fessionals into our communities?

Who would come to British Columbia when all they see with this government's action is our contradic- tory approaches? On the one hand, they mouth the words that they really value these committed indi- viduals. On the other hand, all they do is slam them with legislation that, in fact, the government doesn't even bother to take the time to consult and go through with these different sectors. They don't even bother or have the courtesy to do that. How is this government expecting that we will be able to attract health profes- sionals, doctors, to our communities?

Of course, in the rural communities, the challenge is even greater because of the different geographic de- mands. Irrespective, the government is just going to move forward and send, I would say, a very negative signal — the wrong signal — to all of these valued pro- fessionals in our communities.

Unfortunately, the people who would have to pay for the mistakes of this government since its inception are British Columbians: people who need these services, communities that depend on these services — and in the health care sector, throwing further chaos into our sys- tem and further damaging the delivery of health care. [1540] This is all in the midst of a government's budget that came forward and said that hospitals will close, wait lists will grow, MSP premiums will grow, Phar- macare services will be delisted and ambulance service response time will be lengthened.

This is all in an envi- ronment that has been created by this government to put further pressure on the health care system and fur- ther stresses into our communities. So, hon. Speaker, I will not be supporting this piece of legislation. I think the government's approach to ad- dressing disputes is the wrong one. If the final resort of arbitration cannot be honoured, then what mechanism is there to go through in trying to resolve conflicts and negotiations in a fair-minded and independent way?

The minister's answer to that question is to bring in heavy legislation and slam the people who participated in this process in good faith. The minister's answer is to simply say to all British Columbians that the word of this government, this Liberal government, cannot be trusted and that they have zero capacity whatsoever to negotiate with anybody on any issue at any time, unless, I suppose, you are big corporation representa- tives or the wealthiest British Columbians.

In that in- stance, the government would not even blink or even step in to take a look at the books before they hand them huge benefits by way of tax cuts — tax cuts that by far benefit the wealthiest British Columbians and the biggest corporations in British Columbia. With that group, there is no negotiation needed or necessary be- cause they have, in my view, already bought the Lib- eral Party and the government in terms of favours.

I think it is shameful — the direction of this gov- ernment and their ability or, better yet, inability to en- gage in negotiations and bring forward mutually agreeable settlements to all of these sectors. L. Mayencourt: I w a n t t o t a k e j u s t a m o m e n t t o make a brief comment about this particular bill. I've spent a lot of time in the last few weeks speaking with people in my constituency about this arbitration award. I think most people in British Columbia agree that we want to have the best possible health care sys- tem and that we want to be able to pay people what they're worth.

We've done that with nurses, with hos- pital employees and with paraprofessionals, and we are now doing that with physicians. I think that most British Columbians have come to the realization that we're in bad shape financially, and it is because of the previous government. I would like to say that the… Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. L. Mayencourt: …Minister of Health Services did not say that we are in this problem because of fast fer- ries or Skeena Cellulose or because of all…. But that is precisely why we're here.

The previous government, the government that these two members represented, oversaw a period of time, a decade, when the health care system fell apart. Instead of fixing it, they brought in nine separate Health ministers. That has led to a deterioration of the health care system in this province. It has also led to the deterioration of our ability to pay. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. L. Mayencourt: I have talked with the members of my constituency, and they have told me that this is a fair increase. It helps the doctors. Interjections. [1545] Deputy Speaker: Members, would you mind.

The member has the floor. L. Mayencourt: It is a fair increase for the doctors of this province. I have spoken to many physicians in my riding who feel that is the case as well. I am s t and i n g u p b e c au s e I want t o m ak e i t re al l y clear to the members of this House that I support the Health minister in his efforts to put patients first and to protect the health care system that we have fought very

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 2002 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 1545 hard to prese rve. I believe thi s is o ne more step along the way to helping us get there, so I support this bill. I do not think that the arbitration…. I have great respect for the Chief Justice who put together this arbi- tration report, but I think that what he did not do — and I think it is a shame — is consider our capacity to pay for this award. The only way we could pay for this award, Mr. Speaker, is to raise taxes, raise MSP premi- ums and raise the cost of health care for ordinary Brit- ish Columbians.

These members have spoken against that for the last week, so it rings hollow… Interjections. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. L. Mayencourt: …to me to hear from these two members that they are the great defenders of a health care system, when they oversaw its deterioration over the past ten years. I support this bill. I respect very much the com- ments from the member for Peace River South, and I understand.

This is a free vote, and I am very glad to be able to stand here freely and support this bill, be- cause I believe that the Health minister has a clear vi- sion of how to make a better health care system for British Columbia. I support him, and I support this government in that effort. Hon. C. Hansen: I listened very closely to the re- marks by the two members of the opposition. I guess I was looking for their answer as to what they would do if they were in government. They didn't actually say this, but if you sort of string all that together, basically what they were saying is: "Just pay everything.

Just pay it without any regard as to where those dollars would come from." It was as if money grows on trees. I think part of the problem we inherited is that there were nine or ten years of government where there was that attitude in the cabinet chamber. Hon. Speaker, I want to give the two members credit. They both raised some very good questions. They raised questions about how the $392 million would be allocated. I've got to be frank with them. I don't have answers to some of those questions that they asked.

We can certainly get into that when we get into committee stage, because if you look through the arbitration award that was brought in by Mr. McEachern, it actually generates more questions than answers. That's one of the problems we've got with it. In many cases, the questions that were raised, particu- larly the questions that were posed by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, are questions that are not an- swered in the arbitration. They are going to rely on negotiations between government and the BCMA in terms of how we actually implement some of the things he suggested in this award.

I want to just draw everybody's attention to the four points that are in the terms of reference that were given to the arbitrator. First of all, the terms of refer- ence of such an arbitration will include the objective of being consistent with the law and the terms of the mas- ter agreement. That's number one. The second item in the terms of reference is that it must be reflecting the financial circumstances of government. Thirdly, the need to provide reasonable compensation to the physi- cians for the services rendered. And fourthly, the op- erational and medical resource needs of the health au- thorities.

Those are the four items in the terms of refer- ence. Maybe I'm going to be too generous here, but I w a n t t o g i v e t h e p r e v i o u s g o v e r n m e n t s o m e c r e d i t , because they were the ones that put in place those terms of reference. I would say that even the previous government would not have gone into a binding arbi- tration process without some protection for the tax- payer, and they did that. One of the terms of reference is quite clear that the arbitrator's decision must reflect the financial circumstances of government.

The McEachern report does not properly reflect the finan- cial circumstances of government. And the fourth item in here — the operational and medical resource needs of the health authorities — I would also argue, is not reflected in the award. [1550] We have a couple of options that are there before government. One of the options is that we try to find some way just to pay for this, which is what the mem- bers are suggesting. That would mean significant tax increases to government. It would mean significant cuts to health care service delivery in this province.

We would actually have to be diverting health care dollars away from patient care in order to fund what the arbi- trator is suggesting in this report. The second option we have would be to appeal the report. Actually, there are grounds for us to appeal, because in our view the arbitrator did not adequately take into consideration two of the four items in his terms of reference.

I would like to suggest to the hon. member, who is very concerned about the stability of physician services in the province, that the most desta- bilizing option that we could have done would have b e e n t o a p p e a l t h i s d e c i s i o n . I t w o u l d h a v e g e n e r a t e d months of uncertainty. Interjection. Deputy Speaker: Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order. Hon. C. Hansen: There was uncertainty among physicians in parts of the province around the retroac- tive nature and what might come out of the arbitration award.

None of the options was particularly desirable, but the option that we felt was the most desirable was to make sure that we could bring certainty to the com- pensation issues for doctors, that we could actually put on the table the dollars necessary to fund phase 1 of the arbitration award — which provides for retroactive payments to doctors back to April 1, 2001 — and that we can actually do something that the arbitrator did

1546 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES W E

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0306pm-21
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0306pm 21
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	755727f34fb6360b12948bace6a099b5709778aa

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).