1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 23, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 1

[ Page 2919 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

Hon. L. Boone: In the gallery this afternoon are a group of visiting Oregonians, members of the Oregon Children's Choir. Those of you in the building over lunch would have heard their delightful voices echoing through the rotunda. Would the members of this House please join me in welcoming these musical ambassadors to British Columbia.

D. Schreck: In the gallery this afternoon are two of the many fine people from North Vancouver-Lonsdale. Will the House join me in welcoming Anne Becker and Richard Dixon.

H. De Jong: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House this afternoon Rod Brooks and Carol Martens. They're both Young Socreds from the Abbotsford constituency. I ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to introduce two people who are not Young Socreds but colourful individuals in British Columbia: Jim Wilson, who, by the way, is an organizer for the Easter be-in, and Robert Gaffney. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: Hon. Speaker, as a parent of a student who goes to Rockheights Elementary, it is a great pleasure to see 25 grade 6 students from Rockheights Elementary School in the gallery today, joined by their teacher, Mrs. Sinclair. I'll take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Education for making funds available for a new library at Rockheights Elementary and to wish the students well.

F. Gingell: Anybody who lived in the district of Surrey during the 1950s, '60s and '70s will well know Jock Smith, a longtime Surrey School Board member. He is here today with his wife, Mary, and his grandson Richard Douglas Waters. Please help make them welcome.

B. Copping: Touring the precincts today are 65 grade 4 and 5 students and their teacher, Mrs. Robertson, from Harbour View Elementary school in Coquitlam. Would the House please make them welcome.

E. Conroy: It's truly a pleasure to introduce to the House a longtime friend and supporter, Mr. Barry Ferguson, who presently resides in Gibsons. Would the House join me in making him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ACT

Hon. L. Boone presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 82, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act. The purpose of this bill is to establish a new Legislative Assembly Management Committee to replace the Board of Internal Economy. This bill places administration of the Legislative Assembly in the hands of a committee representing all the parties in this House.

In the past, compensation for MLAs was set by the MLAs sitting on the Board of Internal Economy. With the new Legislative Assembly Management Committee proposed under Bill 82, MLAs will no longer be responsible for setting their own salaries. I commend this bill for consideration of the House and urge its passage.

Bill 82 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.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Election Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I am pleased to introduce Bill 76. The Election Amendment Act has two primary purposes: to lower the voting age to 18, provided that these persons meet other voter registration requirements; and to permit eligible voters to register in their electoral districts on polling day and at an advanced poll or a special polling place.

These amendments are being introduced now to allow more British Columbians to vote in future in the event of a national unity referendum in the fall.

Bill 76 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.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Those familiar with the history of this place will recognize the significance of the introduction of the miscellaneous statutes bill. I'm delighted to be able to introduce this bill at this particular time. I'm sure all members would agree.

Members should know that although this bill contains mainly amendments to a variety of statutes that are of a housekeeping or technical nature, there is an amendment to the Infants Act which could be described as significant, and there are amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act which address a difficult situation. In addition, this bill contains amendments to a number of other statutes administered by various government ministries. Additional statutes to be amended are the Industrial Development Incentive Act,

[ Page 2920 ]

Land Title Act, Manufactured Home Act, Ministry of Forests Act, Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 2), Nurses (Registered Psychiatric) Act, Pension (College) Act, Pension (Municipal) Act, Pension (Public Service) Act, Pension (Teachers) Act, Pension Statutes (Transitional Arrangement) Act and Trade Development Corporation Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

Bill 81 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.

Oral Questions

HIGH-TECHNOLOGY COMPETITIVENESS

D. Mitchell: I have a question today for the Premier. The Premier is undoubtedly aware of the violent clash of predictions between his own government study on high-tech competitiveness in British Columbia and the survey that was released yesterday by the Vancouver Board of Trade. I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether or not he learned anything yesterday when he talked with the Vancouver Board of Trade. Hopefully, he listened as well. In particular, did he learn anything about his own bogus study on high-tech competitiveness?

Hon. M. Harcourt: Indeed, I did learn a great deal. I learned that a very successful B.C. entrepreneur from Delta did some cross-border shopping a while ago. As a matter of fact, he went to the United States: he didn't buy beer, he didn't buy cigarettes, he didn't buy dairy products; he bought a complete group of 40 highly skilled high-tech employees and brought them back into British Columbia.

I also learned that there are a number of members of the business community who were delighted with the summit, where we brought people together for the first time in this province to listen to each other and to learn from each other. As I told the board of trade, I am quite prepared to sit down and deal with the study that they brought forward and the one that our minister has brought forward. If the member is interested in the number of high-tech companies that are flooding into British Columbia because it's a safe, clean, green, attractive place to live and work in, I'd be more than prepared to give him a list of those companies.

[2:15]

D. Mitchell: A supplemental question to the Premier. He must be confused, because I'm talking about the meeting that he had yesterday at the Vancouver Board of Trade. He may recall that; it was only yesterday. At that meeting the board of trade issued a survey of 117 real companies operating in British Columbia -- not a hypothetical manufacturing company which the Premier's own study talks about, but 117 real companies. What they're saying is that British Columbia's taxation policies are having a negative impact on their ability to compete in our province. Is the Premier saying that there is no wisdom in the opinions of 117 real high-tech firms operating in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I think 117 out of 600 high-tech firms responded to the survey, and I would assume that the other firms are too busy with their sales and busy doing business. I think the House Leader of the opposition should understand that the electronic manufacturing industry in this province is growing at the rate of 20 percent a year. The facts speak for themselves.

D. Mitchell: A final supplemental to the Premier and a question about the real world of British Columbia, not the Premier's make-believe world. I'm talking about the survey that was issued by the Vancouver Board of Trade yesterday. When the Premier addressed the Vancouver Board of Trade, the chair of the Vancouver Board of Trade said: "Our members are...reaching the boiling point.

Unless we change direction, business and jobs will be lost...." Will the Premier at least acknowledge that this concern exists, and that his government's tax policies need to be reviewed, because they're wrong for British Columbia, wrong for the vast manufacturing sector, wrong for the high-tech industry in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I would hope that the members of the opposition would join with us in tackling one of the tough issues that we've had to face, and that's the financial mess we inherited. They should help us make the tough decisions that we've had to in order to get the deficit under control. The primary goal of the Vancouver Board of Trade and the Business Council of B.C. is to get our spending under control, and secondly, to deal with the very serious issue that they raise, which is the extent of the federal government's off-loading of costs onto our taxpayers.

Three-quarters of our deficit this year is driven by the federal government off-loading their taxes onto B.C. taxpayers. I would hope that the members of the opposition would join with us in realizing that every cent of the revenue measures that were introduced went to pay down the deficit, and they should be in favour of that.

RESOURCE COMPENSATION BILL

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Attorney General. Given the Attorney's stated position to abandon Bill 32, will he undertake today to withdraw the legislation from the order paper?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I indicated publicly to the House earlier that we would not be proceeding with Bill 32. There is no intention of proceeding with the bill.

J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the Attorney General. You have failed to convince the mining industry and the forest industry of that fact. What concerns the industry is

section 5 of that legislation, which reads: "This act comes into force on the date that it receives first reading...and is retroactive to the extent necessary to give it effect on and after that date." The

[ Page 2921 ]

industry is concerned that if this legislation stays on the order paper it can be handled with second or third reading at some subsequent time. Will the minister undertake to remove the bill from the order paper and remove this threat to the industry?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm sure no member of the House needs to be reminded of the fact that the April date would not be effective unless the bill were passed. There is no intention of debating the bill, and therefore it won't be passed, and therefore the date doesn't come into force.

I've had a number of letters of support and congratulations from many people in the mining and forest industries. I've also had one letter from a former member of this House who is connected to the mining industry and who asks that the bill be withdrawn. He suggests that it needs to be withdrawn so that there's no threat of it ever coming before the House. That wouldn't accomplish that purpose, because if we chose to bring it back to the House, I would simply go through the first reading process again. So there's no point in the member's question.

J. Weisgerber: A final supplementary. What the Attorney General fails to understand is that the effective date is the date this legislation was introduced in the House. If the bill....

The Speaker: Is this a new question, hon. member?

J. Weisgerber: Yes, it is a new question. The question is: does the Attorney General not understand the implication of leaving this bill on the order paper with a retroactive date for its application?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: The answer to the question is yes, I do understand. The member needs to know that if we were being nefarious or devious about this issue, which we're not, and we withdrew the bill and then decided to proceed, we would simply bring in a bill which had a clause in it saying it was effective April 1992, and accomplish the same purpose.

The point of the question and the point of Mr. Waterland's insistence that you ask it totally escapes me.

TAXOL

W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Forests. We're confident that the minister is aware of the medical importance of the Pacific yew tree and the cancer-fighting properties of taxol, which can be extracted from the bark and limbs. I wonder if the minister can outline what steps his ministry has taken to protect this vital species until such time as an inventory takes place.

Hon. D. Miller: There is ongoing work in terms of the inventory. As the member may be aware, there are currently no export permits for the bark. Some yew trees are harvested in the normal course of events. There are about two or three studies -- I don't have the details with me -- in terms of inventory and other issues. There are also ongoing studies to determine what further medical properties the yew tree itself may contain.

If the member watched the program on "The Journal," for example, he would have seen that taxol can be synthesized from the needles of the yew tree. In fact, it's maybe important to know that aboriginal people in my particular area of British Columbia have used the yew tree for centuries as a medicine, and in fact have boiled parts of the whole tree and used it as a medicine. So there are ongoing studies in terms of the...

Interjections.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his comments.

Hon. D. Miller: ...inventory issue, and there are ongoing studies in terms of further medical uses of the yew tree.

W. Hurd: I thank the minister for his re-enactment of the Knowledge Network. But perhaps he can explain why the opposition has two licence agreements from people who want to harvest yew trees and who have provided documented evidence that these trees are being destroyed, burned and plowed under in active logging areas in this province.

Hon. D. Miller: I think the question was: could I explain why that hon. member has some documents. I can't.

The Speaker: A final supplemental, hon. member.

W. Hurd: Rather a curious response from the minister, because we understand he has the same documents. Perhaps the minister can explain why, as we speak, taxol-producing yew trees are being destroyed on TFL 39 of the Sunshine Coast, and perhaps he can explain, while he's at it, why the companies and individuals who want to harvest this vital species are getting the runaround from his ministry. Their question to this minister is: wouldn't it be better to harvest yew trees -- the bark and limbs -- to save cancer patients, rather than plowing them under?

The Speaker: Minister, there are three questions there, and I would urge you to be as concise as possible.

Hon. D. Miller: I do feel an obligation when asked questions by the opposition to try to answer, but in order to keep my answers short I would simply say that my ministry doesn't give anybody the runaround. If the hon. member is making an argument for the export of yew bark, I wish he would just stand up and say so.

BUY B.C. PROGRAM

R. Chisholm: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. This morning the press reported that the

[ Page 2922 ]

Minister of Agriculture stated that the Buy B.C. program was ineffective. My question is: would you table the evidence in this House that allows you to make this statement?

Hon. B. Barlee: That particular reporter took that comment from an address I made in the House yesterday. I presume the member was here and heard it, so I should not repeat it, of course.

R. Chisholm: Will the minister also table the studies he referred to, which apparently show that generic advertising campaigns in Ontario, New Brunswick and Alberta have -- in your words -- failed?

Hon. B. Barlee: I thought I went over those adequately yesterday; perhaps I did not. I will go over them again.

We studied five jurisdictions around North America. One was New Brunswick. They used a pull strategy in attempting to stop cross-border shopping; it was not successful. We studied Ontario. They spent $10 million. They used the same pull strategy; it was not successful. We studied Alberta. They used a pull strategy; it was not successful. We studied the various attempts at a Buy B.C. policy by the former government of British Columbia. They attempted a pull strategy; it was not successful. We studied Washington; it was not successful.

Then we studied Oregon. Oregon tried a push-pull strategy, which means all the stakeholders are at the table; everyone gets together. It is not specifically government-driven; it is driven by industry. But government is an attendee. It is driven by a council of industry, and everyone is there, right from the labourer on the farm to the unions to the processor to the producer to the retail outlets, even to the mayors of Vancouver. So this is the process we're using.

The Speaker: The member for Chilliwack asks leave to table documents.

Leave granted.

R. Chisholm: I would like to table documents from Ontario and Nova Scotia. There are three more provinces to come on their so-called Buy Ontario or Made in Alberta programs -- and they are saying that they are 100 percent successful.

Hon. G. Clark tabled a

summary of the borrowing amounts for the purpose of government operations for the 1991-92 fiscal year in accordance with

section 43(2) of the Financial Administration Act.

Hon. G. Clark tabled a set of statements regarding borrowings for and loans to government bodies for the 1991-92 fiscal year in accordance with

section 41.5 of the Financial Administration Act.

Presenting Petitions

L. Fox: I request leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

L. Fox: I present this petition which has thousands of names from the Vancouver Humane Society which supports the principle of my private member's bill, and I hope that it will encourage the House Leader to bring the bill forward for debate.

[2:30]

Hon. L. Boone tabled the B.C. Building Corporation's financial statements for 1991-92.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Motion 58, standing in the name of the Attorney General. [See appendix.]

Motions on Notice

REFERRAL OF REFERENDA QUESTIONS

TO SELECT STANDING COMMITTEE

On Motion 58.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I move Motion 58 standing in my name on the order paper.

Members will recall that in the election of October 1991 two questions were put to voters in respect of initiative and recall, as it's popularly described in the United States. This motion is to refer the matter of those referenda questions to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills, so they can examine and inquire into all matters and issues concerning those two referenda questions.

I'm sure members of the House will recall that the previous government, when it announced its intention to put these questions before the voters, announced that processes such as the one we're embarking upon today would be followed to determine how the results of the referenda could be dealt with in this province.

With this motion, we are fulfilling the commitment the previous government made, and we're fulfilling the commitment we made in the election campaign and since to ensure that parliamentarians have an opportunity to examine the implications of the two referenda questions, which passed by some 80 percent of the votes last October.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to speak briefly to this motion, which we can support. It simply reflects the will of the people of British Columbia, who voted, as the Attorney General said, by more than 80 percent in favour of the two referenda in the last provincial election on October 17. The governing party officially supported both of those referenda and, in fact, urged British Columbians to vote in favour of them. It has taken some eight months to get to the point where we're now referring them to a select standing committee.

Hopefully, the government will be willing to act upon any recommendations that come forward from a select standing committee after there is an inquiry into this measure and into what is sometimes known as direct democracy. It's an important feature. It's a good

[ Page 2923 ]

use of a select standing committee. I hope that the select standing committee will not be constrained in its efforts to explore this in terms of calling witnesses, receiving any further public input that might be desired and coming forward with a report to the House at the next sitting of the House, which may be this fall. We don't know when the next sitting of the House is going to be, because we have not yet had an indication from the government as to when the House will sit again after it adjourns this summer. We hope that we will adjourn to a fixed date for a sitting this fall.

At that point, hopefully the select standing committee that's going to be appointed to inquire into this important matter will be able to report, and the government will be able to act on the majority wishes of British Columbians on these two important questions and not simply delay this matter indefinitely. With that, I'd like to say that we support this motion and wish that the committee could get on with its work quickly.

J. Weisgerber: Obviously I also rise in support of the motion. I'd like to suggest to the Attorney General that it might have been appropriate for him to call along with that Motion 4, which is standing in my name and has been on the order paper since the House first sat this spring. In any event, the desire of both of the motions is similar, although Motion 4 is a bit more specific in that it asks the government to develop specific legislation to enact the wishes of in excess of 80 percent of British Columbians.

I think that we need to have this issue referred to a select standing committee. I don't think we have to do it to decide whether or not we should act on the wishes of over 80 percent of British Columbians. I think we have to decide how we are going to implement the wishes of such an overwhelming majority of British Columbians. In fact, Motion 4 would have accomplished that as well.

In any event, if the minister refers the issue and gives the directions that might be appropriate to the committee, I think the focus should be on how to implement recall and initiative and not to go around to decide whether British Columbians were really serious when they voted in such overwhelming numbers on these two issues. If the government will undertake that, then I believe British Columbians will believe that their wishes have been acted upon.

Motion approved.

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Speaker, with leave, I wish to move without notice the appointment of Mr. Chuck Connaghan as an independent reviewer to consider mechanisms for setting MLA pay levels.

Leave granted.

Motion without Notice

APPOINTMENT OF INDEPENDENT

REVIEW ON MLA REMUNERATION

Hon. L. Boone: I move that this House endorse the conducting of an independent review by Mr. Chuck Connaghan respecting recommendations to establish an independent mechanism for setting levels of remuneration received by Members of the Legislative Assembly, and that his report be filed with the Speaker for tabling in the House within 14 days of the commencement of the next legislative session.

I'm pleased to ask the House to endorse this motion. It represents the first step towards establishing an independent mechanism for setting indemnities, salaries, benefits, pensions and severances for its members, as was promised in the budget speech.

I am tabling the terms of reference which will be given to Mr. Connaghan. His review will assess present salary levels for MLAs, consider the use of a formula to set and adjust those salary levels and consider the appointment of an independent body to recommend, set or adjust those levels and analyze procedures used in other jurisdictions.

I am sure that all members share my desire to establish an independent mechanism for the setting of our salaries and remuneration, one which is and is seen to be fair and impartial. I very much look forward to Mr. Connaghan's recommendations, and I am sure that my colleagues on this side of the House and the members on the opposite side will approve this motion.

The Speaker: Could the Chair have a copy of the motion, please.

D. Mitchell: Just very briefly speaking to the motion by the hon. Minister of Government Services, I think it's important for the House to know that there has been consultation on this matter and that this motion is the product of consultation. I think this is the way to bring forward a motion of this nature -- not to have an order-in-council issued by cabinet and not to have an appointment of this nature and this sensitivity dealt with in the fashion that so many appointments by this government have been, but that this be an open process, that there be consultation and that it affect every member of the Legislative Assembly.

It's an important assignment that is being given by this House to Mr. Connaghan. I think Mr. Connaghan is an excellent choice for the job. I think he was a fair and independent practitioner in the field of industrial relations for many years. He also chaired the provincial round table until recently and did a fine job on that. But I think it's important to recognize that Mr. Connaghan has a very tough job here. This is a very difficult assignment, and it's one on which we wish him well.

I think it's important that we've taken away from the MLAs themselves any potential conflict that might be inherent in attempting to have MLAs, or a body or committee of MLAs, set their own salaries, indemnities, severance provisions and pension arrangements. I think that's dangerous. There is a conflict there. So Mr.Connaghan has an important job, a tough assignment: to recommend to this House a mechanism by which those aspects of our remuneration would be reviewed in the future. It's going to be a difficult assignment, as I've indicated. We wish him well.

We hope that he does take a look at other jurisdictions. Maybe there is some wisdom in other

parlia-

[ Page 2924 ]

ments and legislatures throughout the Commonwealth that he can take a look at to determine whether or not there is a better way of doing it here in British Columbia. I think it's important to note that there should be no restrictions on Mr. Connaghan on this assignment and that he's reporting to all members of the Legislature.

As I mentioned on the previous motion, should we adjourn to a specific, fixed sitting day and have a sitting of the Legislature this fall, hopefully Mr. Connaghan will report, as the motion states, within 14 days. Hopefully we'll have his report by Christmas, and there will be some certainty in the future as we enter the new year.

I speak in favour of the motion.

J. Weisgerber: We join with the government and the official opposition in support of the process that's been outlined and the appointment of Mr. Connaghan as the individual to undertake it. As has been indicated, Chuck Connaghan did an outstanding job with the Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He gained the trust and respect of British Columbians around the province. I think he's ideally suited to undertake what will undoubtedly be a controversial undertaking. There will be some criticism of a process that is put forward, almost regardless of what that process is. I think we should understand that.

We should not expect British Columbians simply to rejoice that there is a new process to be recommended for establishing salaries and benefits for MLAs. With that, I wish Mr. Connaghan well. I hope that he is successful, because if he is, that will, in turn, serve this Legislature and British Columbians well.

Hon. G. Clark: Very briefly, I too would like to thank both opposition House leaders for their support in this endeavour and, if I might stretch the rules a bit, also thank them for their support and work on the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act, which is before the House. It's a product of consultation with all members of the House, one which I think behooves us to follow more closely as we move along through the next few years.

I too would like to echo the comments of the third party leader that one of the challenges facing all politicians, regardless of ideology or political stripe, is to at least strengthen the credibility and respect the public has for the institution of parliament. One of the problems, of course, in recent years is the increasing cynicism the public holds for politicians generally and for those of us who serve in public life.

Anything we can do to assure the public that we're acting in the public interest and that there's a process that's neutral and independent of members when it comes to things like remuneration will enhance the process, this building and parliament. I think we're all better off. I'm delighted that all members have supported this particular process that we're embarking upon.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 71.

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE

SERVICES ACT

On the amendment (continued).

L. Fox: As I started to say before the clock pre-empted me, I rise in support of the amendment. I'm extremely concerned with the amount of confrontation that this particular act and Bill 13 have created. Perhaps it's naivety on my part, but when individuals make statements, I tend to believe them until proven wrong. But when the Premier, prior to being successful in October and even since then, suggested to the province that he and his colleagues wanted to end confrontation and that they wanted to deal fairly in all areas of dispute, in the interests of all British Columbians, I believed him, and I believed that this government would do just that.

When they tabled Bill 13 and Bill 14, and subsequently Bill 71, in the confrontational way that they did, they created confrontation with the medical profession like we've never seen before. Not only have they done that, but through that they have lost some credibility with the professional caretakers and with those individuals who could play a very major role in changing the medical system, which we all know has to take place.

I have listened throughout the debate on Bill 71 and I've heard points being put forward by all members in the House, irrespective of which party they support. The minister has suggested that the opposition doesn't interpret the bill correctly, has faulty research or has erred in the reading of the bill. Therein lies the problem: we do need time to consume what the intent of this bill is.

[2:45]

The medical profession, not only the doctors themselves but the intern group, PARI, have identified many areas of concern with this bill. I'm one who would like to have all of those areas concerned dealt with before this bill becomes law. That is the reason why I will support the referral of this bill to the select standing committee.

We know that in the throne speech this government placed new emphasis on select standing committees. This select standing committee only yesterday was given a task, and I'm not going to demean the task that it was given. In spite of the chairmanship of that committee, I wish it well in its deliberations. I have many thoughts with respect to its task, but I'll leave those to another time. I'm not sure that a select standing committee is the right forum. Perhaps it has to be a White Paper committee, or something which floats the intent of what this bill is and is allowed to call witnesses and presentations from the public as well as from the professional people.

I also believed this government when it said it was going to put new emphasis into co-operation; it was going to put new emphasis into the select standing committee structure; they were going to be meaningful and take on issues that were important to all British Columbia and bring some form of consensus to government. I really did appreciate that statement, because I

[ Page 2925 ]

firmly believe, as an elected individual, that the government that does bring in a consensus forum, allowing a process where they float their initiatives through an all-party structure and bring back a consensus as to what's in the best interest of British Columbia, will be a government that stays in power for a long time.

I would suggest that we do not have the answers to the many concerns that have been outlined. I will outline a few of them. Bill 71 will create longer waiting-lists for surgery and treatment. It could place restrictions on patient tests that can be ordered. It will ration patient care by placing a cap on the total amount of money to be spent. It could force doctors out of the province. This bill can limit the ability to obtain new medical technology. It would allow for a violation of confidential patient records. It would forever remove doctors' rights to negotiate, the result of which will be continued turmoil.

All these issues are contained within the bill. The minister may be satisfied that they're not issues, but I can assure you that the public and the medical profession are not satisfied. I believe that if the minister wants to do the right thing by the province, she should take up the medical profession on its challenge to meet the budget problems of this year and put together an all-party process which deals with these issues -- every one of the issues that have been identified.

I well recognize the fact that the royal commission spent 18 months travelling around the province identifying public concerns with respect to health care, and came forward with over 300 recommendations as to how the government might take on that challenge. But those are only recommendations. Recommendations themselves have to be clarified. You have to look at whether the mechanics of those are in fact practical. It is never a fault to sit back and assess those and see whether or not it meets the criteria they thought it might.

I strongly believe, as I said before, that we know we're going to have to make changes in the health care system. We know that there will be those who will resist change. I am one of those. I am the kind of individual who likes to see something in place and examine it to see whether it works. I have to see it for myself; many of the members of the public are that way.

I suggested yesterday that pilot projects may have been the way to go with some of these issues. I am concerned that the minister and the government have lost credibility in the process this far. By accepting this amendment and going through this process, I believe they will gain back that loss of credibility. Beyond that we'll help to promote change in the health care system.

B. Jones: As a result of the province's budget and legislation from that budget we have found ourselves in some disagreement or dispute with a variety of groups in this province, probably none more sensitive or difficult than the current dispute with the BCMA.

In our personal lives when we see two partners -- a husband and wife -- who are having a dispute, I think it behooves us to try to be fair and reasonable, because we generally hope those partners carry on that relationship. We don't rush to judge. We don't take partisan sides. We don't take the verbatim word of one side in that partnership, because we know that the partnership is important. What we see members opposite do, because of their narrow, partisan perspective, is take the kind of word that the BCMA is suggesting verbatim and giving no credence, not listening, not giving any respect to the other partner that will be working with the BCMA for many years.

What we see in the arguments that support the motion to refer to a select standing committee basically boils down to one argument, and that is that there has been a lack of consultation. Very clearly, members on this side of the House have tried to communicate in a clear, fair way that there has been substantial, considerable consultation.

We see shaking heads and heckling on the opposite side at the moment. I would ask the hon. members opposite to listen for one moment, again, to the litany of consultation that has taken place. I appeal to those members not to let their narrow partisanship blind their judgment of the situation.

Fact One: there is little new in this legislation. The legislation that this is replacing is 24 years old.

Interjections.

B. Jones: Listen up! The revision that was discussed with the BCMA started about five years ago, in 1988. I guess the previous administration assumed it was a pre-election year and had the bill all ready to go. They didn't bring it forward to this chamber. They engaged in a consultation process with the BCMA. They had the bill all ready to go. Up to five years ago we had consultation on amendments to the act. Since then, particularly in the last few months since February....

The member for Richmond East, who is the Health critic, has heard this from the minister, from me and from the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, but it doesn't sink in. Four years ago most of this bill was ready to go. There have been discussions and consultation with the BCMA on this bill for the last three months.

In fact, I'm surprised that members opposite aren't outraged. Legislation is first tabled in this chamber, but the minister took the unprecedented step of taking legislation -- at least the penultimate legislation -- to the BCMA annual general meeting. Had that been done in other jurisdictions, many opposition parties in this country would have stood up and said: "This is contempt of the Legislature. This is the place to introduce legislation, not at the BCMA general meeting." But the minister didn't do that. In the interests of consultation, she risked that kind of accusation.

She risked the chastisement of the opposition and this parliament by introducing legislation to the doctors first -- after years of consultation. The kinds of consultation that we've seen have been considerable.

The member for Richmond East read out, directly from the BCMA and without any consultation with anybody else, a chronology of events, assuming that that was a complete and fair picture of the kinds of consultation that have taken place. I understand that the member was not trying to deliberately mislead this

[ Page 2926 ]

chamber, which is a serious accusation. I don't know whether you are aware of that, but that's what happened. The chronology that was read out was far from complete. Have a look at your chronology. Does it mention an important meeting with the BCMA? Does it mention April 6, a meeting with the Health minister and the Premier? If you have a chronology of consultation, would you not include a meeting with the Premier and the Health minister of the province? If you didn't, would you not consider that a serious omission of fact? What I'm interested in is appealing through the facts to the members opposite.

That chronology was incomplete. The member opposite suggested that there were 23 hours of meetings. The minister herself has engaged in many meetings, many phone calls with physicians and with the BCMA executive. If you include the staff level and political level, all the correspondence and all the phone calls that have gone on, I wouldn't be surprised if it was thousands of hours of consultation that's gone on over this bill.

I have met with the president of the BCMA in my constituency office, for lunch at restaurants, for dinner at restaurants, in hotels, at the BCMA office and at the Ministry of Health office. There has been meeting after meeting and considerable consultation on this matter. There was considerably more, but even if it had been only 23 hours -- and the member opposite suggested that was inadequate -- I would suggest to that member and to this chamber that that is more than a Minister of Health has ever met with the BCMA executive on a single issue in the history of this province.

[3:00]

There has been considerable and extensive consultation on this bill. The opposition would like to delay the bill and have it to go to committee, but the vast majority of rhetoric that we hear from members opposite is to obstruct, delay, take cheap shots, score political points and act in a partisan way. Consultation is an imperfect process. There's never going to be enough consultation, but the kind of thing that has taken place to date is the exact opposite of what members opposite have been saying has happened.

The behaviour of members opposite -- particular of the official opposition -- is the exact opposite to what they were saying during the election campaign.

They were saying: "We're tired of the bickering, we're tired of the polarization in this province and we need a fresh approach." In fact, the leader of the official opposition, in his best high school debating line, came out with a famous line during the television debate: "That's why nothing ever gets done in the province of British Columbia." If it were up to the opposition, nothing would ever get done in the province, because they want to delay, to stall and to frustrate everything that this government has proposed.

Fact three. I would like to appeal to the members opposite to listen again -- although it's been mentioned a number of times in this chamber -- to the cost of delay. They say: what is the rush? Members opposite should be aware of the costs of delaying this particular legislation. What happened with the previous administration was that there was a deal with the BCMA, and every year a budget was set in this chamber. It wasn't an honest budget, because the government of the day knew that there would be an overrun.

They knew there would be excess costs of utilization, and there was a deal with the BCMA that would share those costs. I believe that in the last year it was something in the order of $50 million shared equally between the province and the BCMA -- the physicians of this province. It was a deal that worked, but it was a kind of phony process in the sense that a budget was not a budget.

What this government is saying is that we are going to bring forward this part of the Health budget, and you can believe it. We are going to try as hard as we possibly can not to exceed that budget. The problem is that we don't have that deal in place now. We don't have the ability to have the physicians of the province pick up half of the overrun. Because there is no agreement, guess what's been happening since March 31?

There have been utilization costs, we have been running over budget, and if members opposite want to pick up $50 million to $70 million out of their pockets, or the BCMA wants to pick up $50 million to $70 million out of their pocket, then let's delay it. We'll delay it all year -- you pick up the costs.

The costs of delay of this legislation are staggering. The costs are $50 million to $70 million, a staggering amount. There are ministries that operate in this Legislature with much less than $50 million to $70 million. I suppose that members opposite would enjoy nothing more than seeing the credit rating of this province, under this administration, go down. They would love that. They would wring their hands. In fact, I think they are salivating at the prospect of these kinds of overruns driving down the fiscal responsibility, the impression of this government as being responsible managers of taxpayers' dollars -- $50 million to $70 million.

Members opposite a few weeks back thought of themselves as the champions of the taxpayers. Well, this irresponsible motion is going to cost the taxpayers of this province an additional $50 million to $70 million. Taxpayers want deficit reduction. Taxpayers are tired of seeing the kinds of overruns that have existed in the past. This administration is going to do everything they possibly can to live up to the overarching commitment that they made during the election campaign, and that was to live within the means of the taxpayers of this province.

At times, that goal, that aspiration, contradicts some of the other commitments that we had hoped to make, but the overarching commitment is to live within the means of British Columbians. I think, deep in their hearts, despite the rhetoric and nonsense that goes on in this place, all members understand that. All members understand that we have to get deficit spending under control in this province and in this country.

I mentioned yesterday that in the last 15 years the costs of health care have only gone up 2 cents out of every dollar, from 25 cents to 27 cents, but the money spent on debt servicing has doubled, from 6 cents to 12 cents. Every part of the budget of every province in this country has to be scrutinized. We have to spend smarter if we are going to continue to fund social programs in this province.

[ Page 2927 ]

Interjection.

B. Jones: Exactly -- who disagrees with that? That's why we need this legislation. We're almost in the third quarter of the fiscal year already. We're probably already something in the order of $20 million in excess costs over the projected $1.271 billion in overruns. Taxpayers aren't going to stand for a government that doesn't live up to their commitments to spend wisely. The tools in this legislation are going to allow the government to do that.

The facts about consultation do not support the case for this motion to refer to a select standing committee. Very clearly the costs of delay are staggering. This motion in fact is an irresponsible motion. The only rationale I can think of why this motion is before the chamber is that Rafe Mair, the other day on his radio program, chastised the opposition for being wimps, that they're not doing a good job fighting the government. So we have a motion before us to delay.

Really, one of the functions that the opposition serves is to delay legislation, and the government is quite happy to delay this legislation as long as members opposite want to debate it. That's fair, that's what this chamber is for, and we're quite happy to do that. Unfortunately, in that debate members opposite don't want to listen, don't want to think, don't want to understand the rationale for why this legislation is before the chamber at this moment. This amendment is mischievous, it's irresponsible and it deserves the defeat that it's going to receive.

A. Cowie: I stand in support of this amendment. The member for Burnaby North talks about loosening up. Certainly if he would loosen up, speak less and get it back to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services, maybe we would get something done. I've heard a lot of drivel in my day, but that certainly was an awful lot of drivel.

There are a lot of questions in this bill that simply aren't answered. For instance, what is the role of the new tripartite commission? It's certainly not clear. Certainly the doctors don't find it clear. When we want to know whether the consultation has been effective or not, we have to talk to those people who supposedly have been consulted. They don't feel they've been consulted. Other people feel that we have simply not had time. Nine days since this last bill was introduced is simply not enough time.

The greatest cost savings in the health system, I am told by doctors and by people in the facility business, is in the actual building of facilities. I would imagine that the minister knows that about 5 percent of the cost of.... If you build a hospital, that represents approximately 5 percent of the cost of maintaining that hospital over the years of its life. So it's very, very important to put the hospital in the right place. It's very important to design it properly and to make sure it's serving the people it's intended to serve within the whole system of the province.

This bill, in itself, is not that bad. There are a lot of aspects about it that could be made to work if we simply understood it. That's what we're really upset about -- the lack of consultation. That's why I believe it has to go back to the select standing committee, in spite of the chairperson. I'm willing to tolerate that.

What is proper and effective consultation? I stress the word "effective" because I know, from my business over the years, that you can have lots of consultation, but unless it's effective and set up properly, then that sort of consultation is useless and it will not lead to the conclusion that you want. There are many models, and I know the minister knows all about public participation. I would ask that the members of this Legislature support this amendment, and let's make sure it gets to the standing committee, where we can deal with it and get on with the business of the day.

The Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, I just want to remind all hon. members that the amendment is to refer the subject matter to the committee, not the bill itself.

W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure to rise in debate in the House in support of a motion which refers as contentious a piece of legislation as this to a select standing committee of this House.

I was rather struck by the comments from the same tired speakers opposite, who assure us that the consultation that we've sought all along on this bill has in fact been in place and that the activities of the BCMA are entirely aside to the ongoing negotiations; the millions they've spent on advertising and the concerns that individual doctors express to MLAs throughout this province are nothing more than the usual round of shadowboxing that goes on between the BCMA and the government, and there's absolutely nothing to worry about. Well, hon.

Speaker, that is indeed a sad and tragic misunderstanding of the current situation in British Columbia

vis-�-vis the province's doctors. They are concerned; they do know what's at stake here. Not one that I've talked to in my own riding doesn't accept the fact that there has to be some role for the medical profession in deciding how their future is going to be decided by the government.

I'm particularly distressed to hear the suggestion by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who chairs the committee to which we seek to refer this bill. He suggests that the most contentious piece of legislation affecting our medical health insurance system in this province is not the type of legislation that should be referred to a select standing committee of this House. I say that that is one of the most shameful statements that I have heard made in this chamber during the course of our debate on this particular bill and, indeed, during the entire session.

For that member, who chairs the committee, to suggest that we have no role to play in this legislation gives me reason to suggest that that member should resign from the committee and accept the fact that he has lost the confidence of this House as the Chairman of a select standing committee that is supposed to look at health and social services in the province of British Columbia. We have a Chairman, a convener, from the government side of the House suggesting that that committee has no role to play. It's shocking and shameful.

This member, who has become a lap dog of the government, on this particular bill is suggesting that there is no role to play. It's absolutely

[ Page 2928 ]

outrageous. I don't know how that hon. member can stand in this House and support this bill and vote against this amendment, recognizing the fact that his committee could make the contribution that they could make to settling this issue once and for all.

I cannot understand why the government refuses to acknowledge that they have totally bungled the negotiations with the province's physicians, who are not unreasonable people. They're not the kind of people who would, as I said yesterday, petition or bankrupt the medical insurance system into oblivion. They're prepared to work with this government. They would work with this committee, and this House would speak with one voice on the most important issue that we're facing this session: the future of the medical health insurance system in the province of British Columbia.

[3:15]

How can anyone who seeks consensus, who seeks rapprochement with the province's doctors, oppose a motion that sends this to a select standing committee of all the members of this House that would reflect their will and commitment to solving this issue? How could they vote against it? We've heard some of the most shallow arguments advanced by the government that I have yet heard. They suggest that there might be some taxpayers' dollars involved. They throw around figures of $60 million or $80 million, as if the BCMA could tomorrow cave in and save the taxpayers that amount of money.

That's what this is: economic pressure. It's the kind of sleazy tactics that the previous government used in trying to beat down the province's doctors. They're suggesting to the official opposition that we're spendthrifts and would happily petition our health care system into bankruptcy in support of the doctors. Hon. Speaker, it just isn't so.

The fact of the matter is that this government hasn't consulted with the physicians. That's the reason we're in the pickle we're in today, with this government trying to ram through a bill that affects not just the province's doctors -- let's make sure we emphasize that fact -- but every aspect of our health care. It's the type of bill that cries out to be referred to a select standing committee of this House.

As I look back on the debates of this assembly during the last six months, I am struck by the fact that despite spending four years in opposition, this government still does not understand what it is to achieve a consensus. They do not understand how you arrive at a solution that satisfies all the stakeholders; they still do not understand that basic principle.

And to hear the Chairman of the select standing committee stand in this House and say that there is no role for that committee to play in dealing with this important issue merely underscores the fact that this government is morally bankrupt when it comes to addressing the very real possibility that this chamber could achieve the consensus that we need in this province to satisfy the doctors.

I urge every member of this assembly, and particularly those on the government benches who are private members of this assembly, to ask themselves a basic question about the role of a parliamentary committee or legislative committee in the government process.

I ask them to think about how much more effective it would have been had it been struck in April, when this issue first came before the House; how much more effective it would be for the BCMA to have known that it was going to be dealing with a collective will in this House and with a firm conviction by the entire Legislature that the course of action it was following, crafted by a special all-party committee of this House, was in fact one that they could live with because it reflected the will of every party represented in this House.

Wouldn't that have been much better than the tortuous process we find ourselves in today, the kind of process that sees an all-encompassing bill thrust on this House in the last days of a session without any possibility for proper debate and proper consultation with the doctors? That is the message that the government is asking the opposition to swallow in this assembly.

They stand, one by one, and oppose a constructive, reasonable amendment. The members opposite have accused the opposition of stalling, of expending taxpayers' dollars for no reasonable purpose. Well, I ask the members opposite in the government to think of one thing: the medical insurance system in this country has been around for two generations. Is it not worth a few more months in a legislative committee to make sure that we get it right in British Columbia? Is it not worth that few more months, that expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, whatever it is?

I ask the members opposite and the Minister of Health of this government: is it not worth that amount of time to ensure that the medical professionals, who bear the brunt of this medical system, the ones working 50 and 60 hours a week, are at least satisfied that they have been treated fairly by the members of this assembly? Is that not something we should seek to achieve in this House, to support this amendment to send it to a legislative committee? Would that not be the approach that would satisfy the doctors in this province?

Would they not recognize that if we did speak as one in this assembly on this important bill, while they may not agree with every aspect of it, they would at least accept the fact that the elected people of the day had spoken with one voice?

I reiterate that I find it shocking and sad and one of the most depressing moments in this chamber to hear the convener of that committee stand and say that this bill has no place in being considered by a select standing committee of this House. It's shameful, and I only hope that the member will take that message back to the doctors of his riding.

U. Dosanjh: Point of order. In his remarks, this member has referred to another member as a lap dog, and I'm simply raising that as a concern. I think this member should withdraw that remark.

The Speaker: Did the hon. member intend to impugn the motives of another hon. member in this House?

W. Hurd: Not in any way, hon. Speaker. I was merely referring to the fact that the committee would not have an opportunity to deal with this important matter.

[ Page 2929 ]

The Speaker: Thank you, hon. member.

B. Jones: On the same point of order, hon. Speaker, the member did choose to use that offensive language, which I find offensive and unparliamentary. I would ask that member, in respecting the traditions of this House, to withdraw that statement.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I have asked the member if he intended to impute improper motives to another hon. member, and he has said no. However, perhaps the hon. member, in consideration that another hon. member felt offended, would like to withdraw the comment.

W. Hurd: With all due respect to the Chair, I don't believe that I impugned the integrity of the hon. member. On a point of principle I decline to withdraw the remark.

The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock to again reconsider the request of the Chair. Certainly there have been indications that the term was not appropriate for this House, and I'm sure the hon. member would like to reconsider his position, withdraw the comment and then continue with his debate.

W. Hurd: Hon. Speaker, while I have the utmost respect for the rulings of the Chair, I find that in the context of my remarks I don't believe the phraseology was impugning the integrity of the hon. member. As an hon. member of this assembly, I certainly exercise my right to stand by the comment and refuse on principle to withdraw.

J. Tyabji: To the same point of order, I'm having some difficulty with the point of order being raised in that I think we all realize that there is a lot of latitude with which we discuss things, whether we're speaking to an amendment or in second reading. When we're using metaphors, unless that metaphor is inherently negative, which surely the phrase "a lap dog".... I mean, we have to build metaphors. That's the whole point of being in opposition.

If these members are going to take offence every time we don't agree with them or say nice things about them, then they're going to rule a lot of different words unparliamentary. I understand that the Chair is recognizing that this member has taken offence to the use of those words. I would say to this member that metaphors are metaphors. When this government was in opposition, there were other colourful metaphors being used.

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, that in raising a point of order a member cannot enter into a discussion with the Chair.

K. Jones: Point of order. The real question here is the fact that at least ten minutes has transpired since that statement was made. The member should have been up on his feet immediately after the event if there was something to be concerned about. He did not take timely action, and therefore the position as a point of order no longer exists.

The Speaker: I would ask the hon. members to be seated. I think the Chair has heard enough input on this point of order. I have asked the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock to reconsider and withdraw. The Chair has made that request. I would now, for the third and final time, order the hon. member to withdraw that comment, or the Chair will have no alternative but to take the appropriate action.

W. Hurd: While I respect the wishes of the Chair, as I've indicated, I do not find the remark to have impugned the integrity of the hon. member. Again, on a matter of principle I find that I must decline to withdraw.

The Speaker: Then the Chair has no alternative but to ask the member to withdraw from the chamber for the remainder of the sitting day.

J. Tyabji: I am standing to speak in favour of the motion. I find that I am somewhat distracted based on the preceding events. I will try to refrain from using any further speech that may offend any of the members of the House.

This is a very substantial bill that we're going to be dealing with here. The substance of this bill is going to have an enormous impact on medical services in British Columbia, and because of this it is crucial that this bill receive input from all parties in the House. It is not enough, as one of the previous members had stated, for some of the substance of this bill to have been put in place by the previous administration four years ago. I don't find that to be enough in terms of addressing our concerns with regard to public process.

I don't find it enough for the previous member to say that there were one or two occasions that our own Health critic didn't address in her speech, that weren't in her chronology. I don't find that to be a credible enough basis for saying there was public process.

I think that in order to have adequate public process, we obviously have to have the input from all three parties in the House. We have to put it to a select standing committee. It is the only thing that makes sense in terms of bringing democracy into play. There are three parties in this House, and a bill of this magnitude should definitely have input from all the affected parties. In order for people from around the province to be represented in going over many of the significant amendments and structural changes that we will see in this bill....

[3:30]

We can go into some of the specifics of it, although that's not the point of speaking to an amendment. But we've talked before about the things in Bill 71 that cause us great concern on the opposition benches -- for example, whether there should be access by doctors to all the patient files; that there will be government inspectors who can then access patient files. These are things that should be debated in a select standing committee. I think it's only fair to the bill, to take it to a

[ Page 2930 ]

select standing committee and to have all parties in the Legislature review the bill. Hon. Speaker, the select standing committees have been created specifically for this kind of issue to be brought forward.

We heard the minister talking about being fiscally responsible and that the clock is ticking with regard to health care, and that therefore we have to see this bill passed in a speedy manner. I find that to be a dangerous precedent, if we are allowing the ticking of the clock to determine how democracy is affected in the province of B.C. Surely we can't be sitting here and saying we have to rush this bill through the Legislature because money is being spent. If that is the case, we should have had a fall session.

We should have introduced the bill in a fall session and allowed it to sit on the books for public debate. This government had eight months to set things up. If the government is trying to say there has been adequate consultation for four years previous, well, they've been in for eight months; surely they could have taken the four years of consultation -- if they feel that's satisfactory, and I don't know that we agree with them on that point -- and brought it to a prior sitting of the House.

We have brought this up so many times, hon. Speaker. It's not enough to be rushing legislation in at the end of the session, saying: "Oh, it's the end of the session. I have to see this bill pass." What kind of signal does that send out to the public, when we won't send it to a standing committee? We can't possibly have adequate debate in the House, because it doesn't allow any of us to gather our resources from around the province or to have meetings with our constituencies.

How can we meet with the people in our constituency who represent a wide interest in the health care community if we're in midnight sittings of the House? We're in midnight sittings because we're trying to pass this bill. We don't want to pass the bill, because we can't have the meetings. How can we, as parliamentarians, bring to bear the kind of thoughtful resources that are necessary to do this bill justice?

Hon. Speaker, there are some very good initiatives in this bill. There are a lot of things in this bill that we as an opposition campaigned on in the last election. And what do we find ourselves doing with regard to this bill? We're focusing on the fact that it's being rammed through the House. We would like to be able to spend a lot of time in second reading dealing with the things that we agree with and the things that we disagree with. Instead we're finding ourselves speaking to motions on putting it to select standing committees. We're spending all our time trying to buy some time so we can bring in whatever resources we can to bring to bear on this bill.

F. Garden: Take as long as you like.

J. Tyabji: The hon. members are saying: "Take as long as you like." I wish that were the case; I wish we could take as long as we liked. We wanted to adjourn this House on Thursday and come back in the fall on a specific date to talk about bills like Bill 71. We feel that bills of this magnitude require that kind of thoughtful consideration.

They require the ability to go to the community -- not just the BCMA but the entire health care community -- to not just consult with different groups within it, but to go to the public and say to them: "As your representatives in the House, we want to know what you think about this." To be able to sit down with this bill and work through what it means when we talk about subcommittees being appointed under the commission and the fact that they can bypass the commission -- I'd like to be able to speak to that with my constituents.

I'd like to be able to talk about the government inspectors and how my constituents feel about that. There's no way I can do that when we're in midnight sittings in the House. It would take four hours just to get to my riding, never mind setting up a meeting so I can talk to them about Bill 71.

If we had adequate time, hon. Speaker, this minister would probably find a lot more support on this side of the House for some of the initiatives in this bill. We would love to be able to commend her on some of the hard work she's put into some of the good initiatives in the bill. This minister would have that opportunity to receive the applause where applause is due and the criticism where we feel we can have critical input, if we could put it to a select standing committee, and if we could then take it through our caucus and through the public.

This minister is saying that we are working toward a balanced budget and that to be fiscally responsible we have to be putting this bill through as fast as possible. It doesn't wash, hon. Speaker. It doesn't make sense to me to say: "Oh well, because we need a balanced budget, we have to put the Medical and Health Care Services Act through the House as quickly as possible." That doesn't make sense to me. What we are doing, in fact, is losing credibility with the public.

If we bring a bill of this magnitude to the House and it's through the House within the space of a week, what kind of signal does that send to the public? The public is already nervous because we've had Bills 13 and 14 sitting on the order paper since the beginning of the session. They don't know who to believe. They see the ads on TV. They read things in the paper. They hear statements from the minister. They hear from their health care professionals. There hasn't been time for adequate dialogue just to deal with the backlash from the previous bills that were introduced.

Now we've got Bill 71, which is much more comprehensive, which should obviously be given proper scrutiny so that we can tell the people in the community how it differs from the previous bills and how it's the same, and so we can receive input from the community. By putting the bill through the House quickly, the minister is actually allowing lobby groups to have more impact on the direction of the government than the general public can have, because lobby groups have more money and they can afford to put out the advertising.

Their message may be a valid message, but how is the message of the public going to get to the minister? We can get letters from the public to our offices. By the time we send a letter to the minister and it comes back to us and goes back, this bill will be gathering dust on a shelf somewhere. That, to me, is not a fair process for dealing with something of this magnitude. What happens if the bill goes through and

[ Page 2931 ]

we haven't spent enough time dealing with the significance of a small clause somewhere in here? But there is a constituent somewhere in the interior who knows exactly what kind of impact it will have, and he will call me a week from now and say: "While you were in second and third reading of the bill, I was still doing my research, and I didn't have time to deal with that." This whole issue of rushing bills through the House is something that has already come home to haunt us. This is all with regard to the motion to send it to a select standing committee.

I had a meeting today with someone who found a clause in a bill that we passed last week with regard to forestry practices, and that clause removed the sustainability clause from the Forest Act. We didn't catch it; nobody caught it. And it's out there. I said: "Why didn't you phone?" He said: "Because it had already passed third reading." That's a very dangerous thing.

In fact, when we're talking about bills and the research that needs to go on, there's no way that a bill of this magnitude can get the scrutiny that it deserves unless we send it to a select standing commitee and unless we allow the resource people around the province to provide input to both sides of the House. If the minister wants to do anything to deal with the removal of the clause that I was talking about, it will have to be by way of a supplementary bill, and it will embarrass him if he decides that he wants to reintroduce that.

I wouldn't want to see this minister go through the same process that our Minister of Forests is going to have to go through when he is called accountable on the removal of that clause. I'm sure that this minister hasn't had a chance to go over this bill with a fine-tooth comb, because it has just been in the House for a few days. Even though she's had a lot to do with this bill, there are legal implications in every clause of it. There are implications with how it relates to previous bills, how we're going to deal with it and the impact that it will have around the province.

We saw that this minister got into all kinds of hot water with previous bills that were introduced. We don't want to see her going into the same scenario with this bill after it becomes

an act, when there might be some retroactive fallout. How will you address that? What if we had done the same thing with Bills 13 and 14, rather than letting them sit for a couple of months so that we could deal with them in a different bill? When we have an erosion of public confidence in even one sector of the health community, such as the doctors, we have to talk about why we shouldn't allow bills to go through so quickly, specifically since some things being addressed in this bill were brought up in previous bills, and those previous bills have not been called into

an act because this minister has deemed that it's not in the public interest to do so. So we've seen bills that this minister has introduced in the House in this session go by the wayside. This bill has come in as a replacement bill. How do we know that she won't have the same feelings about this bill after two or three months that she had about the two previous bills? There hasn't been adequate dialogue or adequate time.

I wholeheartedly support the amendment to send it to a select standing committee. I don't believe we should be rushing into this, and I don't believe there is any time constraint. It reminds me of the emergency debate on the gypsy moth issue. The only emergency was the one that was being generated so that we could have a debate in order for the Minister of Forests to try to get some after-the-fact dialogue. We are asking for an amendment that would put this bill to the select standing committee so that we don't have to deal with the fallout after the fact, and it won't already be

an act by the time we realize that, oh dear, there was something hidden in here, and we didn't get a chance to address it.

To say that it's not fiscally responsible to deal with this bill that way, to me, undermines the very parliamentary system that we are here to represent. We are here to represent the people. If the people's interests are not reflected in this bill, we should have adequate time to dialogue on it and to deal with the people. You don't put a price tag on that, hon. Speaker. You don't put a price tag on democracy or on parliamentarianism. We're here, and we know what it costs to be here; that's why we're here. If this minister thought there was such a big rush on this, we should have had a fall sitting.

We should have had dialogue on all of these policy initiatives. We should have had this introduced some time ago. We should have had this bill introduced at the beginning of the session; or alternatively, sections of this bill should have been introduced in a different bill. The sections that this minister felt it critical to introduce at this juncture should have been introduced now. She should have rushed them through, and then she could have at least said: "I was going to introduce it in one bill, but here's the other part.

I will let it sit on the order paper until the fall, at which time I will take input from all parties in a select standing committee."

I can't emphasize enough how important it is for us to allow the democratic process to go full course on something like the Medical and Health Care Services Act, which is something that will affect every British Columbian. Everyone in B.C. will be impacted by this act. Everyone in B.C. should have the ability, even if they choose not to, to participate in the dialogue. That is why I very strongly support the amendment to send this to the select standing committee for adequate review and due parliamentary process.

K. Jones: I rise with great pleasure to support this amendment. There's no question that there's a need for further consultation, further review of this legislation, which has many difficulties. There appear to be failures to recognize certain health care professionals, such as psychologists and occupational therapists, within the terms of the bill. Obviously the minister continues to hound the doctors with this bill. She plagues them with the failure of the first bill and then brings in the same sort of provision in the second bill and continues hounding the doctors.

I must say that it's most unusual and unfortunate that the Chair of a standing committee should be so dogmatic as to refuse to make changes to allow this legislation to be reviewed in his committee. It's very inappropriate, I think, for a Chairman of any committee, especially a standing committee of this House, to

[ Page 2932 ]

stand up and say that legislation that's being suggested by the opposition for referral is not appropriate for that committee. Who is this dogmatic person, who is capable of making the decisions for all of the people in this Legislature, to refuse to have it come to his committee?

[3:45]

The Speaker: Order, hon. member. I would urge the member to be cautious in the language he uses in this debate. Moderation, temperance and an absence of personal attack is always in order.

K. Jones: This is fraught with a great deal of emotion in regard to the way it has been handled. The proposals, the statements made in debate by the hon. member to indicate that we as members don't have the right to decide what should be referred to a committee, are not acceptable. That's why we have to get emotional about this. We're talking about the very principles of this House. No person can make a decision or a recommendation to prevent the discussion of issues and the referral of issues from this body to another body of this Legislature because they happen to hold a particular position in this House.

That's what I'm speaking to. We the people of British Columbia need the opportunity for this to be reviewed in an open forum.

There is nothing wrong with this type of legislation being reviewed. A prime example was shown by the Attorney General in the handling of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, where the act, even before it was processed, was put out to the community, brought before panels and press conferences, and people were given adequate time to make representations from the community and from the Legislature.

Even now the member is not forcing it through, unlike the Minister of Health, who is trying to force this bill through without any changes, as if whatever is brought forward is the very best that could ever be done: why bother with the input from the rest of the people in this House, because there's nothing they could contribute that would make it any better. That's what we're talking about. We want an opportunity for this to be made better for everybody, because this is a very serious bill.

This bill has to be treated with the utmost importance that it has, just as the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act was treated. This bill has just as much importance to the way of life of the people of British Columbia.

U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, the member for Okanagan East indicated in her remarks that no price is too high for democracy. Obviously this is what it's all about. We're debating the issues in an open and forthright manner. This is what democracy is all about, but the amendment that the Liberals have placed before the House could potentially be a $100 million amendment. The longer we wait for the legislation to come into place, the more expensive it is for us as British Columbians to deal with the issues of health care.

The amendment could cost us between $50 million and $100 million, and that would be the price of the folly of the opposition in terms of the amendment they have placed before this House.

Not every issue has to go to a select standing committee. There are issues and there are issues. Parliament is supreme, and by debating and after debating the issues, parliament can pass certain legislation. We feel it's important for this legislation to be passed this session and passed now. Therefore the Liberals have full opportunity to participate in the debate and make their views known.

In the end the parliament reigns supreme. We make the decisions, and the legislation then eventually is passed and governs. Some issues can be sent to committees, as a reference was made just today in the House to the parliamentary reform committee on the referendum and recall issues. Those are important issues as well, but there are other issues that are important in terms of timing. You can't wait around for months and months for recommendations to come in. The whole House instead of the select standing committee has to make those decisions, and I submit that this amendment ought to be defeated because of that.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased to stand up today and speak in favour of the amendment moved today by the member for Langley. I listened carefully to the comments of the member for Vancouver-Kensington. I'd like to say that he made an eloquent argument for referring this bill to a select standing committee of the House. I'll tell you why. He says it's a question of timing.

I would agree; it is a question of timing, but not the political timing of this Minister of Health who introduced this bill in this fashion, not the timing of this government that is in disarray and has refused to negotiate fairly with the physicians of our province. No, that's not the timing that's important here. That's not the timing that should be driving the relationship between the government and the physicians, who can and should be playing a leadership role in our health care system.

The member for Vancouver-Kensington says that this is a $100 million decision. He says that if we refer this bill to a standing committee of the House for further study where there can be proper input from the physicians and the general public, it's going to be a $100 million decision. He says that's going to be costly.

What is costly about fair negotiations, which the BCMA have indicated they're prepared to enter into today? In fact, they've been prepared to enter into fair negotiations with this government from day one. The fact that this government has been unprepared to negotiate fairly with the physicians of this province is costly. That's what is costing the British Columbia health care system millions of dollars. That's what is costing British Columbians lack of confidence in their health care system.

That's where the cost is being incurred, not by open government, not by referring this to open consultation and public input and input from all members of this Legislative Assembly. No, the member for Vancouver-Kensington is wrong. He speaks nonsense, and he knows it.

What is costly is this government's approach to this legislation. It's costing all British Columbians a lack of confidence in their health care system. That's going to be untold in terms of dollar value. It's going to be untold in terms of the other costs -- the social costs, the

[ Page 2933 ]

public confidence that's going to be chipping away at our health care system and medicare in our province and country as a result of this government's arbitrary wrong-headed approach to this bill. That's why the amendment should be supported.

This amendment is a fair amendment. It's not a dilatory motion. It's not an obstructionist tactic by an opposition that's filibustering -- far from it. This amendment was moved in all sincerity. I'll refer to the comments made by the Health critic yesterday, the member for Richmond East. When debate opened on this bill, she responded to the comments from the hon. Minister of Health. She made a very good argument for why this bill deserved further study.

In a letter to the Minister of Health, which the opposition Health critic wrote immediately thereafter, she said: "To be reasonable, Bill 71 should be scrutinized by the public at large over the coming months and could be considered again at a fall sitting of this Legislature. To consider moving this bill through to third reading in less than ten days is not fair to British Columbians." That is a reasonable approach. That is a moderate approach that can be considered by this House. We have the power to do that. The member for Vancouver-Kensington said that there is a role for select standing committees.

Surely, if there is a role for select standing committees, then here is a case that is tailor-made for a referral: Bill 71.

We know that health care has played an important

part in the political history of this province. Anyone who has studied the political history of British Columbia knows that governments have risen and fallen on health care issues. I really believe that Bill 71 is going to be a significant reference point in the history of this NDP administration. This is something that people will look back on. Bill 71 is going to be a key political reference point for the next generation of British Columbians. They're going to look back on this act and take a look at the process and effect of passing this bill into law, making this bill

an act of this Legislature, and they're going to ask why. When they answer that question why, it's going to be an explanation for why this government has lost faith in the people of British Columbia. I predict that that's going to happen. There's nothing inevitable about history. Surely that's a logical conclusion of the approach that has been taken by this government that has failed to listen to the people and failed consistently to consult freely with the physicians of this province, who have been ready to consult from day one.

What have they done? Prior to coming into office, we had a major review of health care in British Columbia, the Seaton royal commission -- the most extensive review of the health care system in our province in a generation. That royal commission deserved further study. That royal commission deserved further study and a serious look by the government. Does Bill 71 incorporate the major recommendations of the Seaton royal commission? No, of course it doesn't. It couldn't, because the royal commission has not received proper scrutiny. And there again is a logical opportunity for a referral to a select standing committee of the House, but the government has again failed to consult.

We have a good health care system in British Columbia that needs improvement. How does Bill 71 address that? Our health care system needs to be rethought. There's no question about that. How does the new Medical and Health Care Services Act address that? The first thing we have to do is take a look at the process that went into this bill. What did the people of British Columbia vote for last October 17? They voted for an end to polarization and an end to arbitrary government, and they voted in favour of consultation and consensus.

They voted in favour of everything that was not part of the process that led towards this bill. It's so patently obvious. This government did not learn the lesson of the election of last October, and they're behaving as if they have learned nothing from the lessons of the past. Where were they? Were they in opposition for all those years, or not?

In this bill that we're debating here today and on the amendment that we're speaking to -- and the reasons that the amendment should be supported -- we have to ask the fundamental question: why has this NDP government singled out physicians? It's very clear to most fair-minded British Columbians that if there are going to be changes to the health care system in our province -- which does need some restructuring -- then doctors must be part of the solution. They have to be. We have to count upon the leadership of the physicians of our province to be part of the solution and the process.

What has this government done? Has it consulted with the physicians in an open manner? Has the input of the physicians of our province been incorporated into this Bill 71? No, of course it hasn't. They've been ignored. Instead, the government has taken a bullheaded and confrontational approach. It has treated the doctors as if they're the enemy. In fact, if you talk to physicians, to the many fair-minded doctors in this province, they'll tell you that they feel as if they are being treated as criminals as a result of this bill.

We've seen this process repeated in this House, but never in such a blatant fashion since this session started some three months ago. Bill 71 really typifies a political game that this government has been playing. They bring in legislation in a rushed, slipshod fashion. It is not well thought out, it's poorly crafted and prepared, the draftsmanship is sloppy, it's ambiguous, and they want to see if they can slip it through the House, because they have no legislative program that's well thought out. That's what Bill 71 fits into -- a legislative program that is not well considered.

So they bring it in, and they want to see if they can get it past the opposition, and perhaps see if the opposition wants to propose any amendments to the bill to hopefully improve it. But we're growing tired of this game, and when it comes to Bill 71 we can't treat it as a game, because this is very serious. It's the future of health care in our province, and it affects every British Columbian.

[4:00]

I've consulted on Bill 71 with the physicians within my own constituency, and I've talked with a group of physicians in the community of Squamish who have had a chance to scrutinize Bill 71, and I want to tell you

[ Page 2934 ]

why I'm speaking in favour of this amendment today. It's because of what the physicians of Squamish told me. They have had a chance to look at it, and what they say is that the bill is vague, gives sweeping powers to the government and delegates sweeping powers to the commission that it appoints. The doctors, of course, are in a minority on the commission. The duties of the commission can be delegated to a subcommittee. We know that by the legislation, but the commission itself can be disbanded by the government if the government so chooses.

Doctors are concerned that their civil liberties are being affected by this bill, especially the manner in which it is being brought in. As I've said, doctors who have read the bill feel that they are being treated as if they are criminals. Doctors are being forced into a situation where they have to consider opting out of the health care system, which this bill makes very difficult, or whether or not they are going to be forced to consider going on strike, withdrawing their services, or limiting their services to their patients and working fewer hours.

The physicians of our province are concerned because of the oath that they swear when they take on what was and should be a noble profession -- to be a medical practitioner, a physician in our province. They are being torn, because their professionalism is being challenged. They don't want to be part of a system which they envisage this bill is leading towards, where they simply become salaried employees on payroll who are expected to work a limited number of hours a week and, perhaps, withdraw their services when they are not being treated well.

Physicians are part of a profession that has never worked in that way. In countries and in jurisdictions which have gone down that road, we've seen health care deteriorate to a point where individual citizens are affected. Those who can least afford to be are neglected.

The feedback that I've received to this bill from the doctors in Squamish, who I'm referring to, is quite instructive. They talked about the commission itself, which can divide doctors into any group whatsoever for categorization with no rights of appeal. That's typical of legislation brought in by this government. Typically there is never a right of appeal. All negotiating is out the window. There is no negotiating. For a government that claims it's in favour of negotiation, that claims, in terms of its relationship with labour unions, that they are in favour of free collective bargaining....

Yet when it comes to physicians, there is no negotiation. There are sweeping, broad powers appointed to a commission with no negotiation.

The master agreement which provides for negotiation is gone with Bill 71. That's another reason why I speak in favour of this amendment today. The ability to negotiate, talk and consult is completely gone. By order-in-council the government can retract any decision of the commission which is appointed by this bill. We have to question the independence of the commission itself, because the government ultimately holds all the power here. So why have a commission? I guess that's one question we can ask.

The government really comes down with an iron fist with this legislation, and there are no loopholes. They are virtually all closed. Doctors are feeling like they are caught; they are feeling like they are rats in a maze. What do they want? They want to be consulted; they want to have the opportunity to negotiate; they want to have the ability to negotiate as professionals within a modern, progressive health care system; they want this bill withdrawn; they would like at the very least to have some input into it. That's why the amendment should be supported. Because the amendment suggests that the subject matter of this bill be referred to a select standing committee for further study.

There's a lot that I could say about this bill in terms of the representation that I've received. I can tell you that I have received hundreds of letters from physicians in this province. When we count up all the representation that we've received in the official opposition, it's in the thousands. I have personally received hundreds of letters from doctors all over the province. I received not only letters from doctors, but also letters from ordinary British Columbians. I have a note here from some constituents of mine, Mr. and Mrs.

F.H. Smith from West Vancouver, who are very concerned.

In this letter directed to me regarding Bill 71, Mr. Smith writes: "My wife and I are pensioners on a fixed income and are very worried if" -- this bill -- "is passed. We are worried that our health care will suffer and our doctor may not be available when required." That's a legitimate fear. It's worthwhile to put that on the record, because I think it's a representative fear in the broad community that if this legislation is pushed through, doctors may not be available for people who require medical assistance. That fear exists in the community, and the government needs to address it. The minister must address it when she makes her closing remarks at second reading of this bill.

A number of doctors have made representations to us, but there is one group that hasn't been heard from yet in this debate. We will be hearing more from them, particularly when and if this bill ever gets to study by committee. Our preference is that it not be a Committee of the Whole House that this bill is referred to but a select standing committee. We've talked about a number of medical practitioners and the BCMA and others, but I'd like to refer to an association called the Professional Association of Residents and Interns of British Columbia, sometimes called PARI-BC -- no relation to the Minister of Advanced Education.

The perspective of PARI-BC on this legislation is quite a valuable one, because they represent the young physicians who are just emerging into the profession -- the very best and brightest minds. PARI-BC is an interesting association, because it represents 500 young doctors in postgraduate family practice or specialty training in programs in British Columbia. These are residents and interns who are the medical practitioners of tomorrow -- a very important, key group for the future of our health care system in this province.

They have a number of differences with the government over this bill. They have a very different perspective than the BCMA or other groups of physicians. Their perspective is unique, and I think it deserves to be

[ Page 2935 ]

heard in the House in this debate. These are young doctors who grew up with medicare. They are committed, therefore, to working within the system and improving it. Half of the members of PARI-BC are women. I think their membership really does reflect the demographics of modern British Columbia.

Just before I tell you what they say, it's useful to tell you that they've had to fight with the government twice in recent years. They had to go to court twice to defend their rights when the government tried to restrict their right to practise. On both of those occasions, they won in court.

When it comes to Bill 71, I want to tell you what PARI-BC, the young interns and resident physicians, have said.

Hon. E. Cull: What's the date of the letter?

D. Mitchell: I'll refer to the date of the letter if you like. It's dated June 18, 1992. They also issued a news release on June 19.

Rather than go through their whole proposal, let me just give you the

summary, because I think that that really gets to the nub of the issue here. It's a very extensive brief. It was directed to the Minister of Health, so she has received this. What they say is that "Bill 71 provides draconian measures for controlling health care costs." That's the essence of what they say. "Furthermore, while purportedly allowing the public a real voice in the administration of the health care system, in reality it consolidates the government's own authority. It denies both the public and health care workers a meaningful role in determining the future of health care in this province." That's the essence of their objection.

Let me get a little more specific. They address a couple of specific problems with this bill that they feel are paramount to be addressed in terms of the interests of the 500 young interns and resident physicians that they represent. Firstly, they say, "Bill 71 gives government ultimate power with unbridled authority in managing health care," and they feel that that's wrong. Secondly, they feel that young doctors, future practitioners, are effectively prevented from having any input because the new commission will be, frankly, biased against them. That is a legitimate concern, and that has to be addressed before this bill can be passed into law.

Thirdly, they say: "Bill 71 establishes a mechanism for singling out groups of practitioners for discriminatory treatment. Such unjust policy will be directed primarily towards young doctors at entry to practice." That is a concern they have. It's a fear they have, and it has to be addressed. It has to be addressed by the hon. Minister of Health, and we want to hear how the Minister of Health intends to address this concern.

Fourthly, and the last point I address from PARI-BC -- I think it an equally important one: "Bill 71 allows government to place restrictions on the freedoms of British Columbians and permits the government access to personal and confidential information about each citizen." That is something we have discussed in this debate. It is a concern. We have listened to what the minister has said, but I believe the physicians and the general public need to have this addressed unequivocally so that fear is not there, because that fear is integral to confidence in our health care system. That is a fear that is out there. PARI-BC has expressed it. The minister has to address that concern.

I am talking about this group of physicians, some 500 young interns and resident physicians, who feel strongly that the passage of Bill 71 must be prevented and the proposals must be subjected to open, prolonged and intense public scrutiny. "We call for a return to fair and honest treatment of all British Columbian citizens and doctors." That is what they're calling for. It is not different from what the opposition is calling for in the amendment to the second reading of this bill. If the bill is referred to a select standing committee of the House, then, as PARI-BC feels, this bill can be subjected to open, prolonged and intense public scrutiny.

We're not asking that it be delayed indefinitely. We've agreed that the health care system needs to be looked at again, rethought and restructured. How can that happen? By the government simply bringing in, in the dying days of a session, a bill and trying to ram it through the House? Or can it be handled more effectively by using the tools that we have at our disposal, which include select standing committees of the Legislature for this kind of scrutiny? The tools are there. We can use them. It takes only political will.

It takes the government to admit that they have perhaps made a slight mistake in terms of process by trying to ram this through. It takes a second look. It takes the maturity of judgment and the ability to decide in a wise fashion that this takes a second look. This bill requires a second look, and it should be referred to a select standing committee for that reason. The bill is not perfect. I would hope that the government would be prepared to admit that. It requires a second look.

Now speaking to the amendment, there are other reasons why this bill should be referred to a select standing committee. There are a number of other reasons. I could never catalogue them all in the short time that is available to me, but I would like to refer to another letter that has been sent to me by one of the doctors. I referred to this stack of letters here.

Obviously I'm not going to be able to refer to every individual concern, although I must tell you that it is truly impressive to see the level of thoughtfulness and the articulate manner in which physicians have addressed this concern in writing to members of the Legislature, including myself. These aren't form letters that have been sent in by a special interest group at all. These are very thoughtful, passionate letters from people who care about our medical system, our medicare system and our health care system in the province.

They don't want to see it destroyed, and they fear that Bill 71 is going to be a major step in the wrong direction.

I have a letter here from a doctor in Squamish which has been sent to the Minister of Health. It has been copied to myself and to the Premier. I think this letter very clearly summarizes what so many of these doctors are saying in these hundreds of letters that I've received. In his June 10 letter to the Minister of Health, Dr. Quiring says: "In my opinion there is more than enough money in the present budget to look after

[ Page 2936 ]

health care if abuse in the system is curbed. I feel that the vast majority of this abuse comes from patients, not physicians."

He goes on to discuss some potential solutions to that. The minister has received this letter, and I know she has received hundreds of letters like it. But it is representative of a physician trying to come up with solutions. The physician is saying there are problems in the system, and they can be addressed. I'm trying to, in a very constructive manner, suggest ways that the system can be fixed, because this doctor does not want to be put into a situation where he is forced to leave the province.

This doctor, like so many of the young internists and resident physicians who are members of PARI-BC, do not want to contemplate a future where they are forced to leave British Columbia to practise elsewhere simply because they're not made to feel welcome here; because they're made to feel unwelcome and almost like criminals in their own province. One of the big concerns that we must have is that Bill 71 doesn't simply accelerate the brain-drain from our province and force the best and brightest medical practitioners who are just coming into the profession to leave to practise south of the border.

That would be a tragedy.

An Hon. Member: Cross-border shopping.

D. Mitchell: That's right, cross-border shopping for medical care. When we go down to the United States to shop for that medical care, we're going to be consulting with physicians who have tragically left our province to practise elsewhere. That's not what we want to see; we want to see those young doctors stay and practise in British Columbia.

[4:15]

I was very disappointed with the comments made in the debate on second reading by the Minister of Advanced Education, who is himself a practising physician. He said that if those physicians wish to go south of the border, then let them go; we don't care. But we do care when the very best and brightest physicians in this province want to practise elsewhere because they're not made to feel welcome here, and they can't practise here in the way that they've been trained and taught. We don't want to just let them go. We don't want to provide incentives for them to leave; we want to provide incentives for them to stay and practise here. So we have to address that.

One of the concerns that has been addressed in debate on second reading of this bill, and on the amendment to which I'm speaking, has been the whole issue of the rationing of health care. That's what the government is getting at, and that's what the hon. Minister of Health is really driving at in Bill 71. But who is going to decide on the rationing and on what treatments are available?

I'd like to read into the record a very small portion of a letter that I've received from Dr. Anthony Chan, who practises at Lions Gate Hospital on the North Shore. He's a vascular and general surgeon. This is a letter he wrote on June 21 -- it's very current -- and it gets to the whole issue of the rationing of health care, which we don't want to see in this province because it's a difficult position to put a physician into. I'm not going to read the name of the patient, but I do have the permission of the doctor to use this letter. He's writing to the daughter of a patient of his, and he says:

"As you know, your mother is currently in hospital under my care. She has had two previous operations for blockage of the arteries. Her underlying problem now is further deterioration of her blood vessels.

"What I am about to inform you will undoubtedly upset you, but after agonizing over this all day, I have decided to be candid with you about why I have decided not to operate.

"Normally, I would have recommended another bypass operation, even though the chance of long-term...success is only about 30 percent....

"Given a choice, I would have preferred to give her that chance. Unfortunately, we are now faced with a rigid and inadequate budget for doctors' services and are being told to trim our services to stay within that budget, or face penalties. The Minister of Health" -- and he names the minister -- "stated in no uncertain terms that

'one of our most important responsibilities is to set a health care budget that taxpayers can afford and that everyone must work within.' Since this budget is obviously not adequate to meet the needs of British Columbians, by about $60 million this year, doctors have to start rationing what they do. They have to set priorities and eliminate those services that have low yield or cost-effectiveness. A third bypass operation on your mother would fit that description. I have consulted another vascular surgeon, and he agrees with this assessment."

He concludes his letter by saying:

"Personally, I am against this type of rigid rationing. It flies in the face of everything I have been taught and amounts, furthermore, to a serious conflict of interest. The doctors of this province are therefore trying very hard to stop Bill 71, which is about to be passed into law. Health care is too important to be compromised in this arbitrary way by people who obviously do not understand what is at stake. It is also sad that the public does not seem to realize or care about what is happening to their hitherto excellent and comprehensive health care system.

"I have not conveyed these facts to your mother; there is no need to distress her further. Please rest assured that I shall continue to treat your mother as best I can under the circumstances.

"Yours sincerely,

" Dr. Anthony Chan."

I could read into the record hundreds of other letters like these, but I think this letter gets to the essence of the problem -- the difficulty that we're placing physicians in, the whole issue of rationing health care, which Bill 71 really is driving at. Rationing health care is one of the goals of Bill 71. But the question is: who decides? The physicians clearly aren't in a position to decide. Or if they do, they have to make decisions that provide profound moral dilemmas for them as practising physicians who have been taught and trained within a system to provide the best health care for their patients.

They're having to make life and death decisions on behalf of their patients and their patients' families. You can sense the trauma that Dr. Chan expressed in his letter of June 21 in writing to the daughter of one of his patients. It

[ Page 2937 ]

was a very difficult task for him to write that letter and have that kind of communication.

The government has to be more open about this process. They really have to address the fundamental issues here. They want rationing of health care. Who is going to decide? Arbitrary action.... They have to decide.

This amendment says that we should send this bill to a select standing committee of the House so that it can receive a more thorough scrutiny, more public input and input from all members of this House. I urge all members of this assembly, for those reasons, to support this amendment.

B. Jones: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Jones: I looked up in the gallery a few minutes ago to see that this chamber was joined by a distinguished British Columbian. I think it should give heart to all members that there is life after politics. In the gallery today is a former member of this chamber who served in the forties as the MLA for Peace River, I believe it was, for the CCF: a gentleman by the name of Joe Corsbie, who has gone on to serve this province in a wide variety of capacities. He has a particular interest in health care in this province, and I'm sure he is here today to see what debate is happening on Bill 71. Would the House please make Joe Corsbie welcome.

F. Gingell: It must be apparent to all members of this House that there are fears which are a mix of things that are real and perhaps some things that are imagined. We must surely also realize that when a change of this nature comes about, it is important that there be sufficient time for a sober second thought before action is taken.

The Canada Health Act has been in existence for many years now, in excess of 25 years, I understand. Changes come slowly. As conditions change within the country, there comes a time when these acts and this legislation need to be revised. We understand from reading in the newspapers that even the federal government is recognizing the need for some revision, or at least is considering that the time has come for revision of the Canada Health Act to be considered.

As the federal government has withdrawn from its responsibility to properly fund all of the provinces to provide health care, the provinces have been burdened with this changing environment. When the time comes for a change to be made -- and it is clearly long past time now -- it is critically important that it be handled in a manner that is seen to be open, consultative and listening to all segments of the population. All people in Canada are concerned with the Canada Health Act. Whether we are physicians or beneficiaries or taxpayers, we all have very real interests in what happens.

I appreciate that the Seaton commission report, Closer to Home, does set out some new parameters, does tell the provincial government about things that they should be concerned about, does sound the warning bell about costs. The warning bell about costs, of course, isn't something new. Arrangements have been negotiated for some years now between doctors and the provincial government with respect to the capping of fees to a global budget amount. I understand that had the BCMA had some comfort that there was going to be fuller consultation and that they would be listened to, there was very easily an opportunity to provide for an agreement for this current year.

I'm really sorry that that didn't happen, because what we need at this moment is breathing space. We need to see what is happening with the federal government. If they are going to make changes, those changes in the federal legislation and the regulations that may become apparent from the changes should be brought into play in whatever legislation we have in British Columbia. So the amendment -- that "Bill 71 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services" -- seems to me to make good common sense.

This does not mean that the lid is necessarily taken off the provincial treasure chest and free rein is given to the medical profession.

As I said when I spoke in second reading, I can appreciate the problem that the provincial government has. What is the problem? Well, it is a problem of inflation compounded by a growing population, compounded by an aging population, compounded by advances in the medical and scientific world that bring to all people more advanced medical procedures to elongate their lives or make their lives more comfortable; and finally, it is compounded by new diseases.

If the position of the government sustains and they do not send this to the select standing committee because we will have a crisis on our hands, I would suggest that simply isn't the case. I am sure there can be an accommodation reached between the government and health-care givers, accepting that there will be a cap on the total amount of payments and on the clear understanding that the select standing committee will be given this task and will be called on to listen to beneficiaries of the health care system and practitioners around the province and come up with the right solutions.

Mr. Speaker, I was really quite surprised when the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who is chairman of the committee, suggested that because the committee has already been given one specific and important task -- I do not in any way denigrate that task -- they simply wouldn't have the time, resources or ability to deal with this critically important subject.

[4:30]

What are the important things that the provincial government does for the people of British Columbia? Recognizing, as we should, that we are their servants, and that it is our responsibility to deliver the things they want and need and the things that laws and practices in Canada over the years have established, three or four things bubble up to the top as being the most important. At the top of that list of responsibilities of the provincial government is health care. Health care, education and the social services net are the important things. This one, that in this year -- I believe from memory -- is anticipated to spend $5.1 billion of the

[ Page 2938 ]

total budget of roughly $18 billion, because of its cost, obviously takes precedent.

As we are going to make change, as change is surely going to happen and must happen, we all recognize that we cannot allow our present medicare system to drive us into the hands of the receiver and the pawnbroker. We have to shape and style the new medical services that will lead us into the next ten years with a great deal of care. The Medical and Health Care Services Act is critically important to us and must be done with the due care and consideration that it deserves.

It was interesting to listen to the minister earlier and other speakers say that there has been a lot of consultation. "I met with them on such and such a day in February, and such and such a day in March, and such and such a day in April." I think it came to a total of ten or 12 days in total. But at that time, they must have been dealing with the provisions of Bills 13 and 14, because Bill 71 did not exist.

An Hon. Member: Sure it did.

F. Gingell: If Bill 71 existed then, why was it not brought into this House at that time, six weeks ago, for us to consider it? It is now June 23. That reminds me of another important day, March 23, budget day. I remember it so well: my first responsibility of having to look at something, given an hour, and then supposed to come in and listen to the whole thing. March, April, May, June: three months.

If Bill 71 existed three months ago, it should have been called Bill 31, not 71, and it should have been presented to this House. Who did you consult with? The question of the consultation is not just with the medical profession. It has to be with all the people. I'm really surprised, because I thought that if you had had the opportunity to bring in this bill earlier, before the House started to move towards a conclusion, a bill of such importance and such magnitude, it would have allowed us as the opposition to do our job in the responsible and proper manner that we should. We need time.

Now it's all very well for the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale to shake his head, but I didn't know that the NDP caucus had been looking at Bill 71 for three or four months.

Interjections.

F. Gingell: Well, he's indicating he's had lots of time.

At any rate, I have no problem in my heart supporting the amendment. I think that it makes good, honest common sense.

I appreciate the problem of the minister. I believe that the minister can make an arrangement with the BCMA that will ensure that the lid is not removed from your budgetary restrictions for the year 1992-93; and in the meantime, with input from both sides of this House and the proper type of consultation, we can come up with a solution.

There are matters that need to be looked at. It is not clear whether the Hippocratic oath covers a medical doctor going in to look at a patient's records that are not the result of his relationship with the patient but the result of a relationship between the patient and another doctor. That is a problem that surely, with sober second thought, without rushing Bill 71 through the process, can be dealt with and looked at. There have to be solutions.

If the list of doctors designated to be inspectors or auditors or whatever word is appropriate -- I think it is inspectors -- were to come only from a list nominated and prepared by the BCMA, surely no one would have any problem with that. Surely if that's the sensible way to go, it should be put into the legislation. Then it would probably be without question that those inspectors, because they would be acting on behalf of the medical association, would be covered by the demands and requirements of the Hippocratic oath.

Interjection.

F. Gingell: Yes, I'm sorry. That was what I meant to say. You should get that list of nominations from them. I don't see that with this act. I think that a lot of matters need to be dealt with, and with a good heart and sincerity, I suggest that you deal with the money problems separately. Make sure that you can remain within your budget -- I'm sure that arrangement can be made -- and leave the passage of Bill 71 until it has time