1981 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1981

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4943 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Victoria RCMP headquarters.

Mr. Hanson –– 4943

Amax Mine in Kitsault.

Mr. Passarell –– 4943

Oral Questions

Policy on size of forest companies. Mr. Barber –– 4943

Mr. King –– 4944

Amax Mine tailings in Alice Arm. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 4944

Policy on size of forest companies. Mr. King –– 4945

Value of BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber –– 4945

Dismissal of Bruce Donald. Mr. Macdonald –– 4945

Supply Act, No –– 1, 1981. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

Resolutions –– 4946

Introduction and first reading –– 4947

Supply Act, No –– 1, 1981 (Bill 15). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4947

Mr. Stupich –– 4947

Mr. Hall –– 4947

Ms. Brown –– 4948

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4949

Supply Act, No –– 1, 1981 (Bill 15). Committee stage. (Hon. Mr. Curtis)

section 1 –– 4949

Mr. Howard

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

Third reading –– 4952

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

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4952

Hon. Mr. Gardom

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

On the amendment to

section 6 –– 4952

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Lea

Supply Act, No –– 1, 1981 (Bill 15)

Royal assent –– 4956

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

On the amendment to

section 6 –– 4956

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Ms. Brown

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barrett

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker,

above you in the gallery today, and above the press, is a group of

students visiting from Trinity Western College in Langley, Because they

come from a number of different parts of North America and the world I

would like, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to introduce them

individually. We have: Inga Chapman from Langley, Ruth Nickel from

Surrey, a staff member, Scott and Robert Wuflestad from California,

Steve Thompson from Langley, Sheryl Lundberg from California, Sharon

Harms from Surrey, Graham Hatt from Toronto, Carole Mastin from Fort

St. John, Tim Cleary from Minneapolis, Minnesota, Ken Bartsch from

Clearbrook, David Reeves from Red Deer, Wayne Bremner from Langley and

Ken Cherogony from Kenya, whose father is the head of a provincial

commission in one of the provinces of Kenya and is in a comparable

position to the Premier of British Columbia. I would like to ask the

House to make them welcome.

If I may continue, accompanying

the students today is a man who for 15 years during and after World War

II served the Emperor of Ethiopia in helping to rebuild the political,

social and educational structures of that country that were destroyed

by the ravages of the war. He entered politics in Canada in 1962, and

served for ten years as a Member of Parliament. He was national leader

of the Social Credit Party, and since that time has dedicated himself

to advancing higher education in this country. He is a distinguished

Canadian who has devoted his life to the service of others. I would

like you to make welcome Mr. Robert ("Bob") Thompson.

MR. HANSON:

Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today there are three people I would like

to introduce: Arlene Snare, Jean Frame and Maryanne Bradley. These

people are executive officers of the Public Service Alliance of Canada,

Local 20012 of the union of Solicitor-General's employees, E division

of the RCMP, Victoria. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. RITCHIE:

I feel compelled, Mr. Speaker, to also take this opportunity and join

my colleague, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), in

welcoming our students from the Trinity Western College. I'm very proud

of that college indeed. My own business has benefited greatly from

students who were educated at Trinity Western. I'm sure that

particularly the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) will be

joining me with a full and hearty welcome to them.

I would

also like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that on a recent trip to New Zealand

I had a number of people ask me if I knew Dr. Robert Thompson from

British Columbia, and they asked me that with a great deal of pride in

their eyes. So I would again like to welcome these folks to our chamber

here.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, along with the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the member for

Central Fraser Valley I'd like to participate in extending a welcome to

the students from Trinity College and also Bob Thompson. I had the

pleasure to serve with Bob in the House of Commons of Canada; I enjoyed

his company then and enjoyed meeting him again today.

HON. MR. CHABOT:

Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today Mr. and Mrs. Cameron Moore

from Edgewater. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them to

the assembly.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour to introduce to the House some constituents, Mr. and Mrs.

William Craig of Maple Ridge, and their daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Towner

of England, who is a registered nurse trained both in British Columbia

and in England. She remarked on the excellent decorum in this chamber,

after having visited the British House, and I was pleased that she was

in here at the correct time.

Presenting Petitions

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. HANSON: It reads:

"The

petition of the undersigned, Local 20012, Union of the

Solicitor-General Employees, Public Service Alliance of Canada, and

citizens of the city of Victoria, humbly showeth that moving the RCMP

headquarters from Victoria to Vancouver would result in loss of revenue

to the city of Victoria, increase in policing costs to the British

Columbia taxpayers and personal hardship to employees of the RCMP in

Victoria.

"Wherefore your petitioner humbly

prays that your honourable House may be pleased to act to retain the

British Columbia headquarters of the RCMP in Victoria, the capital city

of British Columbia.

"As is duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray."

It's dated April 2, 1981, with 5,000 signatures collected in one day.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL: It reads:

"The

petition of the undersigned project north of Victoria area humbly

showeth that pollution control permit PE4335, province of B.C., dated

January 12, 1979, be withdrawn, and further that a public inquiry under

the Public Inquiries Act be held before commencement of operation of

the Amax Mine in Kitsault.

"Wherefore your

petitioner, Mr. Speaker, humbly prays that your honourable House may be

pleased to pass this for the purpose above-mentioned. In duty bound,

your petitioner will ever pray."

The petition is dated April 2, 1981. and is signed by 6,000 residents of British Columbia.

Oral Questions

POLICY ON SIZE OF FOREST COMPANIES

MR. BARBER:

I have a question to the Premier. A short while ago the Premier

indicated that the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation

would be limited to some 20 percent of the allowable cut in the forest

industry, or roughly to some 20 percent of the forest enterprise of

British Columbia. In this morning's edition of theVancouver Province ,

the Premier is quoted as saying that this policy wasn't dreamed up

recently, but was established when the Social Credit administration

created BCRIC from a group of Crown corporations in 1978.

[ Page 4944 ]

first question to the Premier is: can he inform the House approximately

when in 1978 the policy was determined by government that BCRIC would

be restricted to shall we say 20 percent of the forest enterprise of

the province of British Columbia? Approximately when in 1978 was that

decision made?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sometime in that

year, but probably — if my memory serves me well — during the period

during which we were planning or involved in distribution.

MR. BARBER: That would have been June, July and August of 1978.

Could

the Premier indicate in what form that policy, limiting BCRIC to 20

percent, was communicated to the board of directors of BCRIC and

approximately at what time?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't recall exactly, but I remember having discussions at one time or another with the chairman of the board at that time.

MR. BARBER:

I wonder then if the Premier could confirm if he's indicating that

there is no written policy or advice from the government of British

Columbia to the board of directors of BCRIC. As the House may know by

way of this question, Mr. Howe this morning evidently knew very little

about the policy and apparently can find no record of it in the board

of directors' minutes. Nor, apparently, did Mr. Helliwell tell him, nor

is there any letter on the file. If in fact Mr. Howe is being honest —

and I'm sure he is — when he says he can find no evidence of such a

policy, I wonder if the Premier could tell us what evidence there is

that we had such a policy in 1978.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, it was government policy, and how different firms

communicated it within their own executive or to their own employees

was up to them. It has been the government policy, it is the government

policy, and it will be the government policy in the future.

MR. KING:

I take it from the Premier's response that he verbally communicated

this information to the chairman of BCRIC's board. Could the Premier

advise the House on what dates and under what circumstances he verbally

communicated this information to the other forest companies in the

province — MacMillan Bloedel, Can-For, Crown Zellerbach, Weyerhaeuser?

Was this done individually in a verbal way also?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No, Mr. Speaker, I did not take it upon myself to visit every forest

company in the province. But the policy was certainly in effect and was

the basis for the government's opposition to the CP bid for control of

MacMillan Bloedel. Combining the assets of CP and MacMillan Bloedel

would have given them a forest industry concentration of corporate

ownership or control that, was against the policy of the government.

That received wide publicity at the time, as I'm sure all members of

this House are aware.

MR. KING: The only criteria I heard publicly for the turning

down of CP Rail's bid was that they were an arrogant company. I wonder

if the Premier instructed his Minister ofForests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to notify the rest of industry in the forest business

in the province of British Columbia that there was an unstated, unpublicized

policy restricting the size of investment in this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, let me correct the

preamble to the question from the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who stated that the reason being given

was that the company was arrogant. That was not stated at the time, and

the member is incorrect; that was not the reason. The reason was that

it went against the policy of the government of British Columbia. That

policy continues, and it is very easily understood that this government

is concerned about the concentration of corporate power in an industry

in which the forests have been totally allocated. We do not want to see

the forest industry fall into just a few hands. The alternative is to

accept the policy the NDP had as government and carries now — that of

government ownership — or we can try to provide some guidelines of

policy that would maintain true competition under the principles of

free enterprise.

MR. KING: A supplementary question

to the Premier, who seems to be reaching. Can the Premier explain to

the House why this policy of the government, which he seems highly

defensive of, was not communicated publicly to all companies operating

in the forest industry in 1978 when he claims it was developed? No one

knew about it then. Even the current president of BCRIC indicates he

didn't know about it. Certainly it was never announced in this House,

nor is there any record of a press release to this effect.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I guess one of the areas this government has been identified as having

a problem with is communications, and we're working to correct that.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary.

MR. KING:

Can we conclude from the Premier's admission that they're guilty of

poor communications that Mr. Heal is going to be assigned to deal with

this misunderstanding in the forest industry?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The Minister of Forests has continuing contact, and I think this

government is very clearly going to be able to communicate information

of major government policy to the people of the province. I thank the

member for Shuswap-Revelstoke for supporting the fact that the

government needs assistance in the type of information program that can

clearly identify the public policy and the programs for the people in

this province, not only in the area of forestry but also in the areas

of services to people — the tremendous health-care programs, the

tremendous new dental-care program, the increase in the GAIN program

announced by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), to

help the people of this province. Certainly all those areas will be

clearly communicated to the people.

MR. SPEAKER: Other members are seeking the floor; we did conclude it was the final supplementary.

AMAX MINE TAILINGS IN ALICE ARM

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Two days ago I was asked a question by the member for Atlin (Mr.

Passarell), and I took the question as notice. I would like now briefly

to read the replies. The question was: "Pursuant to

section 4(4) of the

Pollution Control Act, did the director of pollution control forward a

copy of the application to the Ministers of Health and Agriculture?"

The answer to that question is yes.

[ Page 4945 ]

The

next question was: "In view of the fact that the federal government did

issue the permit on April 10, 1979 — it's been public for a year and a

half — can the minister confirm that our Pollution Control Board issued

its permit on January 12, 1979, three months ahead of the federal

government?" The Pollution Control Board did not issue any permits. The

permits were issued by the pollution control branch on January 12,

1979. The Pollution Control Board had no involvement in either the

application or the issuance of a permit.

POLICY ON SIZE OF FOREST COMPANIES

MR. KING:

Can the Minister of Forests advise the House when he first learned of

the restrictions on the size of firms in the forest industry in the

province of British Columbia? As I recall, in 1978 a new Forest Act was

brought in, and it was not revealed during debate at that time. When

did the minister learn of the policy?

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

It's been said a number of times since 1968 that we feel MacMillan

Bloedel is as large as a company should get in terms of its control of

allowable cut in British Columbia. I myself have said it a number of

times. We have also said since that time that we think BCRIC, because

of its British Columbia and Canadian ownership, should be allowed to

get considerably larger. It's no secret. It has been said a number of

times by me, the Premier and my colleagues.

The member asked

if we have told this to each and every company in British Columbia.

Well, I haven't, nor has the Premier, gone directly to each and every

company. There are very few companies in British Columbia that would

have the capability of becoming that large. The policy is certainly not

a secret except, perhaps, to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who is

the forestry critic and who seems to lack a lot of knowledge of the

things 'that are happening in forestry in British Columbia.

MR. KING:

I have a supplementary question to the minister. I think the House will

continue to lack a lot of information until the minister starts

levelling with the House, Mr. Speaker. What I am asking the minister is

simply this: when senior executives of both MacMillan Bloedel and BCRIC

— your government's corporation in the province — are unaware of the

policy, certainly the minister should be able to give us something more

specific than his point of view. Is there a policy statement? Is there

any directive which would assure all corporations in the province that

they will have even-handed policy applied to them, rather than the

political whim of the Premier? That's the question.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I have told the member that it has been a stated policy of

the government for a number of years now, and I cannot accept the fact

that senior executives of BCRIC or MacMillan Bloedel were not aware of

the policy.

MR. KING: Would the minister please table

this policy statement with the House so that all members may acquaint

themselves with its contents?

MR. SPEAKER: The request can be made.

VALUE OF BCRIC SHARES

MR. BARBER:

I have a question for the Premier. In 1978 the Premier described BCRIC

as "a great investment opportunity for our people," and personally

wrote to every British Columbian encouraging their participation as

shareholders in this corporation. He then reduced the value of BCRIC

shares from $11.75 to $6, and the shares have never recovered from his

political decision. Has the Premier taken any steps to protect the

value of the shareholders' investment in the corporation he invented?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, first of all I disagree partly with the member's

conclusion contained at the front of the question — that giving people

an opportunity not only to receive individual ownership as opposed to

big government ownership, and the opportunity for them to harness a

part of their savings, devalued the shares of BCRIC during that

distribution. I disagree with that

preamble which became part of the

question.

BCRIC operates clearly in the private sector under

private-sector rules. They have an exceptional opportunity in the

forest industry. That's the one exception they have, and that was part

of the opportunity they had, which they could either utilize or

neglect. But no, the government of British Columbia does not take

part

in the corporate decisions of BCRIC, nor do we take part with those who

would destroy the corporation and the value of the shareholders'

confidence by attacking it publicly when, in fact, other corporations

aren't subject to that type of political abuse,

DISMISSAL OF BRUCE DONALD

MR. MACDONALD:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. Yesterday in a public

statement, Bruce Donald, the recently dismissed senior Crown counsel,

stated that a public inquiry should be held not only into his

dismissal, but also into "other matters in the Attorney-General's

department which should be looked into." I ask the Attorney-General:

has he decided on a public inquiry?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

In view of the shaking of public confidence in the administration of

justice in British Columbia, and in particular, in view of the Rigg

case, the Moran case, the Wendy King case, the Judge Govan case, the

Ritchie case and the chief coroner case — all arising from actions

within the department of the Attorney-General — has the

Attorney-General decided to refer these matters to a legislative

all-party committee?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MACDONALD:

Then there will be no public inquiry. Do I understand the

Attorney-General correctly? He likes to give himself secret

absolutions. That's what's happening.

Orders of the Day

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

[ Page 4946 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses

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

31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth

of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of

the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports resolution and asks leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of

Supply on April 2, 1981, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

The resolution is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund

there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses

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

31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth

of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of

the province of British Columbia at the present session.

The question proposed is that this House doth agree with the committee and the said resolution.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Later today, Mr. Speaker.

I move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means.

Motion approved.

The House in Committee of Ways and Means; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated

revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times

as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of

the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982,

not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount

of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982,

as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia

at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the resolution as reported be considered?

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of

Ways and Means on April 2, 1981, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the resolution be now read a second time.

MR. SPEAKER:

The motion is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there

may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the

whole $1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses

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

31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth

of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal

year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of

the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At the next sitting, Mr. Speaker.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1981

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I present Bill 15, intituled Supply Act, No. 1, 1981.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I would ask you to remain in your places pending distribution of the bill.

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

Motion approved.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise and report recommending the introduction of the bill.

[ Page

4947 ]

Motion approved,

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports, recommending introduction of the bill.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move the report be adopted.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and now read a first time.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.

would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks with regard to

interim supply, which is not unknown in this Legislature, having been a

part of our activities annually for a good number of years. Interim

supply today represents approximately one-sixth of the total of all

votes to be considered as outlined in the estimates. This total is

adjusted, as in the past, to provide spending authority for numerous

ten-dollar votes, which members will know of, where revenue is netted

against expenditure. This provides for expenditure during the next two

months in all aspects of government activity, and with respect to the

ten-dollar votes such as the British Columbia Lotteries branch and the

Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing enterprises, which is vote 153 —

including the UEL — during a period where we may not be able to assume

that there will be matching revenues in this particular interim period.

would observe again, Mr. Speaker, that it is a relatively complex

procedure that we follow in requesting approval of interim supply.

Members are aware, sir, that each year provision must be made to allow

the administration of government to carry on. This is the second day of

a new fiscal year, the year 1981-82. I am seeking approval of this

interim supply, which represents one-sixth of the gross expenditure of

the government of the province of British Columbia.

Previously,

Mr. Speaker, we have seen varying amounts or percentages used.

Occasionally it is one-quarter; I think it has been one-third. It is

not unknown in this House for a second interim supply bill to be

presented should that be necessary. It was felt in this particular case

that one-sixth would be a prudent amount. It was presented in response

to some concern, which has been expressed before, that one quarter, or

particularly one-third, is a rather large amount to advance under these

terms.

Hon. members will know that the total of all votes presented in the

estimates now before us — or, in fact, before the Committee of Supply —

is $6,671,495,000. To this must be added recoveries of $431,313,652.

Earlier in these remarks I spoke about $10 votes. There are

approximately 38 such nominal votes — $10 votes — for which I seek this

authorization as well. As in previous years, these expenditures will be

offset by recoveries from areas in the revenue sources. These

recoveries have been added to the total main estimates. The timing of

these recoveries does not, however, necessarily coincide with

expenditures, as was observed. The gross expenditure totals

$7,102,808,652, of which the one-sixth before us in this bill equals

$1,184,000,000.

Those conclude my opening remarks. Members will, I'm sure, speak to the matter before us.

I move second reading of Bill 15.

MR. STUPICH:

I appreciate the advice from the government House Leader as to just

when to take

part in this debate. It is a very complicated procedure. I

can recall that the first time W.A.C. Bennett ever used it in the House

it was the first time I ever saw him use crib sheets for anything —

other than the budget speech itself. But he had to follow the same sort

of crib sheet — perhaps even the same copy — as the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) are following.

Even then, the first time he did it he did get on the wrong line once

and had to try and recover himself. So it is complicated, and certainly

people watching it must wonder what's going on, and perhaps think that

some of us know what's going on when in fact none of us really do.

realize also that the scope for debate with respect to this particular

legislation is very limited. The Minister of Finance, in speaking on

second reading, took some pains to tell us that this is one-sixth of

the total budget, and this is just about as far as you can go in

debating this particular bill. It isn't an opportunity to get into the

budget debate all over again and tell the Minister of Finance we don't

believe his figures about revenue and his forecasts about expenditures,

or to tell him that we think he is indeed budgeting for a surplus that

he intends to use for other purposes. This isn't the opportunity to

remind him of those things, as much as we would like to do so. Even if

we did have the opportunity at this time to tell him we think he's

wrong and he's not telling us what he really believes. we wouldn't want

to make use of that opportunity at this time. We wouldn't want to hold

up interim supply unduly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: However!

MR. STUPICH:

No however, Mr. Speaker. No, there's other business before the House

that we have abandoned temporarily in order to proceed with this

legislation, and the opposition is very anxious to get back to the

business that was before us this morning and that will be before us

again, we hope, early this afternoon. So we don't intend to hold up

interim supply.

We would have liked the opportunity to have

told the minister some of the things I have already mentioned and which

we can’t tell him at this particular time — to remind him of these

things. There was opportunity during the budget debate, and there will

be opportunity in the various ministerial estimates for us to point out

opportunities where we need not have voted as much money as we're

voting right now. There will be further opportunity when we're

discussing the estimates for the Minister of Finance, and we bide our

time. When those opportunities afford themselves to us, we're prepared

to take full advantage of them to point out where the government is

wasting money, where it could have cut back, where it could have

increased revenue and where it should have decreased revenue. We

certainly will be bringing up those arguments over and over again.

But

as I said, interim supply is almost totally administrative in nature.

We do not intend to hold it up unduly. The opposition will support the

interim supply bill.

MR. HALL: I want to take the

opportunity in second reading of this interim supply bill to assure the

Minister of Finance of its speedy passage from this side of the House,

but

[ Page 4948 ]

offer him an opportunity to straighten out the record a little from a

previous occasion just a year ago. When we passed interim supply a year

ago, I took the opportunity during second reading to inquire about a

number of matters that were troubling me as a member of the opposition

trying to deal with inquiries coming into my office, both in the

constituency and here in Victoria, and also to do with my

responsibilities as chairman of the public accounts committee.

will now ask the minister if he would care to comment on whether or not

this money is going to be sufficient to deal with the day-to-day

activities of all the departments of government, and in particular,

whether or not there will be any replies given by departments of

government, ministries, ministers, executive assistants and senior

civil servants in response to inquiries about money, as to whether or

not this opposition is holding up money because of the length of time

it's taking us to go through a $6 billion budget. In short, I want to

be assured by the Minister of Finance that what we're doing today is

adequate, because I don't want to pass a bill that doesn't have enough

money in it, that will, in effect, enable ministers, executive

assistants, deputy ministers or public servants to tell the public of

British Columbia that they can't get what they're entitled to because

the New Democratic Party opposition is somehow holding up the money.

Now

we've heard of that, Mr. Speaker. You may find that strange and hard to

believe, the minister may find it strange and hard to believe, but I

want to tell him that while I find it strange, I don't find it hard to

believe. In fact, during the debates last year I heard a minister of

the Crown say the very same thing. I'm talking about the member for

Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who said in the House, yes, there wasn't

money for his projects because the official opposition was holding up

estimates.

We didn't call the House together on March 9, Mr.

Speaker; you did. If you didn't call us together soon enough, you have

to consult with somebody — I don't know who — to get us here a little

earlier so the money can go through a little faster. I wasn't in

Hawaii; I wasn't jet-setting around the world; I was ready to do the

people's business; and I think the minister was too, if I can possibly

pass him a back-handed compliment. I want him, when he's summing up

what small debate there'll be in second reading, to state what the

position of the government is going to be in terms of those inquiries.

I'm

not threatening or promising or doing anything, but if this opposition

hears again that the true scrutiny of dollar-by-dollar estimates is

being used by that government — and I'm including all agencies of

government — as some excuse for not getting on with their work, we'll

be on our hind legs every day of the week. I think I've known that

minister sufficiently long enough to know that he would agree with me.

The

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) asked me if I

was going to make a speech today. My answer was yes. You've heard the

speech. I'd like the answers, because, while we all know what the game

of politics is all about, this is hardball, and I want to get it

finished right now.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, further

to my colleague's comments, I want to deal specifically with one of the

worst culprits in this area, and that's the Ministry of Human

Resources. I'm sure you remember the debates from last year, when there

were not only statements made but even messages and memos going out of

that ministry, informing people that they could not receive their

funding because the opposition was holding up interim supply.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. We are now digressing into specific debate

of specific votes in the House. The debate on this particular motion is

extremely narrow and must restrict itself to the voting of interim

supply itself. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Right. That

was just a

preamble, Mr. Speaker. Now to the very narrow limitations of

this bill. I just wanted to let the House know that I have already

received a number of phone calls in my Burnaby-Edmonds office and in my

office here at Victoria from group-home operators and foster homes and

other people contracted to the Ministry of Human Resources, informing

me that their cheques for March 31 and April 1 have not been received

because this House has not passed interim supply. No statement has been

made that the bill has not been introduced into the House until this

moment. Instead, the statement has been made that the cheques are

ready, that in fact they're being held in the accounting office because

this House has not passed this bill. That is another Socred dirty trick

— that's precisely what that is. Mr. Speaker, I just want the record to

show that although the bill states specifically that it's a bill to

deal with financing until March 31 of this year, today is April 2, and

this is the first time we've had an opportunity to see and debate the

bill or pass the bill. So what we're dealing with is not just

incompetence and ineptitude on the part of that government over there,

but another indication that they have not learned their lesson and that

their dirty tricks continue.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm

very pleased to respond to the charges against the Ministry of Human

Resources, because I think that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who has

just taken her place, is suggesting that she has received calls in her

office. It's interesting that I've received quite a few calls in my

office too, Mr. Speaker, and we have responded in a different way than

the member has suggested.

It's interesting that we had calls

on the very first day of April. If a cheque did not arrive in the mail

to most people in this province, I think that they would immediately

blame the mail service. But somehow for some reason those who have

reached our office know the terms: "When are you going to pass the

supply bill? When are you going to pass the Supply Act?" They know all

the terminology of the House, which I'd say is a great credit to the

people of British Columbia. I would say it shows that the information

is very well sent out, even contrary to what is said in this House many

times about communications.

Over the years in this House the

supply bill has come in at different times. There has never been any

hardship in the month of April in my ministry because of this House not

passing a supply bill, In the past 24 hours when we've had these calls,

we have said that yes, there is a supply bill that has to come before

the House, and it is an order of urgent business that will be dealt

with urgently. I simply respond to that because I think that the

commentary just heard by the House is entirely different than the

commentary given over the telephone by the people in my ministry, who

are very cognizant that the cheques must get out. In fact, I'm sure

that they were very concerned during the years of the New Democratic

Party, when the supply bill was as late as April 9 in getting passed in

this House and getting to the people of the Ministry of Human

Resources. This will not happen at this point in time, because this is

now the second day of April, and I'm sure that this House has a great

concern to pass it in a great hurry.

[ Page

4949 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: My remarks will be brief. I thank the member

for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall)

for dealing with the general aspects of interim supply. The member for

Nanaimo, the finance critic for the official opposition, indicated that

there will be other opportunities to debate specifies, and indeed the

Committee of Supply is seized with that right now. I take that as a

very fair comment. That is why we are here to debate.

The

second member for Surrey, who is in the House but not in his seat,

asked: "Is this money sufficient?" Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is sufficient

for the purposes which have been identified: that is, one-sixth of the

estimated annual expenditure for the 1981-82 year. The member will

know, as a minister in a former government, that it is necessary for

officials in various ministries, for ministers themselves and for staff

throughout government to say occasionally that there are not sufficient

funds for that particular purpose which is being discussed. That's the

whole question of government not being able to supply every last dollar

that everyone would like for every last program. But the fact that we

have estimates to continue for quite some time — however long that may

take — should not interfere with the flow of funds as authorized by

interim supply to carry on the programs which have been outlined by

this government, as well as statutory programs which are an inherent

part of governmental process in British Columbia.

Should the

second member for Surrey have any specifies at any time where it is

indicated by a government employee or some other person associated with

government that there are insufficient funds because of the supply and

estimates process, then I trust he will draw those to my immediate

attention, privately or in the House. I would like him to undertake to

do that. We see no problem in terms of the general situation which he

outlined.

There was reference by the hon. member for

Burnaby-Edmonds and a response by my colleague the Minister of Human

Resources with respect to phone calls. Well, Mr. Speaker, the member

opposite may be interested to know that I have been in direct personal

conversation with several people in the Vancouver area on the point

which she raised, and the point which I think was more than adequately

answered by my colleague the Minister of Human Resources. I took the

time today to speak to these individuals who are dependent upon

government assistance of one kind or another. In two cases they did not

seem to understand that the fiscal year has just ended, that interim

supply isn't something which has been introduced by this government or

by the last government, but that there is, as of March 31, 1981, the

end of a fiscal year and that with the exception of emergency funds —

and I make that point realizing that it is, perhaps, in violation of

the legislative process — no moneys can be expended unless they are

voted.

I took particular pains this year, Mr. Speaker, as my

colleague is aware, to ensure that in this interval, if for some reason

or other the House could not have met, emergency funds would be

provided. The problem exists, to the best of my knowledge, only in the

greater Vancouver area, because another progressive step taken in

recent months by this government, and by that ministry in conjunction

with the Ministry of Finance, is to put Ministry of Human Resources

payments on a 13-month

schedule to avoid the very problem which has

existed in the past.

We are on a 13-month payment cycle. We

intend to move to the same cycle in the greater Vancouver area, but it

is a far more complex question there than in some other parts of the

province. At the same time, it is difficult if a cheque is one or two

days late, and again my colleague the Deputy Premier and Minister of

Human Resources indicated that this is about the average time for

interim supply to be presented to the Legislative Assembly. I've looked

back over the last 11 years: April 2; April 1; March 30; April 4; March

26 — that was because there was an Easter break immediately following

that date, during the opposition's time in government; March 30; March

30; April 10; April 2 last year; April 2 this year.

Without

violating the authority of this House and its committees, we want to

make sure that we can cover this very short period, Mr. Speaker.

between the end of the fiscal year and the voting of interim supply.

I again thank the members for their observations, and I now move second reading.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Supply Act. No. 1, 1981, read a second time and referred to a Committee

of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1981

The House in Committee on Bill 15; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

section 1.

MR. HOWARD:

I wonder if I could pose a question on

section 1 to the Minister of

Finance. The question is founded upon some information that was given

to the Committee of Supply by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) — I only use that as a prelude, not to expand beyond the

ambit of the bill. The Minister of Forests said that he had been

required or asked or instructed by the Minister of Finance to reduce

the allocation of funds to his ministry by 2 1/3 percent. Inasmuch as

we are now dealing with one-sixth of the estimates of expenditure for

all ministries involved, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could

provide the committee with some information as to just what that 2 1/3

percent meant, what it applied to and what the result has been in

reducing expenditures by that amount of money. How does it show up?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, before proceeding I must indicate that the Chair is having

some difficulty under the "strictly relevant" section. I would note the

bill says "substantially one-sixth of the total amount." Therefore,

hon. member, "substantially one-sixth" is the amount under debate. I

must indicate at this time that debate on the line of questioning put

forward by the member for Skeena would hardly be in order under this

particular section.

[ Page 4950 ]

MR. HOWARD:

I don't want to challenge that decision. We're not in that ambit of the

thing, but to me it seems to be a highly irregular type of ruling. At

one stage the Committee of Supply is given information by a minister

that a 2 1/3 percent reduction is necessitated. We're just seeking to

find out from the minister to what extent that 2 1/3 percent reduction

applies to this one-sixth, or this "substantially one-sixth," or the

$1,184,000,000 that is there. I submit a perfectly legitimate question,

Mr. Chairman, without wading back into the history of Great Britain to

find out what they may do there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To assist members, may I read from Sir Erskine May's eleventh edition, page 595, on the appropriation bill committee practice:

"The

principle of relevancy is also strictly applied to debate and

amendments in the committee on the appropriation bill. No grant of

supply is affected by the bill. Its provisions are solely

administrative; the sole object of the bill is to ensure the

application of the grants made by Parliament to the objects defined by

the resolutions of the Committee of Supply. Accordingly, debate or

amendment must be restricted to the matter of appropriation; and the

conduct of the officials or of the departments who receive the supply

grants cannot be challenged in the committee on the bill. Nor can

amendments be moved to its clauses, or to the schedule, to effect the

omission or reduction of the amount of a grant, or of the

appropriations in aid of it, or an alteration in the designation of a

grant."

MR. LEA: We can't discuss it, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Prince Rupert sums up the essence most appropriately.

MR. HOWARD:

Perhaps we can try another attack at it on the basis of the word you

emphasized, namely "appropriation." We're trying to appropriate a

certain amount of money here. The Minister of Forests has said that the

allocation of funds to him was sought to be reduced. Is this a valid

figure we're faced with, or is 2 1/3 percent to be cut from it? In

other words, we're asking about the validity of the amount to be

appropriated. If we are running afoul of a very fine

interpretation of

the rules in that regard, inasmuch as the minister was rising in his

place to respond to it when I posed the question before, perhaps we

could by consent give to the minister permission to reply to it so that

the committee here will have an understanding of whether or not that

$1,184,000,000 is an accurate figure. Is it to be reduced or is it too

much or what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon.

member, notwithstanding the comments by the member, it would be a very

unprecedented precedent to set to enter into the dialogue that the

member is referring to. Therefore I regret that if we are not

discussing "substantially one-sixth of the total amount" — that is the

limit of our scope of debate in this

section — to stray from that would

be to set a precedent that the Chair is not prepared to set.

On a point of order, the member for Nelson-Creston.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the practice in Westminster

is substantially different from ours. I think that your comments would

be quite valid if we were in Committee of Ways and Means, which we've

already been in some minutes ago, but we are now in committee on the

second reading of an interim supply bill. I think that the analogy

between appropriation would be more appropriate to Committee of Ways

and Means.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your

observations, hon. member. Nevertheless, the Chair is bound to uphold

the standing traditions, and to digress at this point to what the

member is suggesting would be a precedent the Chair is not prepared to

accept.

On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD:

One of the other provisions of May — a very time-honoured one — is that

it is the function of the Chair, in addition to what the Chair has just

outlined, to look at current situations, which are not always and

exclusively historic situations, and to try by that process and

procedure to recognize that perhaps what we are doing today

necessitates a departure from what took place in England. We are faced

with the need for that departure, I submit, because for the first time

that anybody knows of the Minister of Forests told the Committee of

Supply that, beyond the estimates, he has been asked by the Minister of

Finance to cut his allocation of funds by 2 1/3 percent. That was the

new factor in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the

Chair has the point made. Again, the point would have added validity

were it not for the fact that we still have full opportunity before us

to canvass the matter both in other ministries and before the Minister

of Finance other than in this specific bill. As it was put so aptly,

now we are specifically looking at

section 1 of this bill, and the only

thing that we can really discuss is the "substantially one-sixth of the

total amount."

The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA:

I think we all understand what you're saying. You're saying that

because in England 500 years ago, or approximately 500 years ago, they

had a rule about something, even though today common sense would tell

the Chairman that we should be doing what the member for Skeena (Mr.

Howard) said, we can't do it. I think I'd like to follow up what the

hon. member for Skeena said. There is some latitude in the Chair, and

if it makes common sense to the Chairman that the people's business be

done and that it be done in a way that everyone is satisfied that the

money that the taxpayers are going to pay is going to be spent

properly, the question should be asked. I make an appeal to you to deal

with this with common sense as opposed to 500-year old precedents.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I would hope that the members of this committee would appreciate that

the Chair is trying to do its utmost in providing commonsense

background and traditions. Hon. members, if we were to stray from the

traditions that bind us in this House, I would hate to think where we

would be because of a change that we simply couldn't accept. We must

carry through with the traditions that bind the practice of this House.

Hon.

members, I must confess at this time that we have entertained some

sizeable debate on the issue, and if it's a ruling that the members are

looking for, I'm prepared to give that ruling. I would hope, however,

that common sense would prevail and that we would proceed with this

bill.

[ Page

4951 ]

MR. LEA:

On the same point of order, to give the Chairman some food for thought,

you know those little things that the sailors wear on the back of their

uniforms? They're decorative, but they're there to keep the tar from

the pigtails off the uniform of the sailors. They're still there

although they no longer wear pigtails, and I believe that we're in that

kind of a situation today. The rule of the precedent makes no sense,

but we're afraid to change it, and I can't understand it.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

On that note, hon. members, I would point out that some of those very

same individuals take great pride in that same piece of material that

is worn on the back of those uniforms.

MS. BROWN: I

would like to ask the minister a couple of questions dealing with this

section. First of all, I'm wondering why it was not possible to bring

this bill in on Monday, March 30, when we were all here, or even on

Tuesday, March 31, when we were all here.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. That question would have been appropriate

in second reading, but now.... Hon. members, I'm sure that if we were

to more carefully understand the strict relevance of this section, that

might guide us all. On that, I must rule, hon. member, that the

question....

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if I had been

given an opportunity to complete my train of thought the connection

would have become clearer as I proceeded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MS. BROWN:

Right. In fact, it has to do with the spending of sums of money which,

for all intents and purposes, came due — some of them — on March 31.

When I raised — not reflecting on the vote, but earlier — the fact that

there was considerable inconvenience as a result of the money in this

section being appropriated on April 2 rather than on March 30 or March

31 the minister said there was no hardship. I want to say that in the

Vancouver area there is one particular group home which is going to

have to close. The group home has received an eviction notice as a

result of this particular

section of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. Hon. members, I hate to try and keep

bringing this forward, but hon. members should be in a position to

understand that we are dealing with the strict relevance of

section 1.

There will be adequate opportunity for the member to discuss the point

she's raised, but not here and not in this section. The Chair would

greatly appreciate the understanding of members on this. The Supply Act

is a very straightforward and restrictive bill, and the dialogue that

the member is now engaging in is certainly much more adequately

coverable — if I may use that word — in another ministry in another

section.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman — except that I'm specifically

dealing with

section 1 and the appropriation of these sums of money today, which

should have been appropriated and passed by this House two or three days ago.

I cannot debate this particular

section under any other minister, and the only

opportunity I've had to deal with this

section is here and now, because

this is the first time it's come up.

The

other point I wanted to ask the minister was whether in this

appropriation the minister included the possibility of printing cheques

in braille for those people who have limited vision. This idea was put

forward by a number of blind people. I notice that the member for North

Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is very amused by the concept of blind people

not being able to read their cheques.

MR. BRUMMET: No, just by your stupid stunts.

MS. BROWN:

He's finding it very funny and laughing at it, and the only blessing

about having that member in this House is that at least he's out of the

school system and our children are protected from him.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. The issue of whether or not the cheques

should be printed as outlined by the member may be, and doubtless is, a

most worthwhile question, but, again. not under

section 1 of Bill 15.

I'm trying to be as clear as possible and as understanding as possible,

but I will have to rule, hon. member, if you persist in this line of

questioning. I think one only has to reflect on the remarks of the

critic for the opposition when he outlined in his own reply the very

strict limitations. I would ask all hon. members to give the remarks of

that member and the instructions of the Chair some real consideration.

MS. BROWN:

May I ask whether I'm quoting directly from

section 1 — this sum of

"$1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of

the public service of the province...." Surely the printing of cheques

in braille comes under the defraying of charges and expenses, and the

Minister of Finance is the only minister who can authorize this

expenditure. If it's not under this section, would it then be under

another section, and if so which other

section would it be under? Would

you like it to be saved for your estimates? Okay, that's fine. The

minister has agreed to respond under his estimate.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, being very specific,

section 1, line 3, in the second half of it....

MR. LEA: The fourteenth word.

MR. STUPICH: Well, there are four words involved — "$1,184,000,000" are the four words to which I wish to address

just a few remarks. During discussion of the estimates as far as they've gone

so far, the opposition has presented several arguments and amendments which

would have resulted in substantial reductions in expenditures. We propose further

adjustments to expenditures. and it is our argument that the government has

deliberately padded these accounts — specifically advertising, building occupancy,

computer services and travel — in order to create surpluses that will be fortuitously

avail able at the end of the year, and it is with that in mind that the opposition

moves an amendment. I realize that we are treading on rather shaky ground in

moving an amendment at this point. It is a reduction. Had this amendment been

moved by the minister, it certainly would have been accepted. Had he accepted

the arguments we raised earlier, then he would have moved a lower figure. We

give him this opportunity at this point in time to recognize that savings could

have been made in expenditures. With that in mind I move that we strike the

words I've mentioned,

[ Page 4952 ]

"$1,

184,000,000," and replace them with the words "$1,125,000,000" — a

reduction, Mr. Chairman, of $59 million with respect to two months of

the year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must say

initially that the amendment is out of order. I will cite the reference

which, I think, outlines this specific instance most clearly. The 11th

edition of Sir Erskine May says at page 595: "Nor can amendments be

moved to its clauses, or to the schedule, to effect the omission or

reduction of the amount of a grant...." Hon. members, I must rule that

the proposed amendment is therefore out of order.

MR. HOWARD:

On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed that you had to reach as

far back as the 11th edition of May to find in our dim history some

reason to deny the Committee of Supply a chance to save the taxpayers

money. I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before accepting, I will advise the member that any such attack on the Chair will not be tolerated in this House.

The Chair has been challenged.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, during committee the ruling of the Chair was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: I have only one question: shall the ruling of the Chairman be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

McClelland

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

NAYS — 22

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Mitchell

Passarell

The House in Committee on Bill 15; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Bill 15, Supply Act, No. 1, 1981, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Today. Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, His Honour will

be attending sometime this afternoon. At that time we'll ask for a

short recess. With leave I move we proceed to adjourned debate in

committee on Bill 16, Medical Services Plan Act, 1981,

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

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

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

(continued)

On the amendment to

section 6.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

By way of concluding my remarks on the amendment to

section 6(l), may I

just summarize that the reason for the wording as proposed by the

government in the

section is very simple and clear. It is to provide

the Minister of Health the fullest and most flexible capacity to

provide a form of arbitration which, after the minister has had an

opportunity to assess the available types and techniques and have some

input from the affected parties, will give him the opportunity to have

flexibility.

[ Page

4953 ]

The reasons why the amendment cannot be accepted by the government

are that the amendment is premature, hasty, inflexible, narrow, rigid,

arbitrary and short-sighted. We do not think that this early in the

debate or at this stage — and indeed before the BCMA negotiating

committee has had a chance to consider its views as to a form of

arbitration it prefers, if that is necessary — this Legislature should

cast in stone the one and only choice for the form of arbitration. We

believe that in a sophisticated age of arbitrations the Minister of

Health should have some reasonable opportunity to consider the various

techniques that may be available. We believe the Minister of Health

should have the time and opportunity to consider the views of not just

the BCMA but of the public as to appropriate forms of arbitration. We

think it would be premature and short-sighted at this early stage to

dictate once and for all what the only choice could be.

concluding, I am again drawn to the remarks of the former Minister of

Labour, my good friend the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), on

October 7, 1975, in this House when he introduced the Collective

Bargaining Continuation Act — some very profound labour legislation. In

the course of his remarks — in particular at page 52 of Hansard

— he pointed out the need for flexibility in these matters, even if

that flexibility meant some uncertainty. I am confident that if we give

our Minister of Health some reasonable time and opportunity to listen

to the various points of view about the form of arbitration, when his

suggestion comes forward — if there is to be arbitration — it will

speak for itself in a very fair and positive manner.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN:

If I were in court facing a trial and I knew I was guilty, I know

absolutely that I would retain neither the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Williams) nor the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman) as my defence lawyer.

The pathetic defence put

forth by the Attorney-General for this ill-considered so-called

arbitration procedure gave me an opportunity to watch what I think is

the very worst performance that minister has ever given in this House.

Watching the dynamics on the floor of this House last night, it was

clear that the Attorney-General and some of his other colleagues were

concerned about this section, but overnight were told by the Premier to

get on board or else. I don't know what the "or else" may have been.

There are a variety of alternatives for that. Nevertheless, it was

clear that the Attorney-General, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Smith), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and most

particularly the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) were appalled

by what they had just learned was contained in this legislation. They

were told last night and presumably again this morning that they had

better get on board, and they were told by the Premier.

I'm talking about the amendment, because it is very important to this House

that we understand how we arrived at this situation and how we are now unable

to extricate ourselves from one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation

ever introduced in this Legislature. For the Attorney-General and the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to stand in their places and argue that the

section of this bill as presented is to allow some flexibility — to use the

words of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — is sheer, unmitigated

nonsense. How they have the gall to say it is beyond me.

his comments this morning the Minister of Consumer and Corporate

affairs said: "I'm not an expert on labour relations." That was made

very obvious by all his comments. He's not an expert on arbitration

either, nor is he an expert on how to devise a system to make sure we

preserve medicare in this province. The government is determined, sure

as shooting, to get rid of medicare. They are setting up a situation

where there will be confrontation in this province. In making his

argument, weak as it was, the Attorney-General attempted to argue that

this was not a labour relations matter it was not connected to a wage

settlement between workers and employers; the doctors were not in that

category. Therefore arbitration procedures which may exist in other

statutes such as the School Act were not applicable. He said that they

are not workers. We argue that this is much more akin to collective

bargaining than to anything else; there may be some differences, but

it's more akin to that.

For the moment, let's just accept

that the Attorney-General is right, that this is not a

collective-bargaining matter, and that an arbitration procedure aside

from labour relations procedures should be adopted. The first one that

occurred to me was in the Highway Act. So I had a look at the Ministry

of Transportation and Highways to see how they resolve disputes between

the government, or an agency of the government, and a citizen who owns

property which is slated to be expropriated. The arbitration

section of

the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act allows both parties to

be involved in choosing arbitrators.

In every situation in

this province where there are disputes to be resolved that cannot be

resolved by discussion or collective bargaining or by any other

civilized method of reaching agreement, we have another civilized

method of reaching agreement, when both parties agree. That procedure

is called arbitration. The basic principle of arbitration allows for

both sides to be involved in the process.

The

section of

this bill which we are attempting to amend says that one side in the

dispute can make all the judgments about who is to be involved in the

arbitration, who the judge is going to be, and what the rules

concerning that judgment are coming to be. Every single aspect of the

arbitration is to be determined by one side or the other. If we

accepted that same principle in the Highway Act, but reversed it, just

to be even handed, should we say to the property owner that he gets to

choose the arbitrator and the issues under arbitration, and if the

person he chooses to make that judgment doesn't make a judgment he

likes, then he can amend it later, as this bill says?

This

bit of legislation is the most undemocratic thing I in my brief

experience have ever seen in this province. I have not seen a piece of

legislation.... Even going back to the mediation commission, as bad and

as rotten as that was, this is worse.

We thought it had been

well recognized by all political philosophies and factions in this

province that the experimenting done with the kind of compulsory

arbitration contained in the Mediation Commission Act proved

conclusively and forever that compulsion does not work. It didn't work

them it hasn't worked since. We're now seeing the beginning of a return

to that kind of attitude.

I would like to point out that it

was that kind of attitude that played a major role in the defeat of the

government in 1972. And today it's the intransigence of the Premier on

this precise issue that will lead to his and your downfall.

For there to be successful resolution of disputes in whatever area they occur there needs to be goodwill and coopera-

[ Page 4954 ]

tion

on both sides. When one side is told they have no right whatsoever to

be a participant in the decisions about their own future, fate,

livelihood, lives, profession and family for the year to come, and have

got no say whatsoever in determining how that life is going to be lived

for the following year, do you think they're going to be cooperative?

Do you think they'll be able to come to a satisfactory resolution

outside the arbitration process, whether it's as you design it or as it

should properly be designed — as we would have it designed?

What

the government is doing — and it's not the entire government; it's

probably a minority of cabinet, but it happens to be that a vote of one

in there wins — what the Premier is doing is setting up a confrontation

and pushing the doctors into a position that makes them angry, as it

would make any group of workers or any other people angry, hoping

against hope that the doctors will do something rash. Then the

government can come down heavy-handed in dealing with some rash act

that might come from this kind of legislation and say to the people of

B.C.: "Maybe we'd better have an election, because the doctors aren't

playing ball with us." I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the principles

of natural justice are violated by this act and it would not stand up

in court were it tested.

The last time I spoke at some

length and with some passion on a labour issue in this House — and I

see this as a labour issue — I spoke with emotion, concern and some

nervousness. That was in the fall of 1975. I speak today with the same

kinds of emotions with one more added, and today's extra emotion is one

of absolute anger at the method and approach the government has taken.

No matter what I may have said in this House, as quoted by the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) and others, the

one thing I never said about our Minister of Labour in those days was

that he acted in an unjust or uneven-handed manner. At all times he

made sure all parties were involved in the discussions and decisions,

and those were issues, may I remind the House, that were not questions

of the government as employer and to the union: "We are going to make

the rules and we're going to tell you what the wages are." Those days

have gone. This

section violates every principle enunciated by the

United Nations in its various conventions on labour relations and on

practice between groups affected by government. It violates every

convention of the ILO. It violates every concept accepted by

governments and the population in this country for the last 20 or 30

years. It happens in B.C. that it took us until the last ten years to

recognize fully those concepts when it came to dealing with public

servants.

The doctors in our province are not quite public

servants. They're in a slightly different category in terms of the

direct relationship with government, but nevertheless they are public

servants and are paid for by the public wealth. That wealth is

represented by the government. You are saying to those people that you

will act like the old industrialists of the 1900s would to their

workers by saying: "Here are the working conditions, here are the

wages. You take it or leave it. If you don't like it you get out."

That's what you're saying to them.

I'll conclude with this

brief comment. I would agree with those members, including the Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Attorney-General, who argue

that our amendment may not be complete in itself. I would agree with

that. It's not the full

section out of the School Act, but what we were

signalling to the government yesterday with the introduction of that

amendment was that here you've got a problem, here is the principle

upon which we would base such legislation, get your drafts people

ready, alert them and bring in an amendment that does tie up some of

the loose ends — and I agree there are some loose ends, those loose

ends relating to the timing if the process breaks down. The School Act

serves as a model for this. So, Mr. Chairman, in agreeing with that

criticism by the government, I'm quite prepared — and I'm certain our

side is — to say: okay, we'll withdraw our amendment when you bring in

yours that does it properly.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot

more that can be said, and I know other members on our side are going

to say it. I'm hoping that we won't have to take the time of this House

to do that; I'm hoping that what we're seeing in the absence of all

those members is a discussion out there somewhere about the wording of

the amendment that you're going to bring in. Because it's very

difficult to know exactly what is going on when none of the government

members are here, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Levi

Sanford

Gabelmann

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Hyndman

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Nielsen

Kempf

Davis

Segarty

Mussallem

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very brief. I didn't really plan to get

into the debate, but because of the trend it has taken, I feet

compelled to say just a few words.

First of all, I'm one who

has had a great deal of experience with doctors. Only about a year ago

my family would have been happy to pay any price to see me back on the

job. I feel very sad indeed that there couldn't have been a

satisfactory settlement, but there wasn't, and our minister was in no

position but to take the action that was taken.

Mr.

Chairman, the point I'd like to make is this — the political play that

is going on by the other side on this very important issue. I get very

disturbed, as the amendment is debated, that such expressions or

statements would be made as were made here yesterday by the member for

Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) when he interjected a new slogan,

double billing. I can only suspect that the reason that that was done

was to throw a little more scare into the people out there,

[ Page

4955 ]

but it certainly didn't do the doctors of this

province any good. Mr. Chairman, I also get very disturbed when I hear

those members being critical of the attendance on the government side.

In the debate on the amendment the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) just recently made reference to this....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, hon. members. We are on a very specific amendment to a specific

section of a bill. I wonder if the committee would remember that and

make the remarks strictly relevant to the amendment that is before us.

MR. RITCHIE:

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll do that. I will just follow the course of the

previous speaker who spoke on the amendment and state here in the House

that the Leader of the Opposition didn't have the guts to stand up and

vote on the initial....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Hon. member, you are reflecting on a vote that's been previously taken,

and I would please ask the hon. member to be strictly relevant.

Standing order 61(2) states that all discussion must be strictly

relevant, and all members of the committee are reminded of that. We are

specifically dealing with an amendment to a

section of a bill. Will the

member for Central Fraser Valley please relate his remarks to the

amendment before us.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I

will refrain from stating that that member of the opposition did not

stay in the House for that vote. But I would say that with the trend

this debate has taken now, it wouldn't have mattered whether the bill

was entirely satisfactory to the opposition or not; they were going to

find some way to get some political hay out of it. Even if it were left

to the title itself, I'm sure that they were going to find some way of

getting on the other side of the fence — and they seem to be famous for

that.

Mr. Chairman, that's all I wanted to say, and I'm going to end now by stating that I'm very much opposed to this amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce George Hobson, who is here from

Courtenay today and who is heading up the Summer Games, which are going

to be held in Courtenay in August. As all members know, I've already

extended an invitation to attend the Summer Games, but George Hobson is

doing an outstanding job of organizing the committee in preparation for

those games, and I'd like everyone to make him welcome.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. One of the things that

is said about this Legislature by teachers and school children who come

here to watch us do our duties is that we're unruly and that we don't

seem to act in a mature manner. I was first elected in 1972; there are

others here who were elected after that time. I know that since 1972 we

seem to have inherited the historical behaviour in this House — and I'm

not talking about decorum so much as entrenched attitudes.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, as I mentioned to the previous speaker, we should make our

comments directly relevant to the amendment before us. Those are our

standing orders.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, if you had heard the end of the paragraph, you may have grasped it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can the member relate the remarks to the amendment.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, it is the historical tradition of this Legislature that

if the government were to bring in the Lord's Prayer, the opposition

would amend it. It's also historically tradition in this House that if

the opposition brings in a well-thought out, meaningful, well-intended,

commonsense amendment, government will turn it down, no matter what it

is. That seems to be our history.

Our leader says that when

we were in government we accepted some amendments, and that's true, but

in my opinion, not nearly enough. I think we had an opportunity, over

this dispute that is basically non-partisan, to show the people of this

province that once and for all this Legislature could mature and act in

a manner that other Legislatures throughout the Commonwealth have

adopted. I believe that there are members sitting over there — both in

cabinet and on the back benches — who really in their heart of hearts

know that this amendment is worthy of being accepted by government and

that through the stubbornness of the Premier, that is not going to

happen, because he adheres to the old fights of the days of yesteryear.

The Premier can't seem to let them alone, the bitter politics that have

gone on in this province, and he's whipped his troops into line saying:

"Regardless of the amendment and whether it's worthy, we will oppose

it, because that's what we do with amendments."

The

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), formerly the Minister of Labour,

has admitted in this House today that his government and this House

would not dare bring this kind of arbitrary pseudo-arbitration

legislation in against any trade union.

Interjection.

MR. LEA:

Oh, he didn't say that? In other words he would. Maybe we're seeing the

forerunner of the kind of legislation that we're going to see in this

House dealing with the trade union movement. The Attorney-General can't

make up his mind where he's at, for the simple reason that when he

stands up to vote with government against this amendment, lie will be

voting against all the principles that he said he has held over the

years. That's what he will be doing.

I think the member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), when he pointed out the kind of

arbitration that's available within the Highway Act, has pointed out

where we are in the crux of this problem. There are two sides to the

dispute: the Medical Services Commission. which in effect is

government, and the British Columbia Medical Association, which in

effect are the employees. What the government is doing — being on one

side of the dispute as management — is giving itself unprecedented

powers. Would they give the other side of the dispute the same kind of

powers that they're giving to themselves? The answer is no. You've got

to be kidding. That isn't the way it would be.

[ Page 4956 ]

Mr.

Speaker, what has happened to this once proud party of turncoats? What

has happened to them? History tends to repeat itself if you don't learn

from history. In the early 1930s, we saw almost an identical situation

in the parliament of Germany. When the Nazi party brought in their

first totalitarian piece of legislation, what happened? There were 94

Social Democrats who voted against it. The two centre parties, which we

could loosely call Liberal and Conservative, voted for it and then

voluntarily disbanded. The only difference we see here is that the two

centre parties are going to join with the party that brought in the

legislation and stand up and vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I

understand that His Honour is in the precinct. I move that the

committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Division in committee ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is

now in the precincts and is awaiting our readiness for him in this

chamber. In just a few moments he will be here, and I would suggest all

members retain their seats until such time as he arrives.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act, No. 1, 1981.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor

doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent

to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

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

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

(continued)

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

On the amendment to

section 6.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Chairman, in supporting this amendment that the official opposition

thinks would bring some sanity and a rational approach to the

arbitration procedures set out in the bill, it is disconcerting and

indeed frightening to hear some of the speeches from some of the

cabinet ministers.

The Attorney-General, who at one time was the Minister of Labour, I thought

had said in his morning speech that the government wouldn't bring in this

kind of arbitration system for the trade union movement. He has now informed

me that it would not be beyond the principles of this government to bring in

this same kind of arbitration procedure to deal with problems in the trade union

movement. Indeed, that is a frightening prospect.

The

Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says that he believes that

the kind of arbitration that is in the amendment put forward by the

opposition is narrow, confining and won't work. Yet it is the exact

same kind of arbitration that is used when dealing with the school

teachers of this province. Does the government then intend to bring in

this kind of arbitration procedure to deal with teachers' disputes in

this province? It just isn't good enough that this government has

chosen that the doctors will be the persons affected by what we

consider to be an unfair and inequitable form of arbitration procedure

— if it can indeed be called "by arbitration," because we don't believe

there is any arbitration procedure that resembles the

section we're

trying to amend.

If there is one member of this Legislative

Assembly who should take his place in this debate it's the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the member for Prince George North. He can

no longer hide his head in the sand and hope the problems will go away

as he has done since his appointment. This piece of legislation and the

section we're amending goes against everything historically and

presently in the department that he presides over. He cannot sit there

flipping through his papers and hope to get out of taking

part in this

debate. We would be interested to hear what the Minister of Labour has

to say about this section. Surely he cannot defend it. Surely the

Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer)

cannot defend it. How can he defend it?

I suppose we could

have taken the time to go back through Hansard and dig up the remarks

made by that minister and the other Liberals when they sat on this side

of this House. I'm sure we could have found specifics that they spoke

about over the years dealing with this kind of principle which they

were opposed to. How then do they intend to sit there and, when the

time comes, stand in their place and vote against what they said they

were against for so many years?

In a partisan way I would

like to say the government knew what they were doing when they brought

this bill in. I'd like to be able to say that, because from a partisan

point of view it would look good in print. Maybe we could make a couple

of political brownies by saying this government intended to do this. I

don't think they did. During the hurly-burly — and as an ex-cabinet

minister I understand — of legislative sessions and the need for quick

legislation, oftentimes legislation hits the floor of the House without

full scrutiny of cabinet, and with no scrutiny at all by the back

bench. It happens. I believe that's what happened with this piece of

legislation. I don't think the members opposite, the government

backbenchers or the cabinet, intended to do this. I don't think they're

that silly. But they seem to think that politically they have

themselves in a bind, that once they've brought it in they can't back

off. They seem to think it would be a sign of weakness, a sign of not

being in control of the House. Now that they've had a chance in a

quieter moment to examine this bill, which by necessity came in in

haste, they can't back off; they have to pretend it's what they

intended all along. In some ways that's worse. It would be one thing if

they had designed this piece of legislation, which in my opinion is

undemocratic. I don't think they did. I think if they can be faulted

it's for not having the ability or the flexibility to admit that a

piece of legislation

[ Page

4957 ]

hit the House without full scrutiny. They don't

seem to have the intestinal fortitude or common sense to stand up and

say: "In our haste we made a mistake."

I think there were a

number on the government side yesterday who fully intended to do that.

I know the Minister of Labour did not read this bill until after it was

in the House. I saw him madly going through it and reading it after

he'd been informed about the bill. He doesn't agree with it. I don't

believe any of the lawyers over there could agree with it, because, as

others said, it goes against natural justice. So what's the problem?

When I believe the majority of members over there don't agree with this

section and do agree with the amendment, why can't they find it within

their hearts to support it? It's because of a stupid, arrogant, false

pride. And I don't believe it's the members; I believe it's their

leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must remember

that parliamentary language is always a good feature of the House. If

the member could be reminded of that and pay close attention to the

amendment, the committee can continue,

MR. LEA: Okay, he's not their leader.

Mr.

Chairman, I don't think my language was intemperate. I believe that the

members — a great many of them on that side, if not all of them — don't

agree with this

section of the act and agree with the amendment. Yet

here we are, fighting the battles of yesteryear, acting now as we've

acted historically — in my opinion, foolishly — all of us in this

House. The Premier can't bring himself to stand up in this House and

say that we made a mistake, that it was done in haste; but rather he

compounds what was done mistakenly in haste by being stubborn. I don't

think that is unparliamentary. I think the Premier is stubborn. I think

he's a stubborn man, not a bad man. He finds it very difficult to stand

up and apologize and to say he was wrong. I think he has demanded that

his cabinet benches and his backbenchers stay with him in his

stubbornness and not admit to this mistake.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, again I will remind the committee that we are debating a

specific amendment to a bill. Also, I'll remind the member who's

speaking now that personal allusions are not allowed in debate. You

cannot make personal allusions to another member in the House.

MR. LEA: I can't make personal allusions. What about delusions?

Mr.

Chairman, I don't think it's important that the NDP win this debate. I

don't think it's important whether we win or lose it. I don't think

it's important whether the Social Credit win or lose it. I do think

it's important for the people of British Columbia that neither one of

us come out winners or losers but rather the people of this province

come out the winners and that they have a fair, equitable piece of

legislation to deal with the doctors of this province. We all agree

that doctors should not be allowed to extra-bill. No one in this House

that I know of disagrees with that. I think the vote proved that. We

agree in principle on that very item. We don't think the government

should allow the doctors to extra-bill.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

But why in heaven's name must we proceed with what I can only describe

as a farce? What we are going to do if we don't accept this amendment is

drive the doctors into the corner and leave them no other way to come out but

to come out fighting against society, against the members of this House, and

we all lose. Mr. Chairman, as a society can we afford that kind of loss, to

have a highly respected group of professionals in our province feel that they

have been unjustly and unfairly treated by the government and the Legislature

of the province of British Columbia? I don't think we can. We can treat

them fairly. What we've offered before is that if it goes against the grain

of the Premier to accept an amendment from this side, we will gladly give up

our amendment and allow the government to 2o out and bring in their own amendment.

think I could also make this promise on behalf of my colleagues: we

won't even go around the province tooting our horn about it. Accept the

amendment or bring in your own amendment, and let's call it a day. As

political parties we don't win or lose on this issue; only the doctors

aid only society generally lose. I think that we are acting childishly.

I think the Premier particularly is acting childishly on this issue.

You know something else, Mr. Chairman? I think the Premier thinks he is

too. I can't see why the Premier, knowing full well that the

legislation is incorrect, inequitable, unfair and undemocratic can't

bring himself to be the man we hope he is, to be the kind of leader we

hope he is, and to be the kind of Premier we all hope he is, not as

partisans, but as citizens of this province. I think we have a right to

expect that the Premier is a big enough person to admit that it was

done in haste — made a mistake — and to get up and accept this

amendment or to tell us: "Let's move on."

In conclusion, I

would like to stress that the people of this province have the right to

hear from the Minister of Labour on this dispute. This is a very, very

undemocratic thing we're doing. The Minister of Labour has the

obligation to stand up in this House and tell us how he, as the person

who presides over arbitrations, feels about this

section and the

amendment. If he does not, then he has forsaken the very principles he

swore to uphold when he accepted the office. He has forsaken them. He

has forsaken the people who have to live under his jurisdiction.

It's

a bit ironic that the Minister of Labour has the human rights branch

also under his jurisdiction. If the Minister of Labour doesn't take his

place during this debate, it will be a sad, sad day for that portfolio.

He will be through as a credible Minister of Labour, and if he is

through as a credible Minister of Labour, then this Legislature is

through as a credible means of dealing with disputes that arise between

institutions and people in this province. We're all through.

believe that it is the responsibility of the first minister of this

province to straighten it out. Only the first minister can straighten

out this mess and get us back on the track. Leave stubbornness aside,

and leave false pride aside. More important, leave history aside. Let's

hear a statement from the Premier; if he won't make it, let's hear at

least from the Minister of Labour, who, if he does not speak, has

forsaken the oath he took.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I

certainly cannot support this amendment. It is poorly prepared, it's

totally unworkable, and it doesn't even provide for time limits. But

worse still, one must see it for what it is. It's an attempt to

stimulate anger and fear among the doctors in this province. By drawing

attention to this

section they are attempting to divert attention from

the unanimous vote in this Legislature on

[ Page 4958 ]

second

reading of the bill. It was unanimous except for the attendance of the

Leader of the Opposition, who conveniently skipped out and was nowhere

to be found in the hallway, although just moments before he was seen

nearby. He didn't want to stay to vote on that. Otherwise, it was

unanimous.

MR. BARRETT: That's a lie!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Under the parliamentary rules that bind us, I must ask

the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark that he cast. Would

the member do so?

MR. BARRETT: The minister said that

I was seen in the precinct and skipped the vote. Now that is a

falsehood. I ask the minister to withdraw. I will withdraw the

statement that it's a lie, but I ask the minister to withdraw the

statement that I was seen in the precinct and I ducked the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, firstly, each member has an opportunity to take his place

in debate in this particular

section as often as he or she so desires,

but I must ask for an unqualified withdrawal — which I appreciate the

member has given.

On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT:

I've given a complete withdrawal. On a point of order, I ask the

minister to withdraw the accusation that I was in the precinct and

ducked the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the

Opposition has made a parliamentary request of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs. I would ask him to so withdraw any imputation or

otherwise to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Would the member do so?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly don't want to leave the impression that

I told an untruth. I was certainly aware, as I'm sure all members were

aware, that he was here during question period, he was here after

question period, he knew the vote was coming on, but when the vote

occurred he wasn't there. So what could I conclude from that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, if the minister was that concerned he would have known

that I spent the evening with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Wolfe). He could have checked. I ask him to withdraw that statement

unequivocally without any

preamble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is the impression of the Chair that a complete withdrawal was given.

MR. HOWARD: He hasn't got the integrity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the member for Skeena to come to order, please.

Hon.

members, what happens, obviously, when we digress from the strictly

relevant aspect of the motion before us and start to engage in any kind

of personalities, which are totally out of order on the bill, is that

we see the kind of discourse that has developed. I would ask all hon.

members to bear in mind the strictly relevant

section of the act.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, only one member can speak at a time.

MS. BROWN:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could assist the

House with a dilemma which we increasingly find ourselves in. Because

it is not allowed under the parliamentary rules of the House to accuse

an hon. member of lying, the members on the government benches stand up

over and over again and lie through their teeth about everything that

goes on in this House — they know that they are protected by the rules

of this House.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, how you can possibly seek the floor on a point of order

respecting parliamentary language and at the same time use the kind of

language you used is beyond the comprehension of the Chair. I would

insist that the member withdraw the remark without qualification. Will

the member so withdraw the remark?

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MS. BROWN:

Sure, I withdraw the remark. I recognize that it's an unparliamentary

remark. That's why I'm concerned about the abuses under that....

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please, hon. member. It is very difficult to keep any semblance

of order in the House when the members themselves seem determined not

to follow the rules, regulations, traditions and honour that bind us

together in this chamber. I would ask that all members bear that in

mind.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I will

continue on the amendment to

section 6. If it helps the Leader of the

Opposition, I will accept his explanation.

MR. BARRETT: There's no question of accepting my explanation. Who the heck do you think you are, you arrogant....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: That's the kind of abuse, Mr. Chairman, that I was bringing to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Prior to recognizing the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk),

I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the term that he

used, in the interests of parliamentary tradition. It is increasingly

difficult for the Chair to carry out the duties that have been imposed

upon it by all members of this House if members cannot abide by the

very basic rules that bind us in this chamber.

MR. BARRETT:

I unequivocally withdraw the statement "arrogant twit." Now, Mr.

Chairman, I expect in respect to you and the Chair that no comment be

made on withdrawals,

[ Page

4959 ]

and I expect the same courtesy from other members

as I extend to them when it's asked from the Chair. I want an

unqualified withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of

the Opposition has asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs for an

unqualified withdrawal. Would the member make a withdrawal of any

improper imputation or otherwise that the member may have made. A

simple affirmative response would settle the matter and it would be

appreciated by the Chair.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm

sorry, Mr. Chairman, but, be it on a point of order or my place here in

the Legislature, I have said nothing except that the Leader of the

Opposition was not here to vote on second reading of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, order, please. Would the minister withdraw the term that

the member "ducked a vote." I think that is what is at the crux of the

issue. The Leader of the Opposition finds that remark to be of an

unparliamentary nature, and I would ask the member to assist the Chair

in withdrawing.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will withdraw that he ducked the vote.

Mr. Chairman, I must point out again that I think all must see this amendment

for what it is: a cheap, political opposition trick. While perhaps we've

become accustomed to that, it certainly isn't worthy of this House that

they should carry on spreading fear among the doctors by making it appear as

if, perhaps, there isn't the unanimity that existed on second reading. It's

not

section 6 they're opposed to, nor do they really believe their own amendment,

because if that were true, they at least might have done a reasonable job of

drafting that amendment.

But

they won't fool the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. The

people remember that in 1974 they imposed an agreement on the firemen.

Certainly they were faced with a difficult situation, but they didn't

give the choice of arbitration in any form at all. They imposed an

agreement at that time on those particular people. The people of

British Columbia will remember that only a few weeks ago the Leader of

the Opposition was out there in the community saying: "But it was I who

proposed a formula that brought about the settlement of the B.C. Tel

dispute." I'm sure no one believed him, but he was attempting to take

credit for the single arbitrator approach in the B.C. Tel dispute.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're sick.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, repeatedly throughout four

or five days of debate during that minister's estimates and today, the minister

has made comments which individual members on this side have indicated to the

Chair have been untrue, either by points of order or by rising in their place

subsequently. Again, I would ask the Chairman to draw the minister to order,

because in committee and on amendments to sections, the debate should be strictly

relevant to the amendment before the House. The minister is now canvassing

areas going as far back — he states in his own speech — as 1974. They are not

relevant to the amendment to this section. I suggest to the chairman that in

order to bring this speaker to order, a good way would be to draw him to the

relevancy of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Thank you, hon. member. Hon. members, again we are discussing the

amendment before us to vote 6. and while the minister may have points

that he considers to be valid, I would ask that he consider the very

strict relevant

section that dictates the discretion we have in

canvassing such areas. The Chair would be grateful for any assistance

that all members could give in helping to curtail the debate and to

make it to this

section that we are now discussing.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the Leader of the Opposition would mind

withdrawing the remarks: "He's sick. sick, sick." I feel perfectly

well. I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: I will not submit his diagnosis to binding arbitration. I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. MACDONALD: What he said was "slick"!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, again, let us have just one member

speaking at a time. The Chair has recognized the Minister of Municipal

Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased to

see the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is in the House. I would

remind the House that he was here when the vote was taken yesterday on

second reading of the bill.

MR. GABELMANN: On a point

of order, Mr. Chairman, parliament is too important for that kind of

behaviour to be tolerated. You should kick that guy out of here.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, my remarks will be addressed primarily to the member who

is currently speaking. When the Chair rules or requests a withdrawal of

a particular phrase or word that another member finds offensive, or an

imputation, it is most unparliamentary for any member to then re-refer

to it. It is a characteristic that is developing on both sides of the

House. I am referring to the one that is presently before us, and I

would ask that the member currently addressing the committee please

contain his remarks to the amendment and let us get on with the

business for which we are being charged by the people of this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM:

Mr. Chairman, when I refer back to 1974 and the type of arbitration

that took place then, or when I make reference to some statements made

by the Leader of the Opposition during the B.C. Tel dispute, certainly

that is relevant to the

section we're discussing here; it's arbitration

of sorts. Somehow the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who

stands up angrily, wants to remember some things, but he conveniently

wants to forget all things that don't particularly suit his approach to

this debate. I would like to remind the House, including the hon.

[ Page 4960 ]

members

of the opposition, of what took place in 1974; and I want to remind the

House of what the Leader of the Opposition said he was doing with

respect to making proposals when we were faced with the B.C. Tel

dispute. In that particular situation we had a single arbitrator.

Fortunately it was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But again, as I

said, the leader then foolishly tried to take some credit for that

approach.

Mr. Chairman, the bill provides the opportunity

for negotiations. And now with the extra-billing matter settled, these

negotiations can seriously proceed, If arbitration is needed, the

doctors will be fairly considered, but so will all the citizens of

British Columbia. I'm sure that every one of us here, regardless of

where we sit in this House, has a tremendously high regard for the

doctors, for their profession, for all of them, but we similarly can't

stand here day after day speaking on an amendment or speaking on the

bill and completely ignoring mention of the people of British Columbia,

except when you get out there on a different platform at a different

time. Let's talk about the people of British Columbia as well; they are

after all the ones who pay the taxes and provide all the tools and

facilities for the doctors for all people to enjoy and have the benefit

of. But somehow, Mr. Chairman, there has been no mention of the people

of British Columbia as I listen to the other side. As I listen to the

debate on this amendment, there is no mention of the people and the

effect on the people and the fact that for them we must also arrive at

a fair settlement. No, because what they're doing is attempting to

establish some sort of a strategy here that they might conveniently

circulate to a particular group of people and not for all of the

citizens of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the arbitration

approach gives us a number of options, options or a method that may be

of real benefit not only to the doctors but — again I repeat and I'll

continue to repeat — also to the people of British Columbia, all the

people of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman,

well, it's really been pathetic listening to the members on the

government benches trying to find something good to say about

section 6

of this bill. We've heard some pretty pathetic speeches today, but

certainly the most novel one we've heard was by the Minister of

Municipal Affairs who, finding absolutely nothing to criticize in the

amendment, spent his entire time questioning the movements of the

Leader of the Opposition during that period and accusing him of trying

to duck a vote.

Mr. Chairman, in the interests of being in

order I am not going to digress and remind the House that that minister

who just took his seat was a minister who supported the separation of

Quebec so that he wouldn't have to have French on his cornflake boxes

in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now on the amendment.

MS. BROWN:

That's the same minister. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of staying in

order, I'm not going to digress and remind this House that during his

tenure as Minister of Human Resources he was so cruel and vicious that

he was depicted by a cartoonist in this province as picking the wings

off a fly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order, please, hon. member.

MS. BROWN:

I don't want us to remember that about that member. And having the

nerve to stand up on the floor of this House and talking about the

people of this province! The people of this province are never going to

forget that Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member about to canvass the amendment to vote 6?

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, in speaking in support of this amendment, I would like to

suggest to you that if, in fact, we had asked anybody anywhere in this

province two days ago, two weeks ago, two months ago, who the villain

in the piece was in this confrontation which is taking place, they

would have said the doctors. Nobody will deny that. Yet somehow, with

one

section in one act, this government has managed to turn that

completely around and make martyrs out of the doctors of this province.

That's the kind of miracle workers those inept and incompetent people

over there are.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams),

when he was speaking this morning, said that we were too sterile in our

approach to things, that we see everything in terms of labour and

management. He suggested that we be more flexible; that in fact we were

not dealing with a labour-management confrontation here, because the

doctors were dealing not with the private sector but with the public

sector. I decided to take his recommendation and not look at the

doctors as workers, because indeed we can look at doctors as anything.

They themselves aren't quite sure what they are; half the time they

tell you they're independent entrepreneurs, and half the time they

admit that as long as they're part of medicare they are in fact

workers. I decided to take the Attorney-General's suggestion and to

look at the doctors not as workers but as welfare recipients. I went to

the GAIN legislation which covers welfare recipients in this province.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN:

The GAIN act: the same act under which the minister advocated that

Indians should be sent back to the reserves and poor people should be

moved out of the centre of the city.

I don't think anyone

will question that there isn't anybody in this province with fewer

rights than welfare recipients. There isn't any group, any part of this

community, with fewer rights.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has been listening....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'm talking about the arbitration provisions in the GAIN act.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

If the member could relate that, then the Chair would have some ability

to at least be sympathetic to the comments made by the member.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, one of the accusations levelled at us by the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs was that this amendment was hurried.

Therefore I'm taking his advice and moving at a very slow and even

pace. So it behooves the Chairman to listen carefully as I move at

[ Page

4961 ]

my slow and even pace to make the connection

between the arbitration

section of the GAIN act and the amendment which

I'm speaking in support of.

I am suggesting to you that

welfare recipients in this province also deal with the public sector.

The legislation outlines the maximum that a welfare recipient can

receive. A welfare recipient, every time she or he goes in to apply,

has to negotiate whether he or she gets the maximum, a little bit below

the maximum or a lot below the maximum, as the case may be. Despite

that, and the fact that they really have no organization to fight for

them except the opposition and thoughtful people in the community, we

find that they do have the right of appeal. In effect, in their own

legislation it says that if they are not satisfied with a decision made

on their behalf.... I notice that the ex-minister is listening

carefully, so I will suggest that it is

section 25 of the act that

deals with this arbitration procedure.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, there's no relation whatsoever between

section 25 of the GAIN legislation and

section 6 of Bill 16.

MR. BARRETT: There is so!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is not, and I wish we could leave that for the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. members, the Chair has allowed some latitude on the amendment that

is presently before us, and we have canvassed in a passing manner other

comparable acts that members wish to allude to, but I would ask the

member, now that she has the Chair's full attention, if we could

dramatically indicate how this reflects the amendment.

MS. BROWN:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your patience, and would remind

you that I'm discussing the amendment, not

section 6. The minister is

under a misconception. We're dealing with the amendment, and that

probably explains why his entire speech was out of order. He was not

dealing with the amendment but with the Leader of the Opposition.

However,

exactly like the amendment, the appeal procedures as outlined in

section 25 of the GAIN legislation say that where an individual is

dissatisfied with a decision made under this act or the regulations

respecting it — and it talks about either the refusal, discontinuance,

reduction or whatever of income assistance to him — that individual has

the right to appeal to a tribunal, not to an individual.

Listen

to how the tribunal is put together. It's all going to become really

clear at this point. The tribunal consists of one individual chosen by

the appellant — the aggrieved. It says that you cannot choose a

relative but you can choose a friend. The second person on the tribunal

is chosen by a member of the Ministry of Human Resources, but cannot be

an employee of the ministry. Those two people choose the chairman of

the tribunal. Isn't that what the Highway Act says? Isn't that what the

teachers...?

Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, what we are debating here is that we do not

believe there should be a law for the poor that's different from the law

for the rich. We'd like the rich to have the same kind of protection under

our arbitration legislation that the poor have. It seems to me that the minister,

who was on his feet a few minutes ago speaking on behalf of people, should be

able to recognize that. In fact, I am surprised that the doctors have not availed

themselves of the services of the Human Rights Commission or of the ombudsperson,

as was suggested by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). In fact. maybe that

is what they will have to decide to do in order to get any justice whatsoever

out of this government.

closing, I just want to extend my sincerest sympathy to the Minister of

Health, who was prepared to accept this amendment at a quarter to six

last night. He moved adjournment so that he could study the amendment

more carefully and redraft it, probably, with the time limits and all

the other prerequisites. He was forced into the position of having to

come back here and dig his heels in because his leader decided that

this amendment was not going to be accepted.

That Minister

of Health has been sitting here all day, mostly by himself. Once or

twice the Premier has cracked the whip and had one or another person

stand up and speak in his defence. I just have one word to say to that

Minister of Health: there comes a time when everyone has to decide

whether silence is golden or if it's just plain yellow.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman. I too would like to be very brief. I've listened for several days now to this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not debated several days ago.

MR. BRUMMET:

Let me tell you, it seems like several weeks, As a relative newcomer to

the House I really am not interested in what went on eight years ago,

ten years ago, five years ago and so on. We have had the usual

opposition stunt on this amendment. When the principle of the bill was

debated they were all with the public of British Columbia in that they

were supporting the government on the principle of preventing this

double billing or extra billing or whatever you want to call it.

They've come out very strongly on the side of the public of British

Columbia and on the side of the government for this move. Then on the

amendment we've had the switch.

I guess some guru mentioned

to them that here is an opportunity to make some political hay. Since

then we've had virtually nothing but attacks on the government

attributing motives to the government which the government would not

do, does not intend to do, and does not state in this section. We have

them come out now on the side of the doctors so that they can be on the

side of the public through this tactic. We've heard these inflammatory

remarks — emotion-laden terms to divert the attention from the facts. I

would suggest that it's really for nothing else but partisan politics.

I guess that's what this House is all about. I know I have had

difficulty just staying in here to hear the accusations, to hear the

spirit and the intent of this House abused in the way it has been with

this sort of wonderful way they have of getting around points of order,

and accusations. I'm personally disgusted with those tactics.

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's been some time since that

member took his place, and to date he has not discussed the amendment

section 6(l).

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have a very strong belief that the member who

[ Page 4962 ]

was

speaking is approaching the amendment in the same manner that the

member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) approached it by way of

introducing GAIN legislation. I think it's only a matter of time before

the member makes that very clear.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

That's a fair assessment, hon. members. Again, if all members were as

quick to jump to their feet on both sides of the House when their own

side of the House was in order, I think the proceedings might move

along much more quickly. But again, the member for North Peace River on

the amendment.

MR. BRUMMET: I guess the point that I

was trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that we should get on with this

legislation. The opposition will have plenty of opportunity to attack

this government in estimates or in any other way they want. We've got a

valid purpose here: to get this legislation in place. I would like to

see it happen. I would like to see the amendment defeated, and then get

on with the job that we're supposed to do. I recognize that somebody

will get up and will be able to attack every word that I've said, will

be able to make disparaging remarks. Perhaps the elected members of the

opposition feel that this is good politics. I'm not convinced that the

people of British Columbia are g