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

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4929 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4929

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

On the amendment to

section 6.

Mr. Leggatt –– 4929

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4929

Mr. Cocke –– 4930

Mr. Barber –– 4931

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4933

Ms. Sanford –– 4934

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4936

Mr. Mitchell –– 4937

Mr. King –– 4938

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4940

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

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.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House I would call adjourned debate in committee of Bill 16.

Leave granted.

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

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

(continued)

On the amendment to

section 6.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, we are somewhat surprised on this side of the House that

the proposals that have been made in a very constructive manner do not,

at this point, appear to have been adopted by the government. I might

say that not only are we disappointed, but I think a great many other

people are disappointed that the government has taken this inflexible

position with regard to arbitrating what can become an extremely bitter

dispute in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman,

there is no reason why physicians should be treated as any less

important than any other group in our society. We are looking at

approximately 4,000 individuals in British Columbia who simply ask to

be treated no worse and no better than, say, the teachers of the

province of British Columbia.

Let us examine the provisions that are presently in the law to resolve disputes

between school boards and teachers. Under the provisions of the School Act,

provision is made under

section 136(2), quite simply, for there to be an arbitration

board — one appointed by the school board, the other appointed by the teachers'

organization — those two nominees, therefore, to choose a neutral chairman,

one in whom they both have confidence. Now what is the matter with that?

Surely it is absolutely vital, and surely the onus is on the Minister of Health

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to stand up in this House and tell us why the arbitration

provisions that apply to most of those people who are submitted to arbitration

in British Columbia are not good enough for the doctors of the province of British

Columbia. Why is it that we have to single out the doctors for this Draconian

measure? We have a measure here in which the government is the prosecutor, judge,

jury and, yes, the executioner. That's wrong, and the Minister of Health

knows that's wrong.

have to look, Mr. Chairman, at the motivation of this government as to

why they have rejected this proposal. Is it because they are sloppy

draftsmen? Is it because they haven't looked at the legislation? Is it

because they haven't examined it? Or is it because they want a

confrontation with the doctors of this province for political reasons?

That's the concern that we have in this House.

We don't need

this kind of a confrontation. The number of people who support extra

billing in this province is negligible, but the number of people who

support fairness for the doctors of British Columbia is very high

indeed. Unless this government understands that, they will provoke an

unnecessary confrontation, and instead of defending and protecting the

medical-care system, as they claim to be doing, they will be

contributing to its destruction as a result of that confrontation. We

have to ask ourselves: is it sloppy draftsmanship or is it a slick

political manoeuvre, to pick up a few cheap points and inspire a

confrontation with a group who are influential but not large? There is

no doubt that they would have some momentary unpopularity when the

opting-out process begins, but no one wants to see that happen.

Why

this government fails to be reasonable and fair in terms of the

arbitration procedure is really beyond the comprehension of most

fair-minded people, Mr. Chairman. You see, doctors are people like

everybody else. They're no different than teachers and workers — they

all participate in the life-blood of this province. And when the former

administration of W.A.C. Bennett decided to distort the question of

medical incomes by publishing gross medical incomes in this province,

that was an attack on the medical profession which was unfair and

unwarranted; because, as we all know, gross figures are a complete

distortion. Every small business has a large gross figure; the question

is net income. The doctors don't want to be misrepresented to the

public by the government, and that's what happens when you try to

distort this whole idea of medical income.

Medical incomes

are something that will ultimately be set — to a large extent — through

the arbitration process. Surely the minimum that this government must

give is fairness to the medical profession in terms of a resolution of

this dispute, and they haven't done it. They are therefore encouraging

an unnecessary confrontation with the medical profession, and in a way

that could be contributing to the destruction of medicare. I hope

that's not their plan.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr.

Chairman, I appreciated hearing those comments from the member who just

took his seat, and I recognize that that's his

interpretation of our

government's plans or intent, as stated in the bill. I can appreciate

that upon examination of the words of

section 6 and the proposed

amendment, it's open to a vast array of

interpretations, one example of

which we've just heard.

If the words are considered perhaps from a different point of view, upon reading the words of

section 6(l):

"The

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by order, direct that in accordance

with the provisions of the order, any dispute between the association

and the

[ Page 4930 ]

commission respecting the renewal, amendment or replacement of

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

appointed or constituted as provided in the order."

The

suggestions contained in the amendment, and modifications of that,

could be incorporated into the order. The flexibility of the section,

as it now reads, provides the order the possibility of appointing a

single arbitrator by cabinet. It provides the possibility of appointing

a three-person arbitration board — five-person, seven-person, whatever

number may be chosen.

I believe the amendment contains some

restrictions which we do not believe would be of particular interest in

trying to resolve this problem. One is that there is no time limit

required under the resolution for the appointment of representatives by

either side. It says: "The minister, in the event of a failure" —

whenever that may occur, I suppose.... As there is no time limit, that

could possibly spin on indefinitely.

The government intends

to be fair with the medical profession. We intend to resolve this

dispute by negotiation — by arbitration if necessary, but we also still

leave open the possibility of resolving the dispute by negotiation. The

arbitration will be set up in a fair way. I might refer members to

earlier sections of the bill, which provide for a resolution of the

problem by means other than arbitration. We have indicated in the words

of the bill that the dispute could be resolved by negotiation — by

arbitration if necessary, but we also still leave open the possibility

of resolving the dispute by negotiation.

I wish to

re-emphasize a statement that I made yesterday. At the last meeting

between representatives of the government and representatives of the

BCMA, we were advised that the BCMA representatives had no mandate from

their board to discuss resolution of the problem by negotiation or

arbitration. That was made very clear to us. There was no mandate from

the board to their representatives to discuss a solution to the problem

by negotiation or arbitration.

The amendment suggests a

precise method of selecting a board. Mr. Chairman, we believe that it's

necessary for government to have the opportunity of being flexible as

to how the board may be constructed — as I said, whether it be a

one-person arbitration or whether it be a panel. The amendment suggests

representation on a panel representing the two antagonists in the

issue. That suggestion could be contained in the order, as the

section

says, with the provisions of the order. That is not to say that that

proposal will not be given consideration.

I disagree with

the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) that there is a need for

this to become a bitter dispute. I don't think that's necessary at all.

We are in a situation where there is a difference of opinion as to what

the level of increase on the fee

schedule should be. Our negotiators

left the table with a 15.2 percent offer. The BCMA was seeking

approximately 41.6 by their figures, 47.8 by ours. Their members said:

"We will not accept the 15.2." Their members did not insist that we

produce a 47.8 or a 41.6. We believe that there is an area for

resolution. We believe that the percentage increase applicable to the

fee

schedule can be achieved. We had hoped that it could be achieved

through negotiation; we still leave that possibility open.

The

government does not intend to be left in a situation where the problem

will not be resolved in a reasonable period of time. If necessary, we

believe we must have the authority to decide how it shall be arbitrated

— and, I emphasize, in a fair manner. The provisions of that order will

be examined carefully by everyone involved as to their fairness. And we

intend it to be fair. I do not believe that a three-member arbitration

panel is the only method of establishing arbitration procedures. It may

be a fair method, but I don't believe it is the only fair method.

wish to be able to respond to this dispute quickly. We wish to be able

to respond to it in a fair manner. In seeking possible candidates for

an arbitration board, whether it be a single arbitrator or a panel, we

intend to be very cautious in choosing a person of the highest esteem

or a group of people of the highest esteem. We do not intend to develop

a confrontational attitude. We certainly do not intend to encourage a

bitter dispute.

For those reasons and perhaps for others

that will be offered by members of the House, we are not prepared to

accept the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the

opposition is shocked beyond imagination. The government has had all

night to rethink and reread this bit of obscenity.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: If a lawyer says it isn't, then that man should be disbarred.

There's

provocation here that I can't believe. It must be politically oriented.

Why are you taking on the doctors? Has somebody told you that they are

good ground? We agreed with you in the suggestion that there should be

no extra billing. But, my good heavens, we do not agree that a

one-sided situation — it can't be called arbitration — like this is the

way to go. Oh, the minister assures us that there is going to be fair

play. The legislation doesn't assure us of that. That's why we put

forward an amendment which is exactly in line with the arbitration

procedure in the School Act.

If the government feels that

there is some other form of arbitration, and can assure us that they'll

put forward a reasonable amendment guaranteeing fair play and equality,

and guaranteeing what our whole system calls for, what the democratic

process demands.... For us to be treated to the minister's reply to our

amendment in the way he did, I just can't believe. I believe that this

stupid, revenge-seeking government has stepped over the bounds beyond

words. The minister says that our amendment could be incorporated in

the order — note "could." In other words, if the government decided, it

could be incorporated. That's not what you put in law. In law you put

something that assures people. This weekend the doctors are going to

meet — doctors from Kootenay, Prince George, North Vancouver, Omineca,

North Vancouver–Capilano, North Peace River. What are they going to be

saying? They've already told you. My phone was ringing off the hook all

night; they've been telling me. I've had phone calls from right-wing,

left-wing — the three left-wing doctors that there are in the province.

MR. GABELMANN: There are a lot more today.

MR. COCKE: Yes, and they have said that they are absolutely completely without words with respect to this section.

AN HON. MEMBER: The whole act.

[ Page

4931 ]

MR. COCKE: I can assure the member who talks about the whole

act that I've had discussions with a very large number of prominent

doctors in this province whom I know because of my past experience.

They have said very clearly that they can quite understand the

government's attitude and the opposition's attitude toward extra

billing, but they can no more understand

section 6 than they can

understand flying to the moon without wings.

What does the

minister go on to say? He says the government intends to be fair; they

intend, however, to resolve the dispute. "Arbitration will be set up in

a fair way." I heard that over and over and over again. The government

intended to be fair when they redistributed the boundaries in British

Columbia — a one-man commission appointed by this fair government. We

saw the results of that fair play. Are the doctors going to be asked to

look forward to that kind of fair play?

MR. BARBER: By Dr. Eckardt.

MR. COCKE:

Dr. Eckardt? No, Mr. Chairman, doctors don't want this kind of finger.

Doctors demand one thing at this point. They demand fair play and they

want to see it legislated that way.

For a moment yesterday

afternoon, at a quarter to six, I thought that the government were

finally coming to their senses. They took a very close look at that

amendment; it was circulated among the lawyers — I saw that as I was

standing here — and suddenly there seemed to be a change of attitude.

What caused that change of attitude? The tough guys in cabinet. The

first tough guy in cabinet jumped up from his chair, slammed his desk

and walked out of the door. Who was it? The Premier. He was very

displeased with the fact that the opposition had done something

constructive about this destructive piece of legislation.

Mr.

Chairman, this is a matter of high principle. This is a matter that

must be thought through very clearly by every member of this House. If

we are to depart from the democratic process, let's hear about it

today, and give us the reasons today for this kind of tyranny.

ask a very simple question: why are they afraid? What are they afraid

of? Who are they afraid of? Of 4,000 doctors, asking for nothing more

than the simple fair play that every one of us would ask for were we in

their position? I ask them to produce one doctor before the bar of this

House who would defend this

section of this bill. If they do, then I

would suggest that we have him go to one of our noted psychiatrists.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says anybody who doesn't agree with me. I would

guarantee this, that if you canvassed the medical profession, 99.9

percent would be 100 percent for the amendment and 100 percent in

opposition to this destructive piece of legislation with respect to

section 6.

I believe that any fair-minded person who listened to what the minister had

to say in the context of the argument would have had to sit in disbelief, because

if the minister promised us fair play, why doesn't he give it to us in the

law? He said that he believes it is necessary for the government to be in a

position to conduct the arbitration process. Yes, that's right; that's

what they believe. Now isn't that unfortunate. The government have got themselves

into a bind. The way to get themselves out is in the fairest way possible, and

that is part of that amendment. It's good enough for the teachers, for the

province, for everybody concerned, but somehow it is not good enough for the

medical profession, that noble profession.

is very nice and easy to go around doctor-bashing: "Oh, they make so

much money." But they save a hell of a lot of lives, and we'd be in

tough shape without them. Mr. Chairman, this kind of provocation is

putting every citizen in this province in jeopardy.

Will the

government kindly rethink this situation right now? For heaven's sake,

those men of law and letters over there, those solicitors and

barristers, surely can either change the amendment that we have put

forward, if necessary, will give us fair play. All we ask for is a

little bit of democracy in this bill. We're not seeing it now, where

the cabinet can by order appoint a single arbitrator or an arbitration

board and can determine the outcome of the arbitration. That's what

people are worrying about. That's not arbitration at all. That's

cynicism. We are not in favour of cynicism and we totally support the

amendment put forward by our side.

MR. BARBER: The

general purposes of Bill 16 are sound. We support and endorse them. We

did so when we were in government, we do so now and we will do so again

if we have an opportunity to be returned to government after the next

election. The general purpose, which is to make illegal any form of

double or balance or extra billing is sound and worthwhile and we

support it. On that question there is no dispute. The doctors of

British Columbia and the general public should be well aware that on

that single issue the opposition and the government are unanimous in

their opinion. Balance billing, double billing and extra billing have

no place whatever in a decent system of medical care in this province.

Our record is clear, and the general purpose of this bill is sound.

It's

section 6 that offends, provokes and unnecessarily causes trouble,

dispute and disagreement, not simply in this House but also in the

general community. The title of

section 6, 'Arbitration,' is a false

one. It's not arbitration at all, and that title and this

section

parade under false colours. This is no arbitration by any authentic

meaning of the word, You won't find any definition for arbitration like

it in any other of the labour laws of British Columbia. Arbitration, as

it is titled here, appears in this form in no other statute. This

section parades under false colours, and the government does a wrong

thing when it gives the wrong name to its real intent.

Section

6 is objectionable because it is deeply unfair. At the moment it is

deeply unfair to its present and intended victims, who are physicians

in British Columbia. It is more profoundly unfair to the entire climate

and aspect and to the tradition and discipline of good

labour-management relations in this province. If the government can get

away with this distortion of an honourable process — which arbitration

is — in the instance of the doctors, then it can and will be rationally

concluded by other persons in the labour force — professionals,

white-collar, blue-collar, whomever — that the government may well

try to pull the same stunt against them at some time in the future and

once more fly under false colours with the name arbitration, which is

in fact no arbitration at all. This government has the authority to

name the arbitrator or arbitrators quite regardless of the opinion of

the doctors. This is unheard of in any other arbitration process we can

find in British Columbia law. The government further gives itself the

power to vary the order of its own arbitration panel. This too

[ Page 4932 ]

deeply unfair and grossly prejudices the ability of this panel — we're

now talking about

section 8 — such as it may be, to do its work in a

fair and honourable way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What

purpose is served by so falsely portraying as arbitration something

which is not arbitration at all in any fair, traditional and democratic

sense of the word? The government here is asking for power that it has

no right to have. It is asking for power that we do not believe it is

fit to exercise. It is asking for authority that it has no right to

enjoy. The provisions of

section 6, as they currently stand, are deeply

unfair to the principal constituent group that will be affected by it.

That is currently the physicians. Theoretically that could be anyone.

Once the government has set this pattern and broken the traditional

pattern of arbitrated resolution by giving itself power that it has not

earned, merited or deserved in any way, they are then apparently

entitled to do the same in any other circumstance.

I got a

phone call, like many of us have had, from a doctor. I've had more than

one, but this one I'm referring to now came in at about 8 o'clock this

morning when I was at home. This particular physician is a general

practitioner in the capital city. He happens to be a friend of mine. It

could not be alleged that he is a man who for ideological or political

purposes is basically against medicare and that this is his way of

getting back at the system. He believes in medicare and supports it. He

understands and respects the need for it and would do nothing to

compromise it, as long as his ability to practice as a physician is not

compromised either. What he is concerned about is his ability as a

citizen to enjoy the rights and entitlements of all other citizens in

these or any other industrial and labour-management disputes.

The general practitioner who phoned me this morning said that he is extremely

alarmed about the fact that if

section 6 as it currently is written should be

passed, he will be indentured to his job. This doctor, who it could not be said

has a secret political agenda, a secret ideological argument against medicare

— on the contrary, he supports it completely — who could not be said to be

using this dispute as a means to discredit medicare, this particular physician,

whom I

know, respect and like as a man and as a professional, told me this

morning that not only he, but every physician with whom he has come

into contact in the last 48 hours during his rounds of one of

Victoria's two metropolitan hospitals or with whom he practises in an

urban facility in Victoria, is sufficiently angered by this that he is

prepared to pull out. He is sufficiently angered at being indentured to

his job by the wrong and deeply unfair provisions of

section 6 as it

currently stands that he's prepared to pull out of the whole thing. And

he told me that this morning, because he knows full well that I

understand his basic commitment to public medicine and to the medicare

system that supports it in this province. That's how

aggrieved he feels; that's how angered he is at the deeply unfair

provisions and the grossly unfair weight the government gives to its

own case in this so-called arbitration procedure.

The minister says he intends to be fair. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we're skeptical;

if he intended to be fair, he would be fair, and the law before us would reflect

that. We are skeptical and we doubt his sincerity, because if he intended to

be fair, the bill we see would reflect fairness in

section 6. But it doesn't;

it reflects arbitrariness, heavy-handedness and an extremist case, made by a

government that appears to be so terrified at the outcome of a fair arbitration

hearing that it proposed to prejudice the nature of the arbitration panel itself

and give itself all the power to construct it, and further, to prejudice the

outcome of such a panel's work by giving itself the power to vary the order

of its own panel. They want it both ways, and they give the doctors nothing

in return. This is deeply unfair to any group in society, doctors or any others,

who may be the victims of such a heavy-handed, one-sided approach to labour-

management relations.

The

minister says he intends to be fair, and we are skeptical. He says he

wants the opportunity to be flexible, and in this instance we don't

doubt his word, because the kind of flexibility he wants is contained

in the current statute. What is that flexibility? To appoint anyone he

wishes, and even then to vary any finding their own appointee may make.

Now that's pretty darned flexible, if you're the government; but if

you're the doctors, it's not flexible at all. It is state power that

this government is not entitled to exercise, and it is the heavy hand

of state authority that fundamentally and irrevocably prejudices a

potentially fair outcome of this arbitration process. No government is

entitled to have that kind of authority. They don't deserve it, they

haven't earned it, they don't merit it, and neither does the situation

merit it.

The minister said that our proposal "may be a fair

method." Well, we argue that it is more than a situation of a possible

maybe; it is a proven truth. I think, Mr. Chairman, we can demonstrate

that our amendment — which, I believe, is consistent in every aspect

with the current arbitration procedure that governs the teaching

profession in this province — not only may be fair, but has a tradition

and a track record of being fair. It has been demonstrably fair in the

instance of teachers — to both the teachers themselves and the school

districts of British Columbia. We're not asking the minister to accept

a hypothetical proposal that has never been tried nor tested anywhere

else; we are offering, in fact, the extension of a successful tradition

and technique that works in the public educational system of this

province, and that could just as fairly and unarbitrarily work for the

doctors and the Medical Services Commission.

Section 6, as

it currently stands, indentures the physicians of this province to a

so-called arbitration process that should never be labelled as any such

thing, because it is no such thing at all. It's not arbitration; it's

the government setting all the rules and determining in advance the

result of the game. What kind of bargaining is that? If an American

basketball team did that sort of thing, they'd be hauled up on criminal

charges. That's called "fixing the game." It's no game at all when one

side can do that to the other. This government has no right whatever to

fix, in the phony and deceitful way this fixes, the outcome of a

so-called arbitration process. If they wanted to be fair, they would

accept the amendment. If they were worried about the practicality of

the amendment, they would realize its consistency with the bargaining

process in the public educational system from whence the amendment

derives.

We're not asking you to accept something that has

never been done before. On the contrary, we are demonstrating clearly

that it is done quite frequently in other jurisdictions and has been

done from time to time in this province. It's a simple procedure: each

side names its representative; the two representatives name a chairman;

and there's a fallback position if that doesn't succeed. If that's good

enough for the teachers and the public school system, it's likely good

[ Page

4933 ]

enough

for the doctors. If it's good enough for British Columbia law as it now

stands, it is good enough for the law we are now debating.

Section 6

flies under false colours; it is not arbitration at all. It is the

government setting the rules, naming the players and fixing the

outcome. That is deeply unfair. No wonder doctors resent it as bitterly

as they do.

For an arbitration procedure in this bill to be

fair, we argue that it must be consistent with the standard,

conventional, proven and testedly successful industrial arbitration

procedures that have been in force in law in this province for some

years now. For it to be demonstrably fair, it must be demonstrably

consistent with extant provincial law. But it is not consistent with

that law. It is not consistent with fairness and with treating these

persons — be they doctors, teachers or anyone — in an honourable way.

Once again,

section 6 gives the government the power to name the

players, fix the rules and predict the outcome of the whole inquiry.

What sort of fairness is that? You don't do it to teachers, labourers

and carpenters. You shouldn't do it to anyone. You have no right to do

it to anyone.

Our amendment is not a radical departure from

British Columbia law; it is drawn from British Columbia law and

tradition. I believe that we can demonstrate credibly that it works in

other professional bargaining environments here in this province. If

we've already got a system that works admirably with other

professionals, what is the matter with considering its application here

with these professionals, the physicians of British Columbia? What's

wrong with that intellectually and logically? How does that rationally

fall short — to draw an unsuccessful precedent in our own jurisdiction

with other professionals and apply it here? What's wrong with that?

Apparently what's wrong with it is that it frightens the government;

they're worried about the outcome of an honest arbitration process and

a fair arbitration procedure. On that basis, they seem to reject our

argument at least for the moment.

I want to predict, Mr.

Chairman, two certain outcomes if our amendment fails and this bill

goes ahead in its current form. First, what will happen to the

reputation of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) if he votes

for his government's own bill? The Minister of Labour will be

personally discredited in the eyes of every labour and management

person in this province who knows what arbitration is all about. I

predict that the reputation of the Minister of Labour on this issue

will be ruined if he votes for his own government's provision; because

within the industrial community of British Columbia, they know what

authentic arbitration is, what traditional arbitration means and what

the history of fair, mutually and equitably binding procedures within

industrial arbitration is all about. They'll know what it's all about

if the Minister of Labour himself repudiates his own ministry and the

tradition, law and practice of fair industrial relations in this

province.

I make that prediction in absolute seriousness,

and I call on the Minister of Labour to personally repudiate his own

government's unfair posture and unfair proposal in this bill. If he

doesn't, I predict his own reputation on this issue will be profoundly

damaged by people who must deal with him in other arbitration matters,

where the ordinary procedures of arbitration apply, unlike this

extraordinary procedure which is no arbitration at all.

The second prediction is perfectly obvious. You will create within the ranks

of the physicians of this province more anger, bitterness and hatred than they

have suffered in living memory. You will then turn around and tell us that you

want to get back to rational bargaining. What a joke! On the one hand you so

insult, aggrieve, offend and disentitle physicians by

section 6 that they will

be in open revolt against your policies across this province. Then you turn

around and try to convince us that you want to get back to rational bargaining.

How can you do that if you've maddened your opponents by indenturing them

to an unfair process which you pretend is arbitration but which in fact is nothing

other than game-fixing, than rigging the outcome? The second prediction is perfectly

obvious. There will be no harmonious climate of mature bargaining if you force

the doctors back to the table under these circumstances.

Let

me restate: this opposition yields to no one and no party in its total

conviction that double billing and balance billing have no place in

the medical system of British Columbia, and no place in medicare

either. We yield to no one on that issue. Just as surely, we yield to

no one in our conviction that for arbitration to work it must be fair

to both sides, and that for collective bargaining to work you must

establish a climate in which each side can bargain as equals.

What

have you done in this bill? You have ruined the possibility of fair

arbitration and you are ruining the climate for mature bargaining when

the doctors do get back to the table. For both reasons this provision

is wrong. For each reason our amendment should pass, because it has

already passed the tests of traditional success, fairness and

equitability. Once again, we ask the government, and in particular the

Minister of Labour, to repudiate such unfairness, not to ask for powers

in law that you should not have and that you do not have in other

circumstances, and instead to say yes to fair play and to the

possibility of a quick and fair return to honest bargaining on both

parts.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I rise in

opposition to the amendment. The first member for Victoria is very

eloquent in his speech and attempts to imply that this government is

heavy-handed and is coming down very hard on the doctors of this

province. We all know the situation that caused this bill to come

before the House. We know that negotiations have been going on for the

last number of months. We know that the Minister of Health attempted to

get decisions of the vote that was taken by the doctors. He attempted

to meet and discuss with the doctors final resolution of the problem

regarding the

schedule of fees to be charged by the doctors. There was

no option for him but to bring this bill before the House, because he

was left no option.

I would just like to say that the offer

that was made by the commission was, I think, 15.2 percent. I don't

think there is one person in this House or in this province — other

than the doctors who voted against accepting that amount of increase —

who wouldn't feel that that is a fair and just increase in any level of

endeavour in this province.

Dr. Mandeville, who happens to

be a resident of my community in the city of Penticton and who is a

very capable doctor, has taken the position that balance billing,

extra billing or double billing — whatever it's called — is the way to

go. He has basically said to this province and to this government that

it's 90 percent of the increase they require, which I believe is either

a global increase of 41.6 percent or an increase, calculated another

way, of 47 percent. If we meet 90 percent of that increase they will

accept the fee schedule. Mr. Chairman, 90 percent of that type of

increase is exorbitant. It's exorbitant for the people of the province

of British

[ Page 4934 ]

Columbia.

It's not this government that pays these fees to the doctors. It is the

people of the province of British Columbia that pay the fees to the

doctors through taxation; we all know that. Our minister and the

commission attempted to be fair and give a reasonable increase to the

doctors of this province. I would suggest to you that many doctors out

there are quite prepared to accept it as a reasonable and fair increase.

With

regard to the debate the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) comes

up with — that we will fix the rules; it isn't fair arbitration; this

government has fixed the rules, rigged the outcome and will have power

in law we shouldn't have....

MR. HANSON: Spetifore?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Isn't that marvellous! The second member for Victoria says: "What about

Spetifore?" Can you believe it? We're debating a bill in this House

that is the most important issue in this province and he says: "What

about Spetifore?" He should withdraw from this chamber. It's a shame.

The level of debate from that side of the House is atrocious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, may I return to the

section of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Strictly relevant — the amendment to

section 6.

MR. COCKE: You're not debating the bill; you're debating this atrocious section.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Will the committee please come to order. The Minister of

Agriculture and Food continues on the amendment to

section 6.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your support. I was just

responding to an objection that was thrown at me across the floor.

deal with the amendment, I don't know whether the first member for

Victoria has read the section. He aims at the arbitration procedure. He

says we have to accept this amendment; we shouldn't have the power in

law that we have put into this

section of the bill. Has he read the

fact that in providing this single arbitrator or an arbitration

board...? Let me refer you to the exact words of

section 6(2): "In

an arbitration under this act the single arbitrator or the arbitration

board shall not include in the award a provision contrary to

section

7(

l) and shall have regard to (

a) the interests of the public." That's

what this

section says. This

section doesn't say "let's have an

arbitration board set up the way they would like it set up," but it

does say that any single arbitrator or any arbitration board will have

the interests of the public in mind, and you don't accept that. The

first member for Victoria is a very eloquent speaker, but he has no

principles at all.

Let us look at the second subsection of

section 6 — a very important point. "The desirability of establishing terms...."

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I don't know, Mr. Chairman, but that member over

there keeps attacking me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind the committee that it is unparliamentary for members to interrupt another member while the member is speaking.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Section 6(2)(b): "The desirability of establishing terms and

conditions that are fair and reasonable in relation to the

qualifications required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed

and the nature of services rendered...." That's the power of the

law; it's in there. The first member for Victoria says we should not

have the power of the law. I'm just saying that

section 6 is fair and

just to all the people of this province.

MR. COCKE:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're not debating the subsections.

We're debating subsection (1) and an amendment to subsection (1) only.

We're not debating the rest of that; we accept the rest of it. We're

debating one very narrow situation — the construction of the

arbitration board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is extremely well taken. The hon. member for New Westminster has made his point.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

On the same point of order, in his debate on the amendment the first

member for Victoria was referring to sections under

section 8, and I

thought perhaps the Chair was offering more latitude than is normally

allowed under an amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All points

are well taken. Of course we are aware of standing order 61(2), which

states that debate in committee of supply must be "strictly relevant."

I will commend that to all members of the House and remind them we are

debating an amendment to

section 6(1) of Bill 16.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I appreciate those comments, Mr. Chairman. In taking some of the

comments of the first member for Victoria — to whom you gave, I think,

considerable latitude — in my debate I'm attempting to point out to the

people of this province, and to record in Hansard , statements

that member made in support of the amendment. I am objecting to the

amendment on the basis of my argument, which is that really there are

two things this

section 6 — including all subsections — addresses

itself to. First, the bill is in the interests of the public —

section

6. That's one part of the public we serve — all those people who use

the doctors. The other part of

section 6 which I'm defending is in the

interests of the doctors of this province, those people who serve the

public. That's why I'm objecting to the statements made by the first

member for Victoria regarding: "fixing the rule," "rigging the

outcome" and "power in the law," which we shouldn't have in

section 6.

I'm totally opposed to the amendment.

Section 6 treats fairly two

parties — the public of this province and the doctors of this province.

MS. SANFORD:

Section 6, which we are discussing this morning, is immoral, in my

view. It has nothing whatever to do with arbitration. It's called

arbitration:

section 6 — "Arbitration." But it's an immoral

section

coming from an immoral government, in my view.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, parliamentary language must always be used in debate. I would commend that to the hon. member.

[ Page

4935 ]

MS. SANFORD: For them to bring in a

section like this under

the title of arbitration.... What other word is there? It has no

relevance whatsoever to the word "arbitration."

MR. HOWARD: Arbitrary, yes.

MS. SANFORD:

Good point. But it is not relevant to arbitration. This is what we're

attempting to point out to the government through this amendment. How

can the Minister of Labour sit there and be trampled on by the Ministry

of Health or whoever else is calling the shots over there? I somehow

suspect it's not the Minister of Health in this particular case who's

calling the shots on this section. I don't know.

This

morning surely the Minister of Labour is very embarrassed by what he

reads under

section 6 of this bill. Surely the Attorney-General, as the

former Minister of Labour, he too.... His face usually gets red

when he reads a

section like this and realizes that he's going to have

to stand up with the rest of those people and support it. He can't

support it in all honesty. It's got nothing to do with arbitration, and

he knows it. He knows it (

a) as a former Minister of Labour, (

b) as a

lawyer and (

c) as the Attorney-General of this province. He must be

ashamed.

Here we have this

section which allows the

government to be judge, jury and prosecutor, and to set all the rules

at its whim — executioner; the whole bit — in this particular

section

entitled "Arbitration." What a joke!

Mr. Chairman, very

briefly I would like to outline for you a series of events that took

place late yesterday afternoon, just as the Minister of Health

introduced the amendment that is still under discussion. I'm sorry —

it's the former Minister of Health; he should be the Minister of Health

— the MLA for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke); he introduced the

amendment. Just prior to that we had discussion by the MLA for

Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) about this

section under second reading.

Finally when the bells rang to call everybody in to vote on second

reading of this bill, I met the Minister of Labour in the hall. I

pointed out to him that the former Minister of Labour, Mr. King, MLA

for Revelstoke-Shuswap, had made some excellent points in the House in

the afternoon, and that I certainly hoped that the Minister of Labour

had heard them, Unfortunately, the Minister of Labour said: "Gosh, I've

been too busy in my office today. I've just been up to my ears. I

haven't heard a word that's been said on this particular section." So

at that point I suggested to him that he really read the

section that

the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke was referring to.

Sure

enough, the Minister of Labour came into the House and took his place

while the division was taken. He quickly turned to Bill 16 and to the

section we had told him he should read, and read sections 6 and 8. No

sooner had he read them than he turned to his colleague the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who is also a lawyer, and the two of them

began discussing sections 6 and 8. I think that was the first time that

particular

section had been under discussion by those two members of

this Legislature. I don't think they had had time or interest enough to

read the sections before.

Suddenly there was a flurry of

activity over on the other side of the floor. The Attorney-General

(Hon. Mr. Williams) got involved; he was back and forth. The Minister

of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) came over and

consulted; he was in a bit of a flap too, wondering about

section 6

because it has nothing whatever to do with arbitration, and anybody who

has any understanding of arbitration or arbitration procedures would

certainly not call that

section arbitration. Then we had the House

Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) involved, and he had some consultation with

the Minister of Labour, he talked to the Minister of Education, had a

little chat with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the

Attorney-General — they are all lawyers, you note. I also note that

none of those lawyers have been on their feet trying to defend this

section, because it is indefensible. Finally I noticed the House Leader

run over to the Minister of Health and whisper a few words in his ear,

and it wasn't long before we had the Minister of Health standing up and

moving that the committee rise and report progress until the next

sitting of the House, and so on.

Why did the Minister of

Health not accept this amendment at that time? It was clearly

understood that this House wanted this legislation to go through

yesterday. This side of the House was fully prepared to cooperate in

getting that through. We presented the amendment early, we made our

points on the amendment, the government benches clearly understood what

was being said, but because they are so confused and in such disarray

and cannot agree with each other, they were unable yesterday to make a

decision with respect to the amendment. They could not make any

decision. As a result, we are still discussing this amendment this

morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

MS. SANFORD:

Might I also add, Mr. Chairman, that there is no one on that side of

the House who can give us any defence whatsoever about the procedures

that are involved in appointing this arbitration board. The procedure

itself was not mentioned at all by the Minister of Agriculture and Food

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt). He could not justify that his government could

unilaterally appoint a three-person arbitration board in order to make

the kind of decisions that are required here. That's not arbitration. I

would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture and Food consult with

the Minister of Labour to find out. He'll tell you that that is not

arbitration.

We have tried, proven procedures for

arbitration in this province in a number of statutes. We have presented

one of them word for word for the consideration of the government. The

government has always accepted those particular procedures, but now

they want to initiate their own unilateral way of making a decision

with respect to the salaries of doctors.

My question is

this, Mr. Chairman. Who is next? Are they now going to amend the Labour

Code so that it will comply with this arbitration procedure that they

are using for the doctors? Are they going to amend the Public Schools

Act so that the teachers, too, will have to comply with this particular

section 6, which they apparently refuse to accept any amendments on? If

that is the position that they are adopting for doctors, then surely

the rest of the province can expect that they will be treated the same

way. So I am assuming that the next things we will have are amendments

to the Labour Code, the School Act and to the Arbitration Act itself so

that they all comply with this and the government becomes the

totalitarian government that it is proving itself to be day after day.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Before proceeding with the next speaker, the committee is once again

reminded that under standing order 61(2) the debate in Committee of

Supply must

[ Page 4936 ]

be strictly relevant to the item before us. The item before us is an amendment to

section 6(1) of Bill 16.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I've listened to the debate very carefully so far, and I guess if I

have any concern it is that the fierce rhetoric which we're hearing

from the opposition is more than likely going to cause the medical

profession the kind of distress that the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber) predicted. I would have thought that in dealing with a bill the

principle of which they supported unanimously yesterday, they would

have recognized that the other stages must nonetheless take place, and

that inflammatory statements by members in this House can be entirely

counterproductive insofar as the resolution of this problem is

concerned.

There has been a clear indication in the course

of debate today that the official opposition is incapable of wresting

itself from its reactionary position. It sees these negotiations

between the Medical Services Commission — not the government but the

Medical Services Commission — and the British Columbia Medical

Association, on behalf of the doctors in this province, in the light of

a labour negotiation. They cannot seem to withdraw themselves from that

rigid position into which they have clearly painted themselves in the

course of their remarks in this debate. Let it be abundantly clear that

the negotiations which have gone on and the negotiations which will be

pursued following the passage of this bill are not labour negotiations.

The government does not see the doctors in this province as being

members of a trade union, and we do not approach our responsibilities

in resolving the existing dispute as a labour negotiation.

is a clear responsibility on the part of the Medical Services

Commission to deal fairly with the doctors in resolving the issue of

what their compensation should be for their services, just as it is

also the responsibility of the government to ensure that in the process

of resolution of that dispute the interests of the public are seen to

be supreme. This is not the case in labour negotiations. They are

private negotiations between an employer and his or her employees.

They're private to those parties and therefore significantly different

than the discussions which must take place here.

MR. KING: Is that why you've brought in arbitration here?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The opposition has focused its mind on arbitration,

and I will deal with that in a moment. Before I do, let us also make one thing

clear. It has been suggested that in

section 6, if we don't accept this

amendment, we are doing something which is heavy-handed, arbitrary, jackboot

legislation — those are the words which we've heard from the official opposition.

The opposition seems to have a very convenient lapse of memory, and I would

ask the members of the House to take the time to consider what the New Democratic

Party did, when it was the government, in the resolution of the elevator constructors'

dispute. What did they do? They brought in legislation which imposed a collective

agreement. How was that collective agreement arrived at? The collective agreement

was arrived at following the unanimous decision of an industrial inquiry commission.

Who appointed the industrial inquiry commission? The Minister of Labour. Were

the parties represented? No, it was his appointment. The industrial inquiry

commission produced a decision....

MR. LEA: Did you vote for it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Yes, I voted for it. It was your bill; all we're saying to you is that

when we approach a similar process in this legislation, we would ask

for you to vote for it as well. But no, this is suddenly an issue of

major significance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A spurious argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe it's a spurious argument as far as

the NDP is concerned.

MR. NICOLSON: That's spurious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the member for Nelson-Creston to come to order.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Chairman, if that's a spurious argument, may I ask the members of

the committee to consider what they did to the firefighters in this

province when there was a dispute which couldn't be resolved. Was there

an arbitration? No, there was not. Was there an industrial inquiry

commission? No, there was not. How was it resolved? The then Minister

of Labour brought in legislation that imposed on those firefighters who

had a dispute an existing collective agreement negotiated by others.

Was that arbitrary? Was that jackboot legislation? I wonder if the

member of the NDP who voted against that action by the NDP will stand

up today and clearly indicate the basis upon which he broke with his

party over this bill.

MR. LEGGATT: That's why he supports the amendment.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

That's why he supports the amendment, but how about all the rest of

you? Are you still supporting it? Mr. Member, I suppose that you're

like the lawyer who appeared before the court one day and made an

argument and the following week he appeared before the court and made

the exact opposite argument. When the judge challenged him he said: "My

lord, this time I'm right." [Laughter.] Very convenient.

would like to make a few remarks with respect to this amendment. First

of all, the amendment, if it were accepted in its present form, would

effectively destroy the process of arbitration. There are no time

limits in the amendment. Therefore it requires the parties to agree to

do certain things. There are no requirements. Therefore it's a

completely incompetent amendment. I'm surprised that the member would

put it forward, knowing the advice that he has available to him.

But

there is a much more significant reason for not accepting the kind of

amendment that we're considering today.

Section 2 of the bill — already

approved in committee — makes it clear that there are two means of

achieving a resolution of the existing difference between the medical

commission and the doctors association. One is by negotiation. It is

the sincere intention and wish on the part of this government, as the

Minister of Health has pointed out, now that we have the issue of

balance billing out of the way, which was the major stumbling block to

the processes of negotia-

[ Page 4937 ]

tion,

to return to the table with the doctors for the purpose of fruitful

negotiations leading to a resolution of this dispute. I believe that

the medical profession and its leaders will approach their

responsibilities in this regard with the utmost seriousness, as will

the government. Through that process I expect that many of the issues —

and there is more than one issue unresolved in this dispute —

outstanding between the commission and the medical profession will be

resolved.

Therefore, if you reach the stage where there are

some outstanding issues still remaining to be dealt with, then some

other process is required. When you have identified those issues it is

absolutely essential that you be able to tailor the mechanism by which

those remaining outstanding issues can be settled. This is not at all

unusual. Even in the field of labour relations, with respect to which

the members of the opposition are so familiar, we've just had one of

major significance in this province — the long strike of the telephone

workers. When it finally reached its conclusion there were some

outstanding issues. There was then a decision taken as to how those

issues would be resolved. Were they resolved by the kind of board that

is being suggested in this amendment? The answer is no. They were

resolved by selecting a person with the skill and experience to deal

with those specific issues.

MR. MACDONALD: By agreement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

By agreement, that's right. Is the member for Vancouver East suggesting

that in the course of this process this is not applicable? Of course it

is. Out of these negotiations we can tailor the mechanism for

resolution that the circumstances demand.

In the proposal

that is being put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster, he

proposes a technique, which indeed may be destined for failure, in

order to resolve the nature of issues which presently exist between the

doctors. If indeed all issues had to come before an arbitration

process, a serious question is raised as to whether or not a three-man

board is the best way of resolving it. It may result in the not unusual

result for arbitrations of cutting the baby in half; it may be that in

circumstances as significant as this, what the government and the

doctors will see is required is a single individual of stature,

prestige, experience and skill who can sit down with the parties and

work through this very difficult schedule. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the

provisions of

section 6, which the opposition is attempting to modify

by this amendment, incompetent as it is, must be supported, or else we

lose the flexibility which both the medical commission and the medical

profession itself may identify as being required in the resolution of

their dispute, and it also enables the government to ensure that in the

establishment of that mechanism the essential factor is taken into

consideration: the public interest.

I know that the

opposition believes that we are just dealing, with subsection 1— and I

suppose in the amendment we are — but they cannot be selective in their

reading of the statute in order to make their point, and they cannot in

the debate on this particular amendment ignore the constraints that are

imposed on this arbitration process by the other provisions of the

statute.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm entering

this debate because I feel that I'm one of the few people who, as a

layman, in the last 25 years has either appeared before, participated

in, or had my lifestyle affected by arbitration boards of one type or

another. I think it's really important that we as legislators and as

citizens of the province of British Columbia understand the intent, the

principle and the desire of what an arbitration board is going to

accomplish. An arbitration board in itself is not the final solution;

it is not the simple answer to any problem. By the time you get to an

arbitration board, you have negotiated in every step of the way toward

an agreement. This is why I think it's so important that we understand

what this whole legislation embodies. It not only embodies the

step-by-step negotiations toward the agreement, but this legislation

can take each of those steps that they have processed through and wipe

them out, because you cannot take

section 6 into consideration without

studying

section 8 and the regulations part that deals with arbitration.

When

you have negotiated and you have settled on 90 percent of the parts of

your agreement, you turn the parts that you cannot come to an agreement

on over to a board of arbitration. But under your regulations....

Let's read what the regulations say under

section 8(l)(

a) about the

arbitrator. "Respecting the duties and powers of the arbitrator or of

an arbitration board appointed or constituted under this act...."

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

On a point of order, which was earlier raised by the member for New

Westminster today, the scope of the amendment is apparently restricted

section 6(l). The member is now referring to

section 8(l)(a).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member, no doubt, is just coming to the

section that is presently before us on the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL:

What I was saying to you, Mr. Chairman, in line with what the

Attorney-General did, is that you cannot take one

section out of the

bill without taking the whole context of the bill. When you have

section 6, which deals with arbitration — and I'm supporting the

amendment we brought in — you have to take the corresponding

section 8

and the part of the regulations that deal with arbitration. This is

what I'm saying: the intent of an arbitration board is to take those

issues that you cannot come to an agreement on and put them to the

single arbitrator or an arbitration board; these are the only issues

that he, or a board, has any right to deal with. But when you take the

regulations that you're bringing in, he can suspend the very provisions

of the agreement.

You've already come to an agreement on 90

percent of your discussion, but there are certain parts of the

agreement that you cannot mutually agree on, so you agree to present

those sections to an arbitration board, a single arbitrator or whatever

he may be called. Then you have a person who is appointed by one side

of that agreement. Not only does he have the opportunity to settle that

particular issue that you have mutually agreed for him to study, but he

can go back into the agreement and amend and change any provisions of

it. This is the part that I implore you to consider — not on the

emotions, but on the straight logic. I know that at times in this House

to be logical is to be out of step with everyone else, but we cannot

afford emotions in a case like this, because we're dealing with law;

we're dealing with procedures that are going to set a precedent in this

province forever. You can bring in one person who can then unwind an

agreement that you've already come to and change or alter it in any way

he wants.

[ Page 4938 ]

When

I said that we are looking at law that is going to affect the province

of British Columbia for a long time, you have to take the wording of

this piece of legislation and how it affects not only this piece of

legislation dealing with the medical services and not only how it may

affect legislation dealing with the trade union movement. Let's read

section 6. "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, direct

that, in accordance with the provisions of the order, any dispute

between the association and the commission respecting the renewal,

amendment or replacement of the agreement be resolved by a single

arbitrator...." These are the words that are in the laws of

British Columbia. This is part of our legislation.

I ask if

this same bill or the same wording were brought in by the Minister of

Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in trying to negotiate with

a private person to purchase or arbitrate the price of a piece of land

for a park, and instead of having the words "association" and

"commission" they had "landlord" and "minister," can you imagine what

type of rights that particular person, the landlord, who was

negotiating with a government who had tried in all fairness to

negotiate an agreement and — using the same wording that is in this

legislation — had brought that type of legislation in to deal with the

confiscation of land for a park...? This is what I'm saying: it's

not only the wording and how it affects this particular item, but it's

the legislation which is becoming part and parcel of the laws of

British Columbia.

We have to take three steps back; we have

to be logical. If you're going to have legislation, it has to be

legislation that is going to affect every one of us in all walks of

life. That this same legislation can be interpreted for landlords, or

if my good friend the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was

building a highway and he brought in a piece of legislation and instead

of "association" you had "landlord" and instead of "commission" you had

"Minister of Highways...." What type of negotiations would that

landlord feel when he was trying to deal with a heavy-handed

government, knowing that if he didn't come to a settlement he was going

to be faced with a piece of legislation that would say the person he

had just finished negotiating with, the person he couldn't come to an

agreement with, was going to appoint a single arbitrator or an

arbitration board? If he knew that was going to be the final result, he

would go into that negotiation knowing that he was defeated, knowing

that any other part of the agreement that he had made with the Minister

of Highways could be altered by the regulations in

section 8.

Mr.

Chairman, I think it's important that we, as MLAs in the province of

British Columbia, not look at this piece of legislation for the single

issue of medical negotiations re double billing. I think we should look

at the wording and the intent of the legislation. The wording gives

immense power that is not needed in this particular case. It is not

needed in taking over land for parks or for highways. There must be

legislation that gives fairness, honesty and a sense of well-being to

both the negotiator and the person who is being negotiated with.

I've gone into negotiations — granted they were in labour matters, but they were also binding-type arbitration.... When you went in with a board who you knew were going to negotiate in a fair

manner — they were prepared to give and take — the whole tenor of the negotiations

went along very well. But if you knew that because of their favoured connections

a board had the opportunity to appoint a single arbitrator — as we had under

the Social Credit government when we had the mediation act — you knew as soon

as you went into negotiations that they were loaded. There was no intent to

have a fair negotiation, because you knew that the final step was going to be

an appointed person whom you had no control over. It is not only the intent

of appointing a single arbitrator. You have with the regulations dealing with

that arbitrator the provision that he can change any negotiations that have

been settled on, take out of context the procedures you've gone through

and suspend or vary provisions of the agreement. All this is going to be appointed

by the one party, and that

section is binding.

all fairness to everyone in the House — the minister and the government

— I think that at this point they should really take those three steps

backward and look at the legislation for what it is — look at the

wording of the law and the precedents they are setting that may be used

five or ten years down the line by another government. They can take

the intent of this piece of legislation and write what they want into

this to cover another situation by using the same words that are here

today. I say that the amendment the member for New Westminster (Mr.

Cocke) brought in is an amendment that has good solid sense behind it.

It has sincerity. It has faith that both parties can accept. Because

when you start negotiating it's not how you end up but knowing the way

that you are going down the line to the end of the negotiations that

counts. When you know that at the end someone else has a club bigger

than yours, you cannot negotiate in good faith. I think it's important

that all parties — doctors, trade union movements, members of the

public who are selling land to the Highways ministry — must know and

have faith in the province of British Columbia. With this type of

wording and with this type of regulation dealing with the arbitration

we do not have that. I ask the government to take the intent of the

amendment. If it needs some dates, bring in the amendment with the

dates. Bring it in so that it's workable and logical, so that every one

of us can support it unanimously.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a clear

ruling as to whether or not we're going to deal with this amendment to

section 6(

l) or whether we're going to be able to stray into

section

8. I don't want to engage in the debate on

section 8, except to say

that the comments of the last speaker indicate that he has not read the

legislation,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the point

raised by the Attorney-General certainly is a valid one. I would ask

all members to contain their remarks to the amendment on

section 6

presently before us.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I made

some comments yesterday regarding the amendment that is before the

committee. I had some comments regarding the nature of the arbitration

process which the government has designed in this bill. I really did

not intend to say too much more about it, but after hearing the

Attorney-General, I agonized and hurt for him. The Attorney-General of

the province of British Columbia is an eloquent, intelligent person. I

don't think I have ever in my life seen anyone in this Legislature have

to get up and defend something which he patently did not believe in,

and which in effect prostituted his whole point of view and

professional background, as the Attorney-General has done on this

section, with all of its inequity and all of its arbitrari-

[ Page

4939 ]

ness that offends the rules of common justice, which that member allegedly stands for.

The

Attorney-General tried to bring in a couple of red herrings. He said:

"What did the previous government do with respect to the elevator

constructors' strike?" Well, in the first place, the government was not

one of the parties in dispute with respect to the elevator dispute. The

government did not have a direct interest as one of the proponents at

the bargaining table, which is the case in the bill before the House at

the moment. The government has a direct stake at the bargaining table

with the doctors of this province. To try to liken this dispute to that

which confronted the government in the elevator constructors' dispute

is totally irrational and really beneath the dignity and intelligence

of that minister.

One of the reasons for the elevator

constructors' dispute was that under the old Social Credit government

they allowed people in Toronto and in the eastern United States to

bargain and to obstruct collective agreements in the province of

British Columbia in the elevator construction industry. And our

government said: "No, we will not tolerate that. We will not tolerate

obstruction either in the industrial relations field or anywhere else

by influences flowing from another part of the country altogether." So

we brought in legislation to bring the elevator constructors in

conformity with the rest of the industrial relations in the province of

British Columbia, so that bargaining would take place, so that

collective agreements must be consummated here. And, yes, there was a

settlement imposed on the basis of a third party — a third party which,

I might add, was agreed to by both parties.

That is not the

case before the House now. The doctors have no opportunity to agree

with respect to who the third party or parties will be. It's an

arbitrary imposition by the government, and the Attorney-General knows

it. He brought in the fire fighters' dispute. The fire fighters'

dispute was a different matter again. It was a fragmentation of unions

serving in one particular field. It would be the same thing as if the

Medical Association of British Columbia had a bargaining association

for the Okanagan, one for the lower mainland and another one for

Vancouver Island, and attempted to whipsaw the industry or the

government. I think that's poor industrial relations. I think that

there should be commonality in the interest disputes. That's what the

legislation was designed for in the firefighters' dispute. It was based

on a collective agreement which had been freely negotiated by the

largest element of that industry — namely, the city of Vancouver

firefighters. If the Attorney-General finds that repugnant, then I

would ask him why he voted for it — which he did. But he was a Liberal

at that time, and if he could make the transition from Liberal benches

to Social Credit benches, I guess he had no problem with his principles

with respect to voting for that bill.

They are red herrings

and extremely pallid ones which the Attorney-General seeks to inject

into this dispute. I say shame on him. He knows better. He's more

intelligent.

What we have here is a bill that could enjoy quick and unanimous passage through

this House if the government were not so heavy-handed and intransigent. The

Attorney-General said the public interest must be served, of course. That's

why the legislation is before the House, and that's why there is unanimous

agreement indicated from this House for serving the public interest by eliminating

extra billing in law. That's aside. We all agree on that. That's not

at issue. What is at issue is: once having said that in law we will not allow

extra billing, then surely it is incumbent upon the government to provide a

fair, reasonable and logical mechanism for resolving the dispute — a mechanism

that has precedent in many other areas of the public interest in the province.

drew to the government's attention a resolution method similar to that

which resides under the School Act. What's wrong with that? If they

don't like the proposition of an arbitration board, that's fine. We'll

accept an amendment to the amendment providing the opportunity for a

single arbitrator or a board. There is a difference, you know. When the

government has imposed arbitration on the doctors and then has taken

unto itself the right to name that arbitrator, I can see cause for

concern, distrust and cynicism on the part of the doctors. They've

already expressed that themselves. I think it might be more acceptable

to the Medical Association if they had the opportunity, which is

usually available under most forms of arbitration, to come together to

make or participate in the decision as to whether it should be a board

or a single person — in any event, to have input as to who that choice

should be. At least they would be represented with three-person

arbitration by one of their choices on that board. Under these

circumstances I think that might be a more palatable choice to the

doctors. I'm inclined to agree with the Attorney-General on that one

point: give them the option of a single-person arbitrator or a

three-person board — fair enough. If the government will remove

themselves from the position they've dug themselves into and show some

flexibility here, the matter could be quickly resolved.

Mr.

Chairman, the public interest is not at issue here in the sense that

the Attorney-General tries to inject it. What is at stake is whether or

not, now that we've taken certain rights away from the doctors, we are

going to kick, punish and brutalize them when they're down — which I

submit this bill before us does — or whether we are going to treat them

fairly, like any other sector of society, be it the trade union

movement or someone in dispute over a land transaction, where the

arbitration process is as we suggest. That's the issue, and it's a

simple one. No amount of mental or verbal gymnastics by the

Attorney-General is going to obscure that point either to the doctors

of this province, to the opposition or to the public. They understand

the issue. It's quite clear and simple.

I'm intrigued by my

friend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Hyndman), a distinguished member of the legal fraternity, as is my

friend the Minister of Labour. They know without question that the

provisions of this bill which give the government the arbitrary and

heavy-handed right to impose not only the structure of arbitration but

the person who will sit as judge, and then give that person the right

to amend or change an existing contract, are totally unprecedented.

They offend natural justice. That's why I have difficulty understanding

why lawyers in this Legislature can abandon their training — abandon

common sense and logic and any sense of fair play — and for strictly

political support to a coalition of convenience, get up and vote for

the kind of provision that they've put before the House. I say shame on

them. They must support the amendment.

The Minister of

Labour faces a dilemma, as my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has

pointed out. He presides over a system of fair, time-tested,

well-conceived arbitration, remedies that are available under many

circumstances in the industrial relations world. That process does not

shut out one of the parties to dispute from the process. It does not

load the dice entirely on one side of the bargaining table, and he

knows that. I ask him: how is it that one could fail to support the

amendment, which the opposition has put forward as a

[ Page 4940 ]

reasonable,

fair and even-handed way of extending the same measure of justice to

the doctors in this province that we as a matter of course provide to

every other sector of society? What kind of person could do that?

thought it ironic that the Attorney-General said: "Well, some of your

members voted against your labour bills." Yes, that's true. I was

Minister of Labour at the time and we had some very difficult crises to

confront. But I was always rather proud of those people on our side who

voted against those bills. I disagreed with them — we still disagree on

certain issues — but at least they had the fortitude and the principle

to stand up in this House and vote the way their principles dictated.

They had the fortitude, commitment and principle to vote as their

intelligence and character directed. I'll be interested to see whether

anyone in that coalition of convenience can put character and fair play

above political expediency and holding together a very tenuous

coalition at this time.

I wonder what happened last night. I

observed from across the House as the Premier of the province all at

once exploded in rage, slammed his desk and stalked out of the House

with red face, obviously hostile because of some dispute that was going

on on the executive benches. I suspect the dispute arose because some

of the people in that cabinet were saying: "Look, this legislation is

wrong, it's unfair, it's indefensible and I can't support it." I

further speculate that what really happened from that point on was the

Premier — who is notoriously stubborn, who is used to having his own

way from the days of being a spoiled young boy....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. KING:

He's stubborn; he's petulant; he's used to having things his own way. I

think he said to his colleagues: "Look, you put your principles aside.

You defend the government position on this, or I'll call an election;

I'll dissolve the House." That's his threat over them with their narrow

majority, and in the face of that threat, when so many of them are in

shaky circumstances, they capitulated. That's what happened. I

certainly know, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Heinrich) particularly — and I believe the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) too.... Because, while we

disagree tremendously in philosophical terms, I think he's a fair and

intelligent man, and on that basis nobody could possibly support the

government's position. Why be so intransigent? Why inflame a situation

that is already inflamed and hostile enough? Why not make a gesture to

bring some sanity and reasonableness back into this dispute as a basic

criterion and prerequisite to getting some intelligent and good-faith

bargaining going again with the medical profession?

But, for

goodness' sake, Mr. Chairman, if the government intends to put somebody

up to try to justify this mess, this travesty, get somebody who has

stronger commitment than the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams),

because he did them more harm than good.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to respond to the invitation

of my good friend, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, to add some comment

to this debate — adding my support to the

section as it stands and outlining

the reasons why we, on this side, reject the amendment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The

reason for the section, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. The Minister of

Health of this province was given less than 12 hours to respond to an

ultimatum from the negotiating committee of the BCMA. And I think if

the negotiating committee of the BCMA, by way of ultimatum to the

Minister of Health late Monday night, chose to give him a very short

time-frame within which to act, the Minister of Health is entitled to

what

section 6(

l) provides, which is the fullest and the most flexible

capacity, after listening, to suggest a form of arbitration with the

greatest chance of success.

Looking at the amendment —

that's the reason for the

section — this, Mr. Chairman, is what we, on

this side, find wrong with it: the amendment is rigid, narrow,

arbitrary, inflexible, premature, short-sighted and hasty. I'm amazed,

for all that has been said by members opposite about fair play and the

interest of the doctors, that through their amendment they would

presume to dictate a narrow, prescribed form of arbitration before the

BCMA negotiating committee or the board has had an opportunity to

comment or to suggest to the Minister of Health its thoughts on a form

or process of arbitration that might be optimum.

It may

indeed be that, in the event the Minister of Health determines that

continued negotiation or discussion will not produce results and that a

form of arbitration is necessary, the form of arbitration recommended

from the range of choices available is that reflected in the amendment.

Surely members opposite would agree that in 1981 industrial relations

collective bargaining and arbitration is a very sophisticated practice,

with a wide variety of choices and styles — and in a very sensitive

area in this case. In our view it would be premature, short-sighted and

hasty to suggest that this be cemented into legislation as the only

mechanism that could be used as an arbitration process to settle the

matter.

The Attorney-General has pointed out, as has the

Minister of Health, after discussions with representatives of the

doctors and after listening to public comment, that a prestigious,

unanimously supported, single arbitrator might be the preferred route

of all concerned. Certainly the Mr. Justice Ivan Rands of Canadian

history give us cause to believe that there can be very successful

single arbitrators.

What we're talking about is full

flexibility for the Minister of Health to be able to act. The amendment

comes within 48 hours of the legislation, and the public itself has

hardly had an opportunity to comment on potential methods it feels

appropriate for resolving the dispute. We on this side think it is

rigid, narrow, arbitrary, inflexible, premature, hasty and

short-sighted to select this in advance and early in the discussion as

the only potential way of arbitrating the settlement and then to set it

into legislation. The Minister of Health obviously wants the

opportunity to listen to all points of view about potential methods of

arbitration. As I say, I think we should hear from the doctors on this

one.

MR. COCKE: We have been all night.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Member, I'm sure the doctors in the fullness of time will have

suggestions to make to the Minister of Health on the question of their

view. Certainly so far in this debate the negotiating committee of

[ Page

4941 ]

the BCMA has not had the opportunity to announce to the public its

preferred point of view in terms of an arbitration procedure. It's

interesting that what we have is a suggestion through the amendment

that the only method of arbitration could be a three-person board — the

two respective parties nominate a member and then hopefully they choose

a third-party chairman.

Members opposite had some things to

say in 1975 about labour relations and about the question of

third-party arbitration. The former Minister of Labour, for example,

had this to say in 1975 when he was Minister of Labour and brought in

some fairly dramatic and drastic labour relations legislation. In the

fall of 1975 the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) brought in

some very far-reaching and unusual labour legislation. In his remarks

on bringing in that legislation he talked about how it can be in some

circumstances that bringing in a third-party kind of chairman or

arbitrator may not always be wise. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke,

then the Minister of Labour, said this. I'm quoting from Hansard , October 7, 1975, page 2.

Nothing

was acceptable to the parties in terms of a third-party mechanism to

provide a recommendation that would be accepted as binding or indeed to

accept a third-party intervention that would be welcomed and cooperated

with by all of the parties involved. As I have stated in this House on

many occasions, to simply impose a third party into a dispute when the

goodwill and the cooperation of both the parties is not available would

be a futile and a useless gesture.

Let us hope that that

circumstance does not obtain down the road with this issue. But in 1975

the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke, as Minister of Labour, was wise

enough to counsel flexibility and to want to reserve under the

government a flexible and full capacity to follow a situation and

respond flexibly.

We've had suggestions this morning —

comparisons with the teachers, for example — that what we have here is

a rather traditional economic difference of view that should be

arbitrated, as is traditionally done in some areas in this province.

The point that's missed, I think, is that there is far more at stake

with this issue than just fees. What is at stake is the whole question

of the health-care system in British Columbia, indeed in Canada. If we

have that level of importance attaching to this issue, which, as I say,

in our view goes far beyond the question of a fee schedule, once again

we don't accept the suggestion that what you must do immediately is

require by statute a traditional and narrow method of arbitration.

There's

been a lot of discussion from the other side about fair play, and about

the reasons why

section 6(

l) as written does not provide for fair play

and why the amendment does. In terms of fair play I do think it's a

little hasty for the opposition to be providing — 48 hours after the

legislation — its one and only, take it or leave it approach to how the

arbitration has to be. If you want to talk about fair play, I'd ask

members to think again about the position with which the Minister of

Health of this province was faced on Monday night of this week at 11

o'clock, when he was delivered a one-page letter from the negotiating

committee of the BCMA which very briefly stated a position and, in my

respectful view, left the Minister of Health with no option but to

proceed with the legislation at hand. It was, after all, the choice of

the BCMA negotiating committee to give the Minister of Health a very

short time-frame within which to prepare his reaction, and if, faced

with that, his choice is to provide, if necessary, for arbitration, but

to leave the form and content as full and flexible as possible, I think

that's fair.

There is absolutely no suggestion — there has

not been a hint from the Minister of Health — that he is not prepared

to further discuss, negotiate, talk and listen. There has been no

suggestion by the Minister of Health that he is not prepared to listen

to the suggestions of the negotiating committee of the BCMA as to its

recommendations as to the best form of arbitration, if that becomes

necessary. As I say, Mr. Chairman, what if the BCMA negotiating

committee's suggestion is different from the amendment? Do we want to

be in that strait-jacket" I would think not.

The amendment

is not only premature, it's incomplete. We have, in perhaps 12 lines,

an effort by the opposition to stipulate a particular form of

arbitration. Heaven forbid, the Arbitration Act takes five pages and 20

sections in an effort to provide a fairly simple set of rules as to

how, in a complete sense, you provide for an arbitration.

what's at stake with these negotiations is not just a fee

schedule but

the health-care system and the fair and effective functioning of it, we

on this side think the Minister of Health is entitled to an approach to

an arbitration formula that is as full and flexible as possible. When

that formula is announced it will speak for itself, and the government

will most certainly be accountable for the content of that formula.

There have been suggestions from across the aisle as to what might

result from the use of the formula. Those are obviously worst-case

scenarios formed in the imaginations of members opposite. The section,

as written, provides the Minister of Health with the fullest, most

comprehensive, most flexible possible range of arbitration choices and

mechanisms. It provides him the opportunity to listen to and consider

suggestions from all quarters as to perhaps some very novel kinds of

arbitration techniques that should be employed in this case. The

section — by not being hasty, narrow, premature and rigid — does not

put the Minister of Health in the position in which he might have to be

saying to the BCMA: "Well, your suggestion makes very good sense to me,

and I wish we could do it, but my hands are tied by a particularly

narrow formula." There has been no suggestion from the Minister of

Health that there will not be the opportunity for more negotiation and

discussion before

section 6(

l) is even reached.

concluding, I think it is again instructive to go back to perhaps the

most recent time in the history of this chamber when a very serious

matter of labour relations at the highest level was the subject of

debate, and that, of course, was October 1975, when members opposite

who were in government brought forward a bill which, among other

things, provided a compulsory return to work and a compulsory end to

lockouts. At that time the former Minister of Labour, in winding up

debate — now the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), then

Minister of Labour — and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann),

who I know is going to speak today, had some things to say about

involving third parties in disputes. While there are various kinds of

third-party involvements, I think his words are interesting if read in

the light of today's debate. On page 22 of Hansard from October 7,

1975, the member for North Island spoke as follows:

I've

talked many times in the Legislature about third-party intervention in

labour management disputes, and it is well known that I'm not

particularly keen on third-party intervention. In fact, if I

had my way and I were involved in day-to-day trade union bargaining, I

would be very hesitant to accept mediation officers in the thing until

the very last moment, because I suspect that parties who don't have to

rely on their own devices and who don't have to sit down and hammer it

out and hammer each other

[ Page 4942 ]

over

the head together don't reach conclusions as quickly as they do when

they have some third party to kind of shift the responsibility to.

That

was the fall of 1975. The member for North Island is far more an expert

than I in labour relations. But if I read him, what he's saying is: you

can't apply a simple formula to every dispute, particularly when you

think of bringing in a third party, such as a third-party chairman

here. It may not be the magic answer. The amendment provides a

particular response that we're stuck with. Surely the comments of the

member for North Island on that day really are an argument for greater

flexibility.

Mr. Chairman, the former Minister of Labour

discussed in the same debate some provisions in the legislation which

he introduced in October 1975 which left to him some authority to

exercise in a general way that was unpredictable. There was some

uncertainty to some of the provisions that the then Minister of Labour

brought in. Here's what he had to say at page 52 of Hansard for October

7, in defence of his approach then which provided for flexibility and,

indeed, did pose some uncertainty: "I have explained what the approach

is and what the policy and the philosophy of it is. I do not think it

is unrealistic. I think that the uncertainty of it, in terms of whether

or not it is applied, is not a bad thing. That's why it's left somewhat

flexible." In the fall of 1975, to the then Minister of Labour, it was

important to have some flexibility. That seems to have changed today.

Further in that debate the then Minister of Labour had this to say about people

who would hastily rush to an absolute and specific formula for settling a serious

industrial relations matter. On page 45 of Hansard he said this: "There

are no absolutes in industrial relations — no absolutes. It's a changing

society and a changing world of industrial relations. Those who offer gimmicks

or those who offer absolutes in terms of providing the answer are deluding themselves."

The amendment, Mr. Chairman, would appear to be an attempt to offer an absolute

in providing an answer. Our view on this side is that at this stage of this

sensitive matter it is folly to attempt to provide the single, absolute required

method of arbitration. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke argued in those days

that to attempt to provide a specific answer was to delude yourself.

Mr.

Chairman, may I just once again summarize the basic reason why the

government sees as necessary the wording of

section 6(l). It is to

give the Minister of Health the fullest and most flexible capacity to

determine — after listening — the form of arbitration which is best in

this very serious matter, assuming that it must go to arbitration. What

is wrong with the amendment is that it is rigid, narrow, arbitrary,

inflexible, premature, short-sighted and hasty.

The

section

does not provide that the Minister of Health will do any of the

terrible things alluded to by members opposite this morning; it gives

him a full and flexible capacity. I would hope on reflection, Mr.

Chairman, that members opposite would agree that on an issue this

serious — which is far more than fees; it is the issue of the

health-care system, not just in British Columbia, but indeed in Canada

— that kind of fullness and flexibility would be allowed to the

government. If the Minister of Health must invoke the section, the

particulars he provides will speak for themselves, and the government

most certainly will be accountable for them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:20 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada