1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 6

[ Page 3099 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

V. Anderson: Today we have visiting with us in the House members of the Hospital Employees' Union and the British Columbia Nurses' Union. They are concerned about the continued contributions of Shaughnessy Hospital and were here to talk to Art Cowie and myself. I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming Sara Drummond, Bob Rodgers, Sylvia Hill and Diane Latham.

W. Hartley: Today in the Legislature we have quite a number of people from Maple Ridge. They are members of an adult activity centre called the Rainbow Club. I know that all members of the House would like to welcome them today.

Hon. B. Barlee: Somewhere in the precincts are a number of individuals from the B.C. Central Credit Union: board of directors chairperson, Tod Manrell; Ross Parkin; Len Gatto; Cathy Manson from my riding; Philip Moore; and two management representatives, Wayne Nygren and Richard Thomas. Would the House please extend them a cordial welcome.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: In the precincts today is a distinguished guest from the Tsilhqot-in: Joan Gentles, an educator and justice advocate, who will be receiving the Order of British Columbia today. I'd like the House to make her welcome to the precincts.

Oral Questions

SOFTWOOD LUMBER TARIFF

G. Wilson: My question today is directed to the Premier. The opposition notes with grave concern that the U.S. International Trade Commission this morning upheld the 6.5 percent tariff on Canadian softwood lumber. We are advised that the next step is a Canadian request for a hearing under

chapter 19 of the disputes resolution mechanism. Will the Premier tell us what participation British Columbia has had in preparing that defence under

chapter 19?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The Minister of Forests is not here, but if he were, I'm sure he would tell this House that we are angered, as most British Columbians would be, by this vexatious, unnecessary and very harmful misuse of the countervail in the United States. It is going to cost tens of millions of dollars. We, as a government, are fighting this in every way we can. We have been involved with our federal government in making that point known at every level of Washington, from the President on down. You can be assured that we are going to continue to press our case forward.

Now it's going to the disputes resolution mechanism, and we'll see if even that thin thread that would give any credence to the free trade agreement snaps or not.

G. Wilson: We all know, and I'm sure the Premier is aware, that the tariff on softwood lumber was in place before the free trade agreement. The proposition that we're putting in place now with respect to the appeal under

chapter 19 is of critical importance. We don't need any more rhetoric around how bad our trading partners to the south are; we need some concrete solutions for how we're going to resolve this question.

My question is specifically: what action is the government of British Columbia taking with respect to the government in Ottawa in preparing the appeal under

chapter 19?

Hon. D. Miller: The written text of the ruling will not be available to British Columbia and Canada until July 6 or July 7. Once we have the written text, we will then know on what basis we will be appealing the decision. I'm assuming, of course, that Canada will refer the issue to a binational panel under the free trade agreement.

It certainly supports the position that this government has taken: that it's right and proper for British Columbia to question the value of the free trade agreement, given the kind of harassment we've seen from the United States; and it's right and proper for British Columbia to question the wisdom of proceeding with NAFTA, considering the abuse that we have been subjected to by the United States.

G. Wilson: I don't think that the people involved in the lumber industry want to get into a lot of political debate about whether we should be into NAFTA or the free trade agreement. We need some concrete solutions.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm pleased to hear the Leader of the Liberal Party say we need less rhetoric. It would be nice to hear him practise that.

Hon. Speaker, I will repeat my answer: the written text of the ruling will be available on July 6 or 7. Once we have received the written text, we will know how to frame our case.

GROUNDWATER QUALITY

IN FRASER VALLEY

P. Dueck: My question is to the Minister of Environment. The Gartner Lee report dealing with local groundwater quality in our particular area and issues of that nature was distributed to the press recently, but there were two reports. One was for the news media's consumption, for the public, and the other was not released. In the report to the news media the nitrate and

[ Page 3100 ]

pesticide contamination levels were downplayed. Do the people of the central Fraser Valley have the right to the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'll take that question on notice.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

P. Dueck: My question is to the Premier. I'm shocked to read in today's paper that medical services are in fact being rationed. I understand that now someone 63 years old may no longer get services because of the rationing by this government. Will the Premier let us know whether he will do something about the confrontation taking place between the government and the doctors? I think it's unacceptable. I'm over 63, and I'm worried about it.

[2:15]

Hon. M. Harcourt: I don't think you should be worried about it, because I don't think your doctor would use those kinds of tactics on you. Nor do I think any doctor should, because it is wrong; there is no rationing. I hope that that isn't happening in any widespread way so that British Columbians have to be alarmed or have any fear whatsoever. I'm sure, hon. Speaker, that the member doesn't have to worry, because I can't see his doctor doing that to him.

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

D. Mitchell: I have a question for the Premier. Yesterday his government announced that a well-respected former member of this House and the House of Commons, Mark Rose, would be appointed as the new agent general for British Columbia in the United Kingdom. The opposition notes that there is perhaps no British Columbian more worthy of a patronage appointment. But the Premier has indicated on more than one occasion that patronage and political appointments have no role in our trade offices abroad. Can the Premier inform the House today why he has broken that promise?

Hon. M. Harcourt: The member has answered that question himself. He has just praised the member and praised his qualifications. I think his own words speak for themselves.

D. Mitchell: I have a supplementary for the Premier, who does not want to answer the question. The question relates to the Premier's commitment not to make political appointments to trade offices abroad. The Premier said that. He has also indicated that there are threats to trade abroad. Because there are threats to trade abroad, can we now also expect patronage appointments to British Columbia's trade offices in California, Hong Kong, Korea, Munich, Seattle, Singapore, Taiwan, and perhaps even Ottawa? Is that what we're looking for next, hon. Speaker?

Hon. M. Harcourt: That is a good question, and that's why I'm very pleased we've made the judgment to appoint the best British Columbians we can. We're prepared to say that we've done just that in Ottawa with the appointment of a fine deputy minister, Lorne Seitz, to head up B.C. House and to represent our interests there. He knows all the ins and outs of Ottawa, where the funds are and the programs that are going to benefit British Columbia. I think all members of the House will agree that Lorne Seitz is going to do a splendid job of representing B.C's interests in Ottawa.

Similarly, I'll just repeat what the opposition House Leader said about the fine qualities of Mark Rose as a person, as a respected member of not just this Legislature but of the....

D. Mitchell: You broke your promise.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I listened with some respect to what he had to say, and I would appreciate the same courtesy until I've had a chance to answer his question.

Mark Rose is a respected parliamentarian who understands the international role that British Columbia plays. We are in some severe jeopardy in Europe right now with the unfair comments and misrepresentations about being the Brazil of the north. There are attacks on our lumber with the pulp regulations that are being looked at in Europe. We need somebody with the political and communication skills to say: we're open for business. You can have trade reps, but if you can't trade, you don't need reps.

D. Mitchell: The Premier has indicated that there are political threats to trade abroad. Does that mean we're going to have patronage appointments, which he previously said we would not have? Are we about to have patronage appointments to all of B.C.'s other trade offices abroad?

Hon. M. Harcourt: We don't have any plans to replace the people who are ably serving British Columbians abroad, most of them out of Canadian embassies. I'm sure people will understand we've had fine representation from Mr. Gardom in B.C. House. He has served all British Columbians -- and he was a former Liberal and Social Credit member.

I think that Mr. Rose will serve the interests of British Columbia well, in these very charged political times, by speaking to EEC representatives in Brussels and other centres throughout Europe because of these threats to British Columbia's trade. If you can't have your trade officers being able to trade, it's not much good to you. So the emphasis is going to be on getting the message across about British Columbia being open for business and on dealing with these trade threats.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

J. Weisgerber: My question is to the Premier as well. I might comment, though, that the staff abroad may not take a great deal of comfort in that last assurance, given the statement that the Premier made about having no immediate plans to replace deputy ministers -- look at the track record of the government as it relates to deputies.

[ Page 3101 ]

With Canada Day less than a week away, it's timely to reflect on the role our national anthem plays in promoting national unity and pride. Will the Premier agree that the national anthem should be played not only at hockey games but in our schools. If he does, will he agree today to ensure that our national anthem is played at the beginning of each school day, starting with the fall session?

Hon. M. Harcourt: There are opportunities now on many occasions during the school year for our children not only to learn the national anthem but to enjoy it. I think that to have them sing it every day would diminish that enjoyment. I'd prefer to have my son sing the national anthem when he's having his shower -- as he does -- and be proud to sing it, rather than being forced to sing it every day.

J. Weisgerber: First of all, I'm quite honestly surprised that the Premier knows so little about children's understanding of our national anthem and their singing of it. I believe that it is important for us to take some steps to start to regenerate national pride and a sense of belonging in Canada. Will he not agree that that would be a positive step?

The Speaker: Order, please. Before I recognize the Premier, I did note that the member for Matsqui did not get his last supplemental. I will recognize him before the end of question period.

Hon. M. Harcourt: I haven't noticed a lack of pride of young British Columbians towards Canada. I know very few young British Columbians who don't know, appreciate or enjoy the words to our national anthem. I'm not sure where the member of the third party gets this negative view of young British Columbians.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

P. Dueck: My impression of the House and how it functions properly is restored.

My question is to the Premier -- a supplemental that I was denied before. Will the Premier and the Health minister make a commitment to this House that this unacceptable confrontation with the medical profession will end and that they will discuss things properly, as has been done in the past, and scrap Bill 71?

Hon. M. Harcourt: I can assure the member for Matsqui that as a government we have been having discussions and negotiations with the doctors and their representatives on a number of issues of importance to them. I can tell you that Bill 71 will proceed and will pass through this House. The member should be aware that after proper debate it will pass. The member should be aware that the consequence of not approving that bill is $50 million to $100 million in extra billings. If the members opposite could let us know where they want to tax British Columbians extra or increase the deficit, then let us know.

L. Reid: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: It's my pleasure this afternoon, as the official opposition Health critic, to welcome to this gallery concerned physicians in the province of British Columbia. We have Dr. Cubbage, Dr. Youngash, Dr. Winsby, Dr. Stewart, Dr. Wright, Dr. McCaw, Dr. Hugget and Dr. Robb. These individuals are very concerned about the delivery of health care, and I ask the House to make them welcome.

R. Chisholm: I request leave to table a document. It regards the Buy Alberta program. This is the brief from Alberta, which states theirs is a wild success.

Leave granted.

Hon. L. Boone tabled the annual reports of the Public Service Commission and the B.C. Systems Corporation for the fiscal year 1991-92.

Hon. J. Cashore tabled the annual report of the B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation for the fiscal year 1991-92.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the statement of unclaimed money deposits required under the Unclaimed Money Act for the period ending March 31, 1992.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask leave to introduce a guest.

Leave granted.

D. Mitchell: Visiting us in the gallery today is Mr. Bernie Holt, the former principal of West Vancouver Secondary School, who is also a founding member and former president of the West Vancouver Historical Society. He's also the former president of the Rotary Club of West Vancouver. He attended question period and experienced the joys of question period for the first time today. I wonder if members could welcome him here.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call committee on Bill 74.

TEACHING PROFESSION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 74; E. Barnes in the chair.

section 1.

C. Serwa:

Section 1 allows the College of Teachers to set standards for all qualified teachers in British Columbia, including those who are not members of the college. If my understanding is clear, that means whether they work....

[ Page 3102 ]

The Chair: Would members in the committee please try and refrain from speaking during the debate. Otherwise, if they could leave the chamber, it would help us.

C. Serwa: Perhaps our Committee of the Whole meeting is disturbing the private conversations.

In any event, my understanding is that the College of Teachers will have dominion over all teachers in the province. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Hagen: The purpose of the Teaching Profession Act is for it to deal with the professional responsibility and competence of its members and applicants for membership. This deals with matters relating to non-members of the college with respect to their professional competence. As we move through further amendments, the intent of that will become clear.

[2:30]

C. Serwa: A straightforward and simple question: will all teachers in the province, regardless of what area they teach in, have to come under the College of Teachers for, I suppose, a certificate of competence to be able to teach in the province? Is that the intent of

section 1?

Hon. A. Hagen: If they hold a certificate, yes, they come under the college.

C. Serwa: I'm sorry, with the background noise, the response wasn't clear.

The Chair: Hon. members, the point is well taken. This is the second time I have asked members to please respect members who have the floor.

Hon. A. Hagen: If they hold a certificate issued by the college, yes.

C. Serwa: My understanding is that if they do not hold a certificate of competence issued by the College of Teachers, then they're not enmeshed in that. You've clarified that, and I thank you very much. That's all I have on

section 1.

H. De Jong: Just a further clarification, if I may, from the minister regarding the membership. Does the membership of the college have representation from the Federation of Independent Schools?

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, it does.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

section 5.

C. Serwa: Perhaps the minister could indicate why the power to cancel or suspend a certificate and letters of permission of teachers has been removed from the responsibility of cabinet and moved to the College of Teachers.

Hon. A. Hagen: The college issues a letter of permission and this then gives it the authority to deal with cause for the cancellation of a letter of permission.

C. Serwa: I have some concern with respect to the College of Teachers. I spoke last night in a testy fashion, and I apologize to the Minister of Education for that. My concern is the dominance of the BCTF over the College of Teachers. The reality is that they are an independently structured college, but nevertheless, the dominance of the BCTF is there. There is some concern in my mind. Does the minister share that concern or does she feel that the College of Teachers is independent and acting independently with minimal, if any, influence directly from the BCTF?

Hon. A. Hagen: I'll just note that the member's question is beyond the scope of the amendments.

C. Serwa: I really believe it is appropriate to the amendment. As a matter of fact, it's most appropriate to the amendment. I think there is a great deal of concern when one shifts a responsibility such as cancelling or suspending certificates -- which is the livelihood of the individual -- to an organization which may have other axes to grind. I think it is entirely appropriate that we're not enmeshing a group into that which is perhaps a more objective and rational environment, which is the cabinet authority.... I think it is entirely appropriate that teachers have some comfort and security from the perspective of the current Minister of Education in this matter.

Hon. A. Hagen: A brief historical perspective. This legislation was brought in by the former administration. It covers all members of the teaching profession in the public schools. It covers 80 percent of the teachers in the independent schools. The amendment that we're discussing deals with people who, for cause, may have reason for their certificate of entitlement to teach to be reviewed and questioned. The amendments deal with a couple of categories where the college will now have jurisdiction over the certification of those teachers, as it does over nearly 40,000 teachers in the province at the present time.

C. Serwa: I have to go back to the original question, which is one of confidence. I'm certain that when Bill 20 brought in the original legislation of the former government with respect to this, they didn't envision the type of influence and control that the College of Teachers would have imposed on it by the dominance of the BCTF. The vision when the legislation was originally ratified by this Legislature and the scenario that exists now are dramatically different. I'm asking the minister for some level of comfort that the influence of the BCTF is not incorporated into this independent body, the College of Teachers.

Hon. A. Hagen: Although again the member persists in asking questions outside the scope of the amendments, I will note that all members of the college are elected by region, by anyone who holds a teaching

[ Page 3103 ]

certificate, and there are also members appointed to represent the public, the independent schools and the universities.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

C. Serwa: I suppose

section 6 is the one where I have the most concern. The concern is shared by all members in this Legislature. The concern that we share is one with child sexual abuse situations. Teaching in the classroom is only one environment in British Columbia where this danger occurs.

I note from the introduction of this bill that it went quite extensively into control. Once this act is passed, a teacher convicted of sexual offences against a child will be prohibited from teaching in British Columbia. That's entirely appropriate. I, like everyone else, applaud that directive.

The Chair: Before the minister responds, I'm wondering if the member is concerned with the

section as it's stated, which is the process by which reporting is to occur rather than the substance of what may have created the cause for dismissal. If he's talking about the latter, I don't believe that would be the purpose of

section 6. However, perhaps the minister might clarify the

section for the edification of the committee.

Hon. A. Hagen:

Section 6 is indeed an amendment that brings independent schools under the same reporting procedures as public schools. It's an amendment that's welcomed by the independent schools as an important tool in achieving the goals that the member has spoken about. I share the member's concerns about the protection of children. We're dealing with one statute that helps in that process. The amendments that we have taken are intended to provide yet one other means by which children are protected. There are other means that over time need to be there.

They are not the subject of our debate today, but I certainly concur with the member that these are important issues for us to continue to work on. They require the diligence of all of us in our legislation and in our practices.

C. Serwa:

Section 6 appears to give a great deal of latitude as to the type of information. Will the regulations restrict the breadth of information required? It appears to me that while there is an intent, the actual wording is very broad and all-encompassing as to the type of information that, for example, the Federation of Independent Schools would have to provide to the College of Teachers of B.C. without reservation, without restriction.

Hon. A. Hagen: I would just note that the language is consistent with the language in the School Act, so that public school teachers and independent school teachers who are members of the college are treated in exactly the same way. There's a consistency between those two pieces of legislation.

H. De Jong: Just a further question on that, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the minister that the independent schools have no problem where it involves sexual abuse or anything of that nature. But the independent schools are unique, in that they are run by school societies which are supported by parents and others. They are parent-run schools, as opposed to the public school system. Through the collective parent involvement, the basic curriculum is taught with perhaps a different philosophy than in the public schools. That's basically the difference between the independent schools and the public schools.

It says here that any disciplinary action against a member must be reported. That goes far beyond specific sexual abuses. I also believe that every independent school, or the Federation of Independent Schools, has a statement of purpose. When a disciplinary action which would cause dismissal or whatever would be taken against a teacher, related to the teaching that he or she performed in the school that was not in agreement with the school's philosophy and the determination of the parents as to how they want to have their children taught, would that be considered by the college in terms of the statement of purpose of that independent school?

[2:45]

Hon. A. Hagen:

Section 6 deals with reporting. There's a due process for the college. I would remind all members that we're talking about members of the college, whether they teach in the independent schools or in the public schools of British Columbia. The purpose of the College of Teachers is to uphold the highest standards of professional and moral conduct on the part of teachers. I'm sure all members of the college support that principle by their very membership.

H. De Jong: The final question I have on this is: can we be assured that this is certainly not an intrusion by

[ Page 3104 ]

government through the College of Teachers into the independent school system?

Hon. A. Hagen: The answer to that is evident in the support of the independent schools for this amendment, which brings them into the framework regarding the professional qualifications of their teachers. I believe that no matter where people are teaching and no matter who is running a school, parents, teachers and the community are looking for those standards to be in the best interests of the children. I know that the independent schools support that approach very strongly. As I've noted, 80 percent of the teachers in the independent schools of British Columbia have chosen voluntarily to become members of the college.

J. Dalton: I don't have any particular concerns with

section 6, but I thought it might be interesting to note an example that I encountered a few years ago. The minister's response was, I think, certainly satisfactory on this.

A few years ago a friend of mine was let go by an independent school. It wasn't anything over his teaching ability, competence or, heaven forbid, any moral issues; there was just a difference of opinion between the teacher and the administration of the school. If that case came up today, I'm sure the reasons would of course be provided, and I don't think there would be any difficulty. He would have due process. He actually came to me to seek my informal advice on the issue.

I said: "If you care to, obviously you can go through the proper process." Just to make a short story even shorter, since then he moved to Australia, and therefore moved away from the problem. So I don't think there's any difficulty with that.

I presume it's appropriate now to note that there's no commencement

section in the bill. Is that going to cause a difficulty?

Hon. A. Hagen: It's my understanding that this bill will come into force with royal assent.

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 74, Teaching Profession Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE

SERVICES ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

C. Serwa: I was speaking the other day on the reason for supporting the hoist motion, and I'm very pleased to continue speaking with respect to that in debate today.

Bill 71 has done nothing but create a festering sore in the medical health system. The festering sore that has developed will do nothing but mitigate the quality and quantity of services presently delivered to people in B.C. I have before me an urgent press release issued by Kelowna doctors; they will be closing their offices on Friday because of what they call the doublecross bill. Someone noted that in Roman numerals, the designation for Bill 71 is LXXI, and the doublecross comes from that.

There's no question that it's quite appropriate, in a way, because there is a fundamental betrayal of the basic principles of human justice, a betrayal of the fundamental tenets of the Canada Health Act, and a betrayal of the Premier's promise of a properly co-managed health care system and the betrayal of the citizens of British Columbia with their continued expectations of a medical health system which is truly accessible to all in need of care. They are making their point and making it well. What we're talking about is the imposition of a rationing system in health care.

I think we've covered that fairly well and fairly extensively in other sections of the bill. I'll continue to talk about aspects of this bill that really require a hoist motion.

The setting up of the Medical Services Commission itself, while it seems at the outset and from the view that most people may have of it to be fair and reasonable, is not set up or incorporated in that manner. It will consist of nine members: three appointed by government, three by the British Columbia Medical Association and three lay people. The chair and deputy chair will of course come from the government appointees, and we're well aware of what has transpired in a number of other Crown corporations in British Columbia over the last month or two. The reality is that the chairman has a great deal of power.

The reality is that we're not providing a valid opportunity for a commission to function. We're simply diverting the focus of attention from the government of the day to the Medical Services Commission, which will, in fact, carry out the mandate of government -- whatever that may be -- because it's a part of the system. They will be political hacks appointed to that system. They will carry out their tasks without question, aligning themselves to the government and not to the best possible quality of health services delivery.

Subcommittees will be established as well, but the government again has the power to set them up. The government again has the power to put the individuals on those subcommittees. Over the past series of appointments, the government has clearly not made any effort to make certain that those committees are in the

[ Page 3105 ]

least way balanced, fair or representative of the diverse population in the province.

There is a great deal of concern with what appears on the surface and what will actually transpire once this system is in place. The actions here are not those of a government or a party that is open and honest and consistent in its stance with respect to labour negotiations or negotiations with anyone. Some 88 percent of the people in British Columbia believe that binding arbitration is the only proper way to go at the end of protracted negotiations that can't come together.

The members of the party that forms the government, as a foundation, a fundamental platform, have spoken consistently of their commitment to that negotiation process, to openness, honesty and fairness. In this particular case, none of that has been utilized with respect to doctors. Who is next? I don't know. Is it because doctors haven't contributed heavily to the last provincial campaign for the New Democrats, as other union organizations have? I doubt very much that that is the basis for the decision. I would be very surprised and hurt if in fact it was.

But that's what it appears to be, and in this business, the perception is often the reality.

There is no question at all that this is a vast departure. The reality is that we have to take that second look. We have to utilize the hoist motion and give the government of the day the opportunity to really look in depth. This legislation has been drafted in a hurry. It has been brought in, and it's being pushed through the Legislature.

Hon. G. Clark: It was drafted when you were in power.

C. Serwa: Well, hon. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that we drafted this bill. I don't think that the former administration can take the real credit. But I might add to the Minister of Finance that there perhaps were some time bombs left in the legislative package that they have picked up on, and this may be one of them. The semblance is of a dictatorship. While draconian is a fairly strong term for the controversial issues in this legislation, it is a form of dictatorship and not something you would expect from a duly elected government in a democratic society.

The expressions here and the concerns I have are that the actions are more that of a tyranny rather than of a responsible government.

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to read from a letter written August 14, 1990. I will not read the whole letter, but I'd like to read a

section of it because it is a very interesting letter. The writer of the letter is a doctor, and he had written to the former Health critic, now the Minister of Health, who replied:

"Thank you for your letter of July 5 concerning the fees for private medical laboratories. Yours is the first letter that I have received on this subject, and thus I have not been aware of the situation with medical laboratories or the fact that fees have not been increased for the past five years. However, it is typical of what I see happening throughout our health care system. The Social Credit government would like us to believe that health care spending is out of control.

However, both you and I know that the proportion of the provincial budget that has been spent on health care over the last number of years has remained constant at about one-third of the budget. Unfortunately, the government is using the cost argument to avoid paying adequately for a wide range of medical services.

"As I have already expressed to doctors, the New Democratic Party is committed to fair and honest negotiations with all aspects of the medical community. Health care must be a priority in terms of government spending, and we can't control costs by continuing to squeeze those who supply the services."

Hon. Speaker, what a difference a day makes. The feelings of the now Minister of Health a short while ago, while she was opposition critic for Health, have changed very dramatically.

"Unfortunately, I cannot hold out any hope for a change to what you describe as a

'desperate situation' until there is a change in government. In the meantime, please be assured that my New Democratic Party colleagues and I will continue to fight for quality health care and honest negotiations with all of the health care community."

Honest negotiations with all of the health care community. I think that's incredibly important. I mentioned the festering sore that has been established, unfortunately by the actions of this government. This distrust that exists, the lack of open, reasonable bargaining and negotiation, is not appropriate whatsoever. I think that with the hoist motion the reality will prevail on the government of the day when they completely assess that.

[3:00]

The population has grown by 5 or 6 percent over the past year. The percentage of our own seniors in the province, and we are an aging society, has increased and is demanding more medical health care services. A very high percentage of the migration from within Canada and outside Canada that has come to the province has included a number of people aged 65 and over. The proposed cap is totally unrealistic, because utilization on the basis of population would be 5 or 6 percent.

There is another option here that the government of the day has missed entirely. Rather than increasing taxes and imposing new ones and spending $2 billion in an area that only satisfies political concerns, the government of the day has to focus on strengthening the economy, increasing the cash flow of the gross national product of British Columbia so that we can continue to fund health care, social services, education, as we must if we are to build a strong province with a strong future.

From a headline in the Province this morning, "The NDP love affair cools fast," you can see what is transpiring with the high opinions and expectations that people had and how they have started to dramatically plummet. It is legislation such as Bill 71, which is poorly thought out.... Parts of it are very good; parts of it are excellent. But there are many controversial areas that have been injected at the last moment. They are directed towards doctors as if we can make doctors the gatekeepers.

The Minister of Finance, on another piece of legislation, indicated that lawyers would eat the 6 percent fee increase. I guess the concept is that when someone who

[ Page 3106 ]

is sick comes to a doctor's office.... The Minister of Health has said: "You've had enough business for this month. You can't take any more people." I suppose we feel that the doctors should eat that and continue to provide services.

The doctors are hard working. They are caring individuals. They're doing their very best to provide the necessary health care for the people of British Columbia.

B. Jones: Is that what Mel Couvelier would have said?

C. Serwa: Mel Couvelier is not here, hon. member. I don't know what Mel Couvelier would have said on this.

The necessity, though, is to fund an adequate health care system. With a hoist motion, which I support, we will be able to look at other alternatives and options. This is the least palatable option that the government could have chosen. It only satisfies a political interest in a direction to get those who are deemed to be.... As the statement I read the other day from a letter to the editor said: "Doctors are too rich." The action is only catering to that school of thought.

The reality is that in order to have a good, competent medical health care system, there has to be a credibility bridge built between the Minister of Health, the Ministry of Health and those who deliver the services to the people. That bridge has been seriously threatened. The bridge is in a state of disrepair, and the potential exists for a collapse of that bridge. We cannot deliver quality health care services to the people of this province unless we have that understanding and appreciation between the minister, the ministry and those who deliver services for the people.

I support the concept of the hoist motion. I hate to support anything, though, that would tend to bail out the government from an inappropriate act. But my concerns are for the people who will utilize the health care services, and I think that they will be far better served with the second reflection, with a questioning search on the type of information that came in and prompted the controversial sections in Bill 71. I think they are neither objective nor appropriate, and the government of the day would be well served to support the hoist motion and have that reasoned second look.

G. Wilson: I rise also in support of the amendment. I do so because I believe, if we are to become serious about resolving what could become a very lengthy, very protracted and somewhat vitriolic debate and discussion in this House, that it's time for sensible minds to come together to find a solution that will be acceptable to both the practising physicians and the public in British Columbia.

I think that in finding that solution and putting forward what I think is a reasonable solution in support of this motion.... What I suggest is to hoist this for six months in the absence of some strategy that would allow government to really get to grips with what it's attempting to do here, and that is to save some money. If we were to hoist it without a strategy, then I could understand that the government might, for whatever reason, decide it is going to lose revenue that it requires and therefore it would be an unacceptable proposition.

I don't think I am breaching any confidences when I tell the House that I had an opportunity to speak with the Premier this morning on the helijet as we came over here. I talked to him about the need for us to come up with a sensible resolution to this question so that we do not have a problem on this matter. I don't think that I breach confidence when he suggested, as he did again in the House on the record publicly in question period, that the problem is a loss of around $50 million. That really is what is at issue here.

There is a proposition under

section 3.09 of the Medical Service Act, where the Medical Services Commission already has the authority for the provision of the prescription of tariff fees that would allow the possibility of a reduction on tariff fees to allow the government the possibility to hedge their bet -- if I can use that word -- against the $50 million loss that is giving them some considerable concern.

If they were to do that in a hoist motion, recognizing that we are going to move, in the eventuality of this bill, into considering the committee stage of this legislation in a fall sitting, which I think is going to be made necessary anyway by virtue of the fact that this government intends -- I believe, and it's what I'm told -- to introduce legislation with respect to the labour code.... I know we will be having to deal with a constitutional question.

It strikes me that there is an intervening period where the government would be able, through the proposition and use of regulation 3.09, to look after the lost income which is of concern to them, and would provide the necessary period to enter into meaningful and sensible negotiation with practising physicians in this province so that the physicians and the government would be able to come to an agreement on how we are going to put in place the necessary amendments for the provision of financing health care delivery in the province.

I make this suggestion because I believe it to be a sensible solution to what can very quickly become -- and is very quickly becoming -- a division between the government and the doctors, and subsequently the people of British Columbia, which is going to do nothing to promote a greater degree of trust and harmony between practising physicians, those who are in the delivery of government services and the people who require and depend on the delivery of the medical services put forward.

When we were elected, the Liberal opposition said that we wanted to be a constructive and positive opposition. We did not say that we were going to roll over and play dead every time the government brought in legislation that we believe to be ill-founded and unacceptable. This legislation is unacceptable to the Liberal opposition for the reasons that have been outlined many times by many of our members in this debate up to this point. Let me say that if this government is interested in pushing this forward without recognizing the possible solution that I put forward today, the Liberal opposition will, if necessary,

[ Page 3107 ]

be prepared in committee stage to introduce the number of amendments that I believe we have. We are prepared to sit through this proposition on both this bill and the Health estimates for the months of July, August, September and October, if that's what's required.

Hon. Speaker, surely it is a more sensible proposition for this government to recognize that they already have the provision under the Medical Services Act, under the Medical Services Commission, that would look after the concern that the Premier expressed to me today and that he again outlined in the House during question period: the concern that what they're really attempting to do -- in the words of the Minister of Finance -- is to claw back $50 million. They're after a clawback proposition from the government. That is an offensive term.

What we have learned to believe is consultation and a cooperative spirit in the provision of services for fees rendered is not what we want to be going forward and being called a clawback. This Medical Services Act provides the vehicle that the government needs.

The sensible solution is to accept the amendment that we have put forward to hoist this bill so that there can be an intervening period when the government can consult with the doctors and use the existing legislation to look after the financial concerns that they have in order to come up with a meaningful and agreed-to fair resolution on this question. Then the members of this House can proceed forward in an orderly manner to vote on an amended bill that will have the support not only of the Liberal opposition but, more importantly, of the practising physicians and the people in this province who depend upon the health care that the physicians deliver.

Hon. Speaker, we put forward to you today a meaningful, sensible and sound proposition for a resolution to this most difficult question. We have put forward, in a manner that we believe to be constructive, a proposition that will allow the government to immediately commence negotiations and to look after the financial interests that they have, which obviously all people of British Columbia have a concern in.

I hope that the words I have just put forward will be heard. I recognize that the rules of the House prohibit the identification of those who are here and those who aren't. But it becomes somewhat outrageous, in my judgment, when ministers who put forward legislation that results in the kind of conflict that has developed are not here to have first-hand knowledge of the kinds of solutions that we put forward.

Let me say that if the government is serious about doing something more than simply engaging in a fight with the doctors, if this government is serious about putting forward some meaningful and sensible resolutions to the question of health care funding, if this government is serious about removing confrontation in the province and enhancing consultation and agreement through collective bargaining processes, then they will accept this amendment.

They will accept the proposition I put forward today so that they can look after their financial concerns and, at the same time, give to the doctors exactly what they would give to their brothers and sisters in the BCGEU, the B.C. Federation of Labour and every other organized union in British Columbia.

This is a proposition that will work. We urge the government to listen carefully to it and to accept the amendment that has been put forward. Sit down with the doctors today, and negotiate a meaningful and sensible and fair resolution to this question, so there is equal treatment of people in this province, whether they happen to be brothers and sisters in a union that supports them financially, or whether they happen to be doctors who are practising medicine on behalf of all of the people of the province.

D. Schreck: The motion to hoist this bill is a motion that we've seen in this House on a number of statutes. In the past, it seems to have been an attempt for the opposition to determine where they stand on a matter. On this motion, it seems to be much more profound. It really appears to be little more than a stalling tactic.

The entire province participated in a two-year study on health care and costs. That royal commission report recommended a fixed cap on billings by physicians. That royal commission report recommended that no more money go into the health care system but that we rearrange what's there.

[3:15]

The leader of the official opposition says: "Let's wait, leave the bill there, and see what can be done within it." A lot can be done within that bill once that bill is passed. It will not do us any good if we delay passage by six months and then have retroactive legislation to deal with the problem of having paid out $50 million more than is budgeted and authorized by this Legislature.

What is the fundamental objection to this bill? Why are we having this dispute? Is it really a fight, as the opposition would portray it, between the physicians of this province and the government? It is not. We have between 6,000 and 7,000 physicians in this province. I believe that many physicians are concerned about what's going on, a few have taken a very active position, and the majority are like the majority on any issue: they're wondering what's happening. Six months after the implementation of Bill 71, I think that majority will say: "What has the fuss been all about? This bill has advanced the treatment of physicians, and it has advanced medicare."

The opposition members have said: "This bill violates the Canada Health Act." That demonstrates what little attention has gone into actually reading the statute. I think this must be the first time in Canada that a provincial statute which governs medicare, which is ten provincial plans, actually makes reference to the Canada Health Act and says that the actions of a commission are subject to the provisions of the Canada Health Act. Far from being in conflict with the Canada Health Act, this provincial statute actually acknowledges, and makes itself subordinate to, those provisions of the Canada Health Act.

Yesterday in the debate on the hoist motion, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock referred to a letter

[ Page 3108 ]

wrote championing the further development of medicare and, in particular, objecting to the premium system, which has the unfortunate effect -- to be blunt about it -- of stiffing some doctors on bad debts and, at worst, making it difficult for some uninsured members of our population to seek access to care.

In debate on this hoist motion, that hon. member said: "Well, why are we dealing with Bill 71 instead of advancing the cause of medicare?" -- as I once advocated. Again, that element of the debate shows opposition members not reading, or perhaps not understanding, what's actually in the statute. What the statute provides is a more flexible mechanism for dealing with the premium system and a more flexible mechanism for dealing with beneficiaries, or covered members of the population.

Those modified provisions reflect the direction in which the province was moving in order to deal with the awkwardness of the premium system. More importantly, when they are combined with the budget my colleague the Minister of Finance introduced, which froze medicare premiums and indicated a direction of this province towards eliminating medicare premiums, they show that this government has been listening, that Bill 71 reflects the change I advocated at that time, and that the budget and policy direction of this government reflect that improvement in medicare.

Hon. Speaker, I think the majority of this debate is based on a misunderstanding of our intentions. Unfortunate publicity was given by the opposition House Leader in this debate, when we last sat, to claims that there may be a physician who would not provide a medically necessary service. In all of my life in health care, I have never met a physician who would not render a medically necessary service, whether that service was paid for or not.

I think it is an insult to all physicians in this province to suggest that any physician would deny medically necessary care to a patient because of a political dispute with the government, an argument about fees, or uncertainty over whether a service is covered. Exhorting the public to that sort of fear that physicians would betray them is a disservice both to this legislative process and to the physicians of this province.

At the end of the day, all disputes end; at the end of the day, all parties to disputes find ways to work together. This statute provides the mechanism for the parties to work together in a way that they have never been able to work together before. It creates a commission that is no longer a one-person commission, with that person being an employee of government. It creates a balanced commission with three persons appointed through the British Columbia Medical Association, three persons appointed through government and an agreed-upon three neutral persons representing the public.

Nothing could be closer to an ideal arbitration panel. What we have is the mechanism that will resolve the dispute and with which all of the parties can live.

There are only two points where I can possibly see debate: the question of whether the Legislature should set the budget, or whether it should be a blank cheque system. I am told by all parties to the dispute that there is no debate on that point. Medical practitioners, members of this Legislature and the opposition have all recognized that it is indeed this Legislature that should be setting the budget.

So what else could be in dispute? The hon. member last speaking for the third party said: "Well, maybe the real problem is, can we really expect and make physicians to be the gatekeeper of the system?" I would certainly prefer to recognize that physicians are the gatekeeper of the system and should remain the gatekeeper of the system long before I would ever put a health economist such as myself as the gatekeeper of the system. It is my job either acting as a health economist or as a legislator to deal with the public policy question of how much resources, how much money should we be allocating to the system.

But when it comes to the question of whether a particular surgery is medically necessary or not, it is only a physician who can make that decision. It can only be a physician who is the gatekeeper on that decision, it will always be, and that is recognized under the statute.

I think we have much unnecessary hysteria being generated by the official opposition. Contrary to being some sort of radical change, this act is a moderate improvement in an evolving system that allows for improved co-management in a direction that the province has been moving for some 25 years, and allows a mechanism for the resolution of differences within the expanded Medical Services Commission in the future. It is not time to hoist the bill; it is time to give this bill a chance to work and see how popular it actually is.

[D. Streifel in chair.]

H. De Jong: I speak in support of this hoist motion, although I do not like things to be delayed. I see myself as a person of action and I like to see things go forward, but really this is somewhat of a different situation. When the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale finished speaking he said: "This is more than a stalling tactic." He's absolutely right. This is more than a stalling tactic. This is very much more important than just a stalling tactic.

I have never before seen in my lifetime, even at times when discussions between the medical profession and the government were difficult -- and there have been some difficult discussions in the past -- the doctors go out on the street.

Interjections.

H. De Jong: I have never seen it. I don't recall it -- anyway, not in the numbers they're going out today and possible tomorrow and the next day. While I do not agree with the principle of doctors closing their offices.... Because I do not believe in job action of that nature. I do not believe in strikes. I do not believe in work stoppages. I do not believe in that kind of action in order to solve a problem, because I think it's one of the poorest ways to solve a problem. I think it's one of the poorest ways to solve a problem. That's why I cannot support the doctors on that issue.

I can also see the frustration that they have in dealing with this issue and with the government on this particular matter.

[ Page 3109 ]

If I recall correctly, the previous administration started a medical review about a year and half ago, and we got the report around Christmas or New Year's of this past winter. I can see very little or no reflection of what was recommended in those reports in terms of what's in this particular bill that's before us. Surely if there was a fair amount of reflection.... But with little reflection in this bill of that report, I think it deserves discussion between the medical profession and the government. That's why I can probably understand why the doctors are so upset at this point in time.

I don't think it does anyone good -- it doesn't matter what industry you're working in or where you're engaging people to provide a service -- when a confrontation of this nature occurs. It certainly doesn't do any good for us at the present, nor will it lend any good to the future.

This bill, of course, is Bill 13 with a blanket around it. We know that blankets are used for different purposes. It keeps you cool in the summer, and it keeps you warm in the winter. This blanket, of course, does neither. While the weather is very warm outside, it adds to the heat. It leaves the health care system neither hot nor cold. It leaves it in disarray. It leaves a perception with the public that is not good for this government; it's not good for the medical services that have been provided so very well over many years. While the temperatures are high outside, I believe that the government should, in fact, delay the passage of this bill.

The member for Burnaby North made a statement across the floor a while ago when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking. He said that he didn't mind sitting here for three months, debating this bill and the Health estimates. I don't think any one of us minds doing that. At the same time, we must ask ourselves if we want to continue this kind of controversy between the medical profession and the government for another three months. I don't think we want to. I don't think the government wants to. Surely the public does not expect it of us.

I would again ask the government to delay the passage of this bill and allow for a good, down-to-earth, honest discussion between the medical profession and the government that is proposing this bill.

[3:30]

V. Anderson: I also rise to speak in support of the amendment that is before us. This is the second time in my brief life span that I have lived through this kind of medical catastrophe. I lived through the catastrophe which took place in Saskatchewan -- although not a catastrophe in the results to the medical services plan that were finally brought forward. The results were beneficial and have been beneficial to all Canadians.

I lived through the catastrophe of the upheaval of the total community, of the health care system, of families, of children, of adults because of the disruption that took place in family life, in community life and, I might even add, in the church where I was serving. I remember that in the week when the discussions were most acute, I happened to have listed in the paper the sermon title "Two Sides of a Coin." That title had nothing to do with the medical crisis; perhaps it should have, but it didn't.

But I received a call at my office before church from one of our most active members, who said: "I refuse to come to church and hear discussion on the medical plan. I will not be there today." It was that kind of disruption, where families had to live apart because they were on both sides of the issue.

Hon. Speaker, this is not a discussion between government and doctors. If we pretend that it is, then we're disguising the real problem that we're dealing with here. In the presentation of this bill about medical services, we're thinking about the well-being and healthy development of all citizens of every age. We're not talking about crisis health care; we're talking about health care in its broadest context of healthy communities. The very act is entitled "Medical and Health Care Services." It touches on far more than just the activities of medical practitioners.

In our own time, medical practitioners depend for every action in which they are engaged upon support persons of all kinds, from the ambulance driver to the caretaker to the furnace operator to the technician. Indeed, if we total all the people who are involved in health care services, medical practitioners are a small percentage of those who are being discussed in this particular bill. Yet the bill does not acknowledge the other people who are affected by what is being planned and put forward here. If it did acknowledge them, we would be in a far better position to support it.

Just today, at noon, we met with representatives of the employee unions of Shaughnessy Hospital who are directly affected because of the changes that are taking place, or that are contemplated or may be contemplated, within Shaughnessy Hospital itself, maybe doing away with the hospital, maybe changing its nature drastically so that many of those people will lose their jobs. Since they heard the reports of this in the context of the Health estimates, they're aware that as the result of these actions, they may not have a job next week.

B. Jones: What's that got to do with the bill?

V. Anderson: It's got a direct bearing on this bill, because it's talking about the capping of costs -- not the capping of doctors' salaries, but the capping of costs, saying that money is not available. But within just the last hour I heard the hon. Minister of Health say that the budget provides all the money necessary for health care in the province at the present time. To contradict this they are also saying that they will be $50 million in debt if all the needs of the people of this province are met. So it's in that contradiction of statements that we need to re-examine this bill and understand it.

Another concern that I heard this weekend, which is also impacted by this bill as far as the community is concerned, is about prescriptions that may be made available to seniors and others and the cost of these prescriptions, both in their being presented and their being available to them under the health care system.

Perhaps some of the members of this House can take this particular bill out of the total context of health care, but the citizens of our community do not consider this bill out of the context in which it sits.

[ Page 3110 ]

B. Jones: Hon. Speaker, 20 percent of the Health budget.

V. Anderson: The hon. member says this is 20 percent of the health budget, but this bill talks about diagnostic services, diagnostic centres and diagnostic facilities. This goes far beyond the question of medical practitioners. It deals with a whole host of other medical workers. This bill needs to be considered in the context of the total system in which it is found.

We need to be concerned about the context of this bill in relation to establishing and perhaps forcing and requiring people to operate out of community medical clinics, because I believe this is the direction in which this government has said they are going. It would be the proper direction if we had a plan, guidelines and directions as to what is involved in community clinics. I have had experience, as I mentioned before, in the real uneasiness in communities where medical clinics were forced upon people and the doctors had no opportunity but to work in medical clinics.

There was fractious infighting between the different kinds of services that were being performed.

We all have a common concern for good quality medical and health care. We already have, as has been acknowledged by everyone, one of the best systems in the world. It's to improve that system that is important. The better the system, the more difficult it is to improve it without destroying it.

One of the difficulties that I hear is in the discussion between employees and employers who are concerned about their future when there is a stalemate in trying to resolve the process -- not the conclusions, but the process. One of the methods that we have affirmed in our history, and this government has particularly affirmed it in other areas, is to enter into a process of mediation and consultation whereby the different sides can sit down with each other and a neutral body or person to work out, not the final conclusions first of all, but the process by which those conclusions could be arrived at.

The process that we have now is a stalemate, even if we are to give both sides the benefit of the doubt and they're not saying: "I'm right and you're wrong." They are saying on both sides: "I'm more right than you are." As long as we have that confrontational process in our medical care, which is so fundamental, then the stalemate will continue and will become worse.

In other areas -- in the environment -- this government has undertaken a process of mediation and consultation whereby they are asking the community to deal with the process and to help them find ways of dealing with the process. I would urge this government, in accepting this amendment and putting the bill on hold, to enter into that kind of mediation process, whereby they select between them a neutral third party or body and they sit down and negotiate with each other -- not dollars and cents, but a process that they can both accept and agree on to resolve the problems that are before all of us.

It's that process which in itself can be an example of how problems are dealt with in our province.

It's perhaps unfortunate at this moment that Stephen Owen is not still the ombudsman, because he would be a very logical person for the government and the doctors to come together with. He would enable them to work through a process so that they could agree on guidelines and a method of coming to a conclusion so that this bill could be made available to the total community. Because here is a blueprint to begin with, not a final blueprint to end with.

One of the things I discovered in trying to do doctoral programs and work on a doctoral thesis was that when you wrote your first thesis, which was the best you knew at the time, the professors with whom you worked then said: "That's a starting place. That's what you know; that's what you accept. Now you go and do your homework." Whether you passed or failed from then on depended on how much you grew and changed from that original presentation.

We have here the original presentation, and the government would gain untold stature and recognition -- and I'm speaking at this point on behalf of the government -- if they were to say to all of the people of the province: "We have heard your concerns. We believe that this document is at least 75 percent right, but you if can show us as we go through the next six months how the other 25 percent can be made right, we will all profit and benefit from it."

[3:45]

There is a face-saving way out. Back in the fifties, when this was originally being discussed, both the medical profession and the government had to learn that in any set of labour negotiations, labour and management have learned that there always has to be a face-saving way out for both sides. At the moment there is not a face-saving way out for either side. No matter what happens, the government will be condemned because of it. There is a face-saving way for this government to go.

They can call in any of their professional mediators, who are doing excellent jobs in bringing together contentious sides in this province and helping them to find a face-saving process. This government can do exactly the same thing. They can bring in their negotiator. It isn't giving in, one side or the other. It's just saying that the process that the public demands is not in place or working at the moment.

We have been discussing in estimates part of the report out of which this bill is said to come, the Closer to Home report. We talk about bringing decision-making and health care closer to home. We must also enable the people closer to home to have a look at this bill, perhaps to publish the full bill in the paper so that people can read it for themselves and clearly understand who is misleading them, if anyone in fact is purposely doing so. Then they can judge for themselves and come back and say to the government: "Yes, these are the changes. We understand what you're trying to do. It's time for you to move ahead."

I speak on behalf of not the doctors or the government at this point. Others have been speaking both for the government and for the doctors. Both of them are concerned, and I'll give them both the benefit of the doubt of being serious and honest in what they're attempting to do. I will say to both of them that the

[ Page 3111 ]

process is not working, and that's amply visible to all of us. It's time that we established a new process. I would particularly say to this government, which has put forth the idea of mediation, that this is the time to demonstrate the process of mediation very effectively for the people of this province.

If the government would be willing to mediate the process of mediation -- not, I point out, to derive who's going to get paid for what, but to derive a process by which this solution can be found -- if in this solution that is so critical and so emotional the government discovers a way to demonstrate the validity of mediation, which they have been professing to follow, their road from here on will be much easier and much more constructive.

If I really wanted to be an opposition member to destroy the government, I'd tell them to continue exactly what they're doing and not enter into mediation, because if they enter into mediation and they find a constructive result, it'll be much tougher for opposition to counteract them from then on.

I think this government has to bite the bullet and be person enough to say, "Yes, we're at a stalemate," and we will say to the people of this province that we are prepared to take the six months necessary to do the mediation to bring it back into the fall session. When they pass the bill at that time, regardless of what it says, they will have far more support from everyone in the community, of every age.

One of the groups that's watching them very closely is the new group of voters they have just brought into voting power: the 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds, those who were not able to vote at the last election, but who had decided opinions, as was mentioned. As we went through the high schools prior to the election, we discovered the young people were in touch and were aware of what was happening. They're also very much aware of their future, and medical care is part of their concern -- as are jobs and unemployment. They are watching this government to see if its words and actions match each other. At the moment, they are not seeing that the words and the actions match.

This is an opportunity beyond any other that we will have in this present Legislature to let them know that the words and the actions match. I say this not only for the benefit of the government, but for the benefit of all legislators. As we've said here very often, legislators are not trusted by the community, by and large. It's amazing to me that the day before you get elected, you may be a trusted person in the community regardless of what side of the House you're on. The day after you get elected, people do not trust you, because they're convinced that power corrupts absolutely.

This government has an opportunity to confirm that and say: "We have the power to ram this through, right or wrong." I would maintain that this government has a far greater opportunity to say that it has the power to turn this back to the people, back to the process that we have been putting forward. It has the power to prove that mediation of a process is available for us. I challenge this government to live by their words, and I challenge them to bring this back to the people and to use the process of mediation.

I vote for the amendment, and I trust that before this process is further through, the government itself will in one way or another do exactly the same thing.

D. Jarvis: I know it will be hard for some of the backbenchers on the government side to believe that I'll be speaking in favour of this hoist motion. This bill has some fundamental flaws. They are probably repugnant to a lot of people in this province -- and will be if this bill is rammed through as they are intending.

As I mentioned once before, there's one feature that really does bother me, and that is

section 6 of the bill. It's a dangerous

section and should either be deleted or amended -- and very quickly -- if they intend to ram this bill through. This section, as you are probably aware, provides for....

D. Schreck: Point of order. This is second reading. The member will have ample opportunity to discuss a particular

section at committee stage. The member is out of order.

Deputy Speaker: Your point of order is well taken, hon. member. I would caution hon. members that we are in second reading debate on a motion to hoist this bill. A clause-by-clause examination is appropriate in committee stage. Would all hon. members bear that in mind.

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that you are right in that aspect. I was actually just referring to a

section rather than discussing it point by point.

In any event, I was referring to one aspect of the bill. The part that's most repugnant to me is the fact that the government would be allowed to come in and examine the files of the doctor and the patient with no control whatsoever over what they would find. I can tell you that a lot of people throughout this province are concerned.

I would like to read an excerpt from a letter. I won't go into the full length of the letter. This doctor says: "Who will be auditing the doctors who look after Elizabeth Cull or Mike Harcourt?"

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. It is never in order to refer to a member of this assembly by name. The caution has been offered by the Chair on several occasions. I would ask that hon. members bear that in mind when they are delivering their addresses.

D. Jarvis: I will then state: who will be auditing the doctors who will be looking after certain members on the government side of the House? "Perhaps they will see files showing diagnosis of mental illness or AIDS" -- or whatever it may be. It's not any of their business, nor the auditor's business....

B. Jones: Point of order. I don't want to interrupt this scintillating speech, but if I heard correctly, the letter made references to members of this chamber who may have particular diseases. I really think it's inappropriate for that member to speculate about those kinds of things in this chamber. I know he probably didn't mean

[ Page 3112 ]

to, but I think that's a clear inference from what he said -- unless I heard it incorrectly.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'd just like to comment on the point of order. Clearly the member is merely quoting from a letter that a concerned constituent brought forward. It's asking what would be the case if information came out on a member of this House, and what would the members of this House feel if that were the case. I don't think there's anything out of order in that at all. I think the member is perhaps being overly sensitive in that regard.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair has listened to the points of order. I would ask the hon. member for clarification. I'm sure he did not intend to imply that hon. members of this Legislature had in any way been referred to in that letter in that manner. Would you just clarify that for us, hon. member.

D. Jarvis: Yes, I will clarify it. If they read the Blues tomorrow, they will see that when I referred to the members, the letter said they will see files showing other people.

In any event, I have now had, I guess, three or four points of order. That's a record for me so far. Possibly I expect more from my friend from North Vancouver-Lonsdale. He always seems to audit my talks.

In any event, Mr. Speaker, the letter goes on to say: "The very special confidential relationship between doctor and patient is the basis upon which safe medicine is founded. Why is this confidentiality being broken? And who is going to pay these auditors?"

I want to put into the record another excerpt from a letter I received from another doctor:

"How would it affect my relationship with my patients if the government could have access to my confidential patient files? The primary issue is: who do these files -- handwritten notes -- belong to? These files are my own private documentation, intended only to aid me in caring for my patients. At times they are transferred to another physician, only with the permission of my patients, again for the sole purpose of caring for the patient. I refuse to allow government officers to snoop through the most private of information, confided to me in times of my patients' physical and emotional distress.

If the government has a concern about my billing practices, there are more than adequate existing means of assessing their concerns without invading the inner sanctum of the office chart.

"In

summary, I will not work within the MSP system in B.C. if Bill 71 passes. Does the NDP government of B.C. really want the distinction of carrying the responsibility for toppling medicare?"

I would like to read a brief excerpt from another letter. This doctor, who runs a medical clinic, said:

"We are also concerned that the new Bill 71 gives government the right to enter physicians' offices and look into individual files without the permission of either the patient or the doctor. This completely violates the physician-patient relationship. Even though the government is presenting this as a way of preventing doctors from cheating on the system, there is certainly no guarantee that this alone will be the basis for inspecting patients' charts. If I knew this system was in place and the government had the right to invade my chart, I would never feel comfortable about seeing any physician in this province."

[4:00]

I heard one of the backbenchers stating a minute ago that the doctors are going to be the inspectors. Some day I might give a speech that might offend someone in this assembly. That could be the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain or the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, who are both medical doctors. If they wanted to go and look at my charts, there's nothing in this bill to prevent them from doing that. The government says that these inspectors will be doctors, and they will be subject to their oaths. Whose oath? Is it going to be the Hippocratic oath?

An Hon. Member: Well, of course.

D. Jarvis: That is where you're wrong; it will not be the Hippocratic oath. It's not even used anymore. Actually it's an historical ambiguity.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Is it not? Well, whatever.

Are they going to be using the code of ethics put out by the College of Physicians and Surgeons?

D. Schreck: Yes. Absolutely.

D. Jarvis: All right. There is the problem again, because that code does not anticipate a situation where a doctor is working for the government and doing financial audits. This comes right out of that.

B. Jones: What does the college do now?

D. Jarvis: There is nothing in the code of ethics to allow for this situation now. The situation between two doctors now applies when the two doctors are either working on the same patient or for the same patient. It's not to be used on a third-party basis.

I feel that if the government is intending to amend this bill, perhaps it could do so in some way that will allow the College of Physicians and Surgeons to administer the inspections. At the very least, the college should be able to make up the list of doctors, or be able to nominate a slate of doctors as inspectors, and they are the ones to choose it. Let them take the oaths, give the oaths, and be the ones responsible for it, and not have inspectors appointed by the government, because then we will just have polluted appointees.

This bill needs time to be thought over. This government needs time to think it over, and deal with the doctors. That is why I'm supporting this hoist amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: It's always interesting to engage in the fascinating debates that go on in this House. I only encourage the members of the NDP back bench to get more involved. Perhaps a member of the cabinet might actually want to get involved in some of the legislation that they've been trying to pass.

[ Page 3113 ]

The other day the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain gave what I thought was probably the best speech on this bill by members of the government. I commend her for it. I thought it was very interesting and very intriguing. She certainly knows the medical system from the side of a physician. Unfortunately, she is now sitting in a government that doesn't seem to understand it to the same extent that she does.

I was quite pleased to hear her discuss the changes that are going on in the medical system, and how that affects patients and people in general, and how change, in general, causes fear among people, and if people don't have that fear assuaged, or put aside by information or some form of reassurance, that fear then develops into anger. I think that's what we are seeing.

This government has put forward Bill 71. It was brought forward in the middle of this month, towards the very end of the legislative session, now eight months into this government's mandate. It was brought in at the end of the session following the government pulling one of their first medical bills they brought in at the beginning of the session -- Bill 13. The people of the province are wondering if Bill 13 was so bad that it had to be pulled from the legislative order paper....

If the government came to see that Bill 13 was no longer of sufficient quality that it could persist and continue on the order paper, and even come forth for second reading, then the public wants to ask the government how can they possibly be sure that Bill 71 is now of the highest quality, a bill that deals with not only remuneration for positions but an overall drastic change and new direction for medicare in this province. How can the people be confident that the government managed to put that bill together...?

If they have the same quality of legislation in Bill 71 as they did in Bill 13, we would be concerned about it, and the public would be concerned about it.

That's the reason for this hoist motion. That's the reason for this amendment asking the government to take some time and give the people of this province a chance to discuss this legislation, to debate it, to negotiate it -- the one

section that deals with remuneration for positions -- so that their fears can be assuaged and put aside. Amendments can be made to the bill. We can go through the bill, examine it, change it where necessary, improve upon it where necessary, and the people of this province are allowed to contribute to a better piece of legislation -- a piece of legislation that the government itself has said is setting a new direction for medicare in this province. Those are important things.

People of this province do have a fear that this government isn't sure where it's going with medicare. It's already changed its mind once; it may change it again. We've had the Premier discuss at Premiers' conferences medicare 2, and we've yet to hear what medicare 2 is. Is medicare 2 contained in Bill 71? Is it something that's going to occur on an ongoing basis? What is medicare 2? What is the direction the government is taking with regard to health care?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

The people deserve more than two weeks' opportunity to determine the direction they want to take with health care. The government has talked at length about the Seaton commission, and we've talked at length about it also. The Royal Commission on Health Care was something that we all had a chance to contribute to with recommendations and input.

Then the government goes back, does its homework, comes up with a bill that is intended to implement some of those recommendations, then brings it back to the public and says: "Thank you. We've looked at your recommendations. This is the direction we'd like to go. This is how we've incorporated those recommendations into legislation. Now what do you think? How do you like this? Are we on track? Is this the direction you want us to be going?"

You would hope that the government would then take that advice from those people. We had asked that it be sent to a select standing committee to tour the province for the summer, at least, and consult with the people of the province on the specifics of the bill. The government decided not to do that, so we're asking now that the government take some time and use whatever means it's comfortable with. If the standing committee is not the means they choose to use, then perhaps they can use some other means.

But take the time over the summer and the early fall to take this legislation out to the various stakeholders: the public, the physicians, the people who are in the hospitals, the people who are dealing with health care, the health care workers -- all the people who participate in the health care system in this province. See what they think of the legislation.

It's one thing for the public to put forth, to use the example of the constitution, their recommendations at public hearings. The government then goes back and drafts the legislation, and then they take that legislation back to the people once again in the form of a referendum, consultation or some discussion. If this government is so committed to go to a referendum on the constitution and go back to the people once the proposed legislation is finally drafted, I wonder why it's important to do it in the case of the direction we're taking our country, but it's not important to follow the same procedure with a health bill that's the new direction for health care in this province.

This is probably the most significant piece of legislation coming through this House this session, yet we're being asked by this government to rush it through at the very end. It was brought in, after one of their health bills was already pulled because it was faulty, during the last two weeks of the session, and we're expected to put it through posthaste with no discussion and with no further public input; we're supposed to put it through.

B. Jones: Take your time.

G. Farrell-Collins: We intend to take our time, and we have a large number of amendments that we'd like to put forth. But if what this government has done so far is any indication, it's unlikely that there will be much improvement to this bill before it is ultimately passed, if this government decides to push it through

[ Page 3114 ]

the Legislature. That's the history of legislation in this province; that's the way it was done in the past. That's the way this government operated during its last mandate, and I'm sure that's the way it intends to operate with Bill 71. That's very clear.

B. Jones: What happened to Bill 50?

G. Farrell-Collins: Bill 50? There's a great example. The member talks about Bill 50. I wish the Minister of Health and her parliamentary secretary, who's so vocal and who just brought up this fantastic idea, would take the advice of the Attorney General in bringing in some legislation. The Attorney General has done a fantastic job with Bill 50. He brought it through. He said in the House he anticipates further amendments coming forward to this House in the future, before the implementation date of Bill 50.

I think that's a fantastic idea, and I would encourage the member to take the advice of the Attorney General, follow in his footsteps and do the same thing. He could certainly start doing that by speaking and voting in favour of this six-month hoist. That would allow that type of consultation to be ongoing.

B. Jones: Bill 50 passed.

G. Farrell-Collins: Of course Bill 50 has passed, but it's not being implemented for another year or so. The member perhaps should read Bill 50 and Hansard , and he'd understand the process that took place in the debates.

This government is asking us to trust them that this is the best bill and that there couldn't possibly be any improvements to it. This is it. This is the health bill that is going to guide British Columbia's health care for the next 20 years. We should trust this government.

An Hon. Member: You're right. This is it.

G. Farrell-Collins: It may guide us for three years, anyway, but we're sure there will be a new government in three years, and then we'll have a proper consultative direction taken. We'll have proper health care in this province.

This government asks us to trust them. This is the government who as of today is up to 39, 40 or 41 on the list of broken promises, a fantastic list that is going to make fantastic reading when this House finally adjourns for the summer or the fall -- whenever it is. This is the government that came out and talked about trust: open and honest government, a government you can trust. This is the government that since it came into power has broken virtually every one of its 44 election promises. How can the people of this province possibly trust this government?

That is an important aspect, because it brings up a concern that we have with Bill 71. It brings up the reason why we initially asked for it to go the standing committee of the House for further study, and why we are now -- given that the government has refused that -- asking that this bill be hoisted for six months to allow public debate.

D. Jarvis: Nine more promises, and then it's bingo!

G. Farrell-Collins: That's right. Nine more, and then it's bingo.

The government asks us to trust them. There are two areas, but one in particular that I'd like to speak to now, an area where the government has asked us to trust them. It deals with the commission and the subcommittees.

I don't remember which member it was. It was more likely than not the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, but I'm not sure, so I won't quote him directly or attribute these comments directly to him. One of the members -- I can look it up -- talked about trust with regard to the subcommittees that would be appointed to this commission and the way subcommittees can be appointed under this legislation. It's very clear that all the government has to do, if the commission they've appointed to deal with health care isn't coming up with the politically correct means of delivering health care in this province, is appoint a subcommittee.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: I won't pass that comment on.

All the government has to do -- or the minister for that matter -- is appoint another subcommittee, give it the mandate to do whatever it wants, and by choosing that subcommittee, the minister can dictate what's going to come out at the other end of it. We see in the way this government operates that there is no freedom in this government. The members aren't allowed to speak their minds. They toe the party line, or they don't speak at all. We see that with the government's appointments to various boards and commissions: they're all party hacks; they're all members of the NDP, and -- for many of them -- it seems that that's the only reason they're there.

[4:15]

There's no consultation to get the best people, regardless of political persuasion or even if they don't have a political persuasion. There's no consultation to see that those are the types of people who are put on these boards. We know the political views of the people that this government is likely to appoint to these subcommittees. So how can we possibly trust this government to appoint good, qualified people to deal with specific issues under the processes set up in Bill 71?

These subcommittees would merely be brought forward at the whim of the minister when she wanted to get a certain result out the other end. We've seen that in the past, and we'll continue to see it. Why should the people of this province -- given the record of this government with regard to trust -- be expected to trust this government on an issue like the subcommittees in this bill? I ask the members. They sit in caucus. I wonder what goes on in the caucus.

I wonder sometimes about the browbeating that goes on to get these members to go against their constituents and vote the way they do on some of these fantastic bills. I wonder what type of browbeating will go on with the people that the minister will select for these committees to

[ Page 3115 ]

ensure that they come out with the proper answer at the end of the day.

The Speaker: Hon. member, may I remind you that we're not dealing with the specifics of the bill, but the six-month hoist amendment.

G. Farrell-Collins: The reason I'm bringing up these issues is that I'm trying to enlighten the government as to why we feel this bill should be hoisted for six months to allow the government a chance to come to its senses and perhaps allow the backbenchers to strengthen their backbone, come to the defence of the public and realize that this bill needs some improvement. There hasn't been one member on that side of the House who's spoken in favour of amending this bill and making it better. They all think it's fantastic. They all say the same thing, and they'll continue to say the same thing.

That's the way their government works. They're all identical. They should just put up cardboard cutouts of themselves and go home for the summer; it would make no difference. Hon. Speaker, I sometimes think that they are cardboard cutouts, the way they just sit there and don't move. I think somebody just pulls a string, and then they stand up when they have to vote at the right times.

M. Farnworth: Point of order. Yesterday members of the opposite side of the House were taking offence at being referred to as puppets or marionettes. I think that the reference to cardboard cutouts and puppet strings is equally offensive on this side of the House. I would request that the remarks be withdrawn.

Deputy Speaker: The Chair has noted the comments. The member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove should please take note.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I certainly had absolutely no intention of offending that member. He's one of my favourite members in the House, by far the most entertaining and original. If anybody were to be a cardboard cutout, it would certainly not be that member. Therefore I would be glad to withdraw those remarks if they were to cause him any harm.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Please continue.

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, I will. I meant that comment, too. He's certainly the most entertaining and original and interesting member of this government. I hope that we'll see him across the benches in the cabinet. Perhaps he'll spark some life and new legislation into this government. I would certainly vote for that. He could be chosen, as a training step, to replace the current Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, and we'd have some more interesting legislation. I don't know that we'd be able to read it, but it would be interesting.

Hon. E. Cull: It would be poetic.

G. Farrell-Collins: Yes, I'm sure it would be poetic, as the minister says.

There's another issue. There's a real concern that the government has brought forward, and we should certainly look at it. The reason this bill has to be pushed through so fast is to keep their expenditure estimates in line. The reason that they're really worried about that and about the $50 million is that this government overestimated its revenues in the budget.

Three months have now passed, eight months since the government took office, and they're realizing that financial reports that come out in July and August are going to say that this government is so far off of its revenue estimates that they're facing the biggest deficit.... They've already seen the biggest deficit this province has ever had, but it's going to be bigger yet. They are in real trouble. They're very concerned about this $50 million that they say they're going to save by bringing in this bill right away. So they have a concern with this six-month hoist. They're worried about it.

There are provisions. I believe members have already spoken on them, but perhaps they need to be brought back to the attention of the government. The act contains the ability of the government to do what is necessary to keep the costs in line. That's there, and they are able to do that. There's no need to bring this bill in to do that. That's simply a false argument.

Even if that was a concern, even if there was absolutely no way that this government could hold the line on health care without bringing this bill in, and $50 million was what they had to come up with in order to let this bill be discussed, then couldn't the government simply repeal the fair wage regulations it brought in and use the funds it would be saving on construction wages in the public sector -- this incredible fixed wage it talks about -- to offset any hypothetical increased costs in health care?

L. Fox: Fire all the friends and insiders.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's another one. They could fire all the friends and insiders they've appointed. They could fire Dick Gathercole and his $2 million Energy Council sham, and use that money to help offset the health care deficit.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: That's true -- they have severance packages. We all know the NDP's flair -- and Social Credit's, I might say, although this member isn't participating in it -- for pension benefits and severance packages. We all know the six-month severance packages these members, both Social Credit and NDP, voted themselves prior to the last election, although I won't hold the member for Prince George-Omineca responsible, because he wasn't here. I won't hold him personally responsible, but I will hold the members opposite responsible.

There are lots of reasonable ways this government can take a stance of consultation on Bill 71. There are lots of things they can do. There are lots of inventive and creative ways they can ensure there is proper

[ Page 3116 ]

consultation on Bill 71. I'm sure that if they were to ask our semi-Australian member, whom I referred to earlier, for some advice, and if he were allowed to speak freely, he would come up with some. I'm sure that some of the members of the NDP back bench would come up with some interesting and intriguing ideas on Bill 71. But not even they have had a chance to do that; not even they have had the time to do that. The parliamentary secretary has certainly been involved, and we know the disaster that's resulted. The minister has certainly been involved, and we know what's happened with Bill 71 and Bill 13.

But what about the backbenchers? What about the other NDP members, who have experience and background in business, in union groups and in union management -- and just life experience, for that matter? Some of them have experience in the health care sector, I'm sure. Why not consult with the people on the back bench?

How could they possibly have gone through all the possible improvements they could make to Bill 71 in the two weeks -- the debate's only been going on since Monday, I believe -- since it's been implemented and brought before this House? How could those backbenchers, with all the qualifications that I'm sure they have, contribute to the improvement of Bill 71? They haven't had the opportunity to; they haven't had the time to.

That's the reason for the standing committee. We hoped that under the Chair, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, and the other members, that committee would have had the opportunity to listen to the public, to contribute, to go through Bill 71 with a fine-tooth comb and improve upon it, make it better. Every bill can be made better, and this government should be willing to do that. We wanted them to send it to the committee, but they can't now. They've defeated that amendment, so we're giving them a second chance -- another alternative -- and we'll be giving them further alternatives.

We've given them a second alternative to deal with Bill 71 in a constructive way. We're giving the NDP back bench and the other cabinet ministers who aren't here the opportunity to review Bill 71, and to take it home and talk to their constituents, to physicians -- I'm sure they're getting letters; we're getting them, so I'm sure they're getting them also -- to health care people, to workers, to the union people in health care, to HEU members, to patients, to the seniors in their community, to other people who have had experiences with the health care system, and ask: "What do you think of this bill?

Do you think we're going in the right direction? Do you think there are some improvements we could make here?"

I know there is a wealth of positive, constructive suggestions out there in this province just waiting to be heard, so why would the government not take the stance of the Attorney General on Bill 50? I thank the parliamentary secretary for bringing it to the attention of this House. Why would they not take that type of stance on Bill 71? I've already shown that it's not because of financial means. There are lots of ways this government can deal with the $50 million they're concerned about, and they should be dealing with it that way.

An important piece of legislation like this -- Bill 71, the new direction for health care in this province, which is what we can only presume the Premier meant when he said Health Care II, or Medicare II.... Why the short time-frame on this bill? Why the rush? As I said, it's the most significant piece of legislation in this province and will affect every British Columbian in the most intimate and personal ways as far as health care goes. This government chooses to rush it through.

I'm sure that if we weren't sitting all the time, 12 hours a day, 16 hours a day, or whatever it is -- it seems like 16 -- and if these members were allowed to go back to their constituencies to consult with their constituents, their constituents would be saying the same thing. They'd be saying: "What's going on there? Why are you rushing through this bill? Why not give us some help with it? Why don't you take our advice?" That's what we're trying to do here.

We're trying to give the government an opportunity, a second chance, to take this bill aside, deal with it, take it back to the public and let them have a look at it. I don't think that's out of line at all. I think that's certainly in line. It's a reasonable thing for the government to do, and the NDP backbenchers should be speaking up for their constituents.

I challenge them to get involved, to speak up and say in caucus and in this House that maybe we're going too fast on this bill. Maybe we should be talking to somebody about this bill. Maybe we don't know everything there is to know about health care. Maybe this piece of legislation that was drafted by the bureaucrats and the minister and the parliamentary secretary.... Maybe they're not the only ones who know about the medical system in this province. They should be saying that to themselves, and they should be going back to their communities and dealing with this bill in their communities. That's the reason for the six-month hoist.

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: That may very well be true. We all know they blame everything else on the last administration. This government is not responsible for anything; it's all the fault of the previous administration. We've heard that time and time again. We will certainly have the privilege in three years to look back at this present administration, refer to it as the previous administration and talk at length about the disaster that it was. I'm sure the rest of the province.... The rest of the province is already agreeing with us, as we saw yesterday with the release of the most recent poll.

In fact, after the short time of eight months, and three and a half months in this House, the rest of the province is feeling exactly the same way. So perhaps these backbenchers, if they don't go home this weekend, if they go home for Canada Day on Monday, will talk to their constituents....

An Hon. Member: Wednesday.

G. Farrell-Collins: Oh, sorry, Wednesday is Canada Day.

[ Page 3117 ]

Interjections.

G. Farrell-Collins: I'm definitely in the right country. I'm just two days off. You know what it's like around here sometimes.

So why don't the members take that back to the people in their constituencies and ask them what they're thinking about how well the government's doing? They should ask them that, and they should specifically ask them about Bill 71. If the members are doing their reading, they'd be reading their local papers, the letters to the editor that are coming in, and they'd be reading the correspondence that's coming into them. They would know that the government has got some problems. Eight months into a mandate and three months into a session, this government has some problems.

Taking our advice on the six-month hoist on Bill 71 would be a move to show the people of this province that the government is serious, that they know they've made mistakes; they know they've done things that are wrong; they know they've made errors; they know they've broken promises; but they're going to change their ways. It's the end of the session. It's not too late. They've got another week, or two or three, left in the session.

They've got an opportunity to go back to the public and say they were wrong on Bill 71, or maybe that they're not wrong on Bill 71, but they're willing to listen to what the people in the constituencies have to say and listen to the direction that they want to see us go in with health care in this province in the next 20 years.

[4:30]

My presentation today, my contribution to this debate on the amendment, has been specifically for the backbenchers of the NDP, because they're the ones who really have to put the pressure on cabinet. Cabinet has a big job to do. They work hard. They sometimes get too wrapped up in their own little world of their ministry, and sometimes it's difficult to see what's going on in the outside world. So it's up to the NDP backbenchers to every so often walk up behind them and shake them a little bit to bring them back to their senses.

That's why I'm asking the NDP backbenchers, the individual members who are not in cabinet, to take the time to approach their minister and parliamentary secretary and say: "You know, I am getting a lot of comments from my constituency. There are a lot of people who are concerned about this. They wonder what's going on; they wonder what the direction is. Why don't we take some time? What's wrong with taking some time on this bill?" They should be doing that. That's their job. That's the role of the NDP backbenchers.

If the backbencher has one duty to the province, that's it: to keep their own cabinet ministers in line. I would hope that the NDP backbenchers would come to their senses and help the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Health come to their collective and respective senses on this bill. Take a break. Go back to the public to consult and see what they have to say on Bill 71. Find out what their valuable contributions, recommendations, amendments and improvements to Bill 71 are. Bring it back in the fall or spring again. We'd be glad to debate this bill once it has had a chance to go out to the public.

I would encourage the members to do that, and encourage them to vote in favour of this amendment.

Finally, vote for your constituents instead of for the cabinet. Vote for the people who hired you; vote for the people you are responsible to. Don't vote for the people who toe the line and who are telling you what to do all the time. Backbenchers should be responding to their constituents. I challenge them to do that: to come to their senses and vote for the people who are paying the bills.

N. Lortie: As a member of this back bench I am offended by the suggestion and offer of advice from the member for Fort Langley-Aldergrove. I'm offended by the suggestions that other members of his caucus have given in the past on this debate. They presume to give advice to the back bench, exhorting us to live up to what he thinks our constituents want and advising us on how to react and vote on this bill. I guess I'm offended most of all because of who it comes from. It comes from the most ineffectual and probably the worst opposition group that this Legislature has ever seen in its history. To be advised by that kind of a group on how we should do our job is extremely offensive.

The hon. member presumes to know what my constituents think of this act. I've had one letter that rolled in that wasn't from a doctor in somebody else's constituency who put my name on one of those 75 copies that he sent here. I've not had one from a consumer of the health care system with any concerns that is a constituent of mine.

I want the hon. member to know that I understand the constituency of Delta North. He probably doesn't even know where it is. I know the people, have walked every street and was on Delta Municipal Council for nine years. I understand my community, so don't tell me how to react to the concerns of my constituents. They have access to me.

B. Copping: I have heard a lot of debate about this hoist motion regarding the use of government inspectors. I would just like to clarify a point about what happens now. I am speaking on the amendment, because of the argument that was used.

Currently, doctors do go into doctors' offices and go through medical charts. I am not talking about the patterns of practice, which is where the Medical Services Commission can.... If a doctor is billing out of

[ Page 3118 ]

the norm, that doctor will be written to and have to defend what's going on.

But the College of Physicians and Surgeons will send a couple of doctors to a doctor's office. This happened to me. This is called peer review. It's something that the doctors wanted. It's basically a form of improving your practice. I received a letter in the mail to say two doctors would be coming. I had never met these doctors before. They came and spent many hours in my office; they took many charts at random; they went through my day records; and they particularly wanted to look at my notes on people's physical examinations and saw notes on people who had been seen by a psychiatrist.

They went through and made observations. The idea, as I said, was to educate, give recommendations, look at your prescribing patterns. Basically it was very beneficial. This went through with no fanfare. Doctors accept it. They wanted it to happen to help them in their practice.

As I say, I really don't understand the hysteria. Yes, the other day I did talk about fear, and I did talk about irresponsibility in alarming the public. But I did want to clarify that doctors are already going in and reviewing doctors' charts -- at the wish of doctors.

L. Reid: I would beg leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: Visiting with us this afternoon in the gallery are two international travellers: Dan and Sue Smith visiting from Dubai. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

I rise this afternoon in support of the amendment to hoist Bill 71, to allow for some reasoned debate to take place by the taxpayers of this province.

This bill is not about doctors griping over fees, hon. Speaker. This bill is about how we intend to deliver health care in the province over the coming years and well into the next decade. Certainly this is not an issue that is new to British Columbia; this is not an issue that is unique to this province. This is an issue that British Columbians, Canadians, anyone in this world will be grappling with well into the next century: how we deliver health care in a reasonable manner. British Columbians, I believe, want the opportunity to be involved in the delivery of health care in a reasonable manner.

Pushing forward a document that was given first reading on June 16 in this House, and having the expectation that this bill will reach third reading by June 30, is irresponsible, in my view. Two weeks to look at how health care is delivered in this province is simply not adequate. Quite honestly, as reasonable legislators, I believe that we want to do more than an adequate job with health care and with how we deliver medical services to residents of the province.

There seems to be some discussion as to the value for the average taxpayer. In my view, physicians in this province are taxpayers as well as consumers of the service. The leader this afternoon spoke eloquently about a possible resolution to the dilemma. Right now there seems to be a hurdle of $50 million, and that needs to be addressed. I support that and my caucus supports it. But the hoist motion to delay Bill 71 in no way restricts the ability of the NDP government to handle that obstacle of $50 million. There is a mechanism in place, and earlier this afternoon you heard the leader refer to it.

Section 3.09 of the Canada Health Act refers distinctly to the authority that this government has at their disposal, and has had for the past 24 years, to determine the cost of health care services and the cost of fees billed to the Medical Services Commission by physicians in this province. That has not been tampered with, and in no way, shape or form has that been mediated to give less power to the province. I cannot accept the argument put forward this morning by the Premier that this is a huge obstacle and that somehow we must push forward with the completion of Bill 71 during this session of the House.

There are two separate and distinct issues. One is to look at the dollars that need to be expended on behalf of services for fees now. There is legislation that can address that: the Canada Health Act and the Medical Services Act of the province of British Columbia. There is legislation that will allow that difficulty to be remedied, and that has to be accepted by serious legislators in this House. In no way is it appropriate to suggest that those issues can somehow be rammed together and that one cannot go forward without the other. That is abundantly untrue.

We have proposed an option. We hope, quite frankly, that this government will pick up on a reasonable option, because we think that some reasoned debate can carry us forward. We are looking at the cornerstone document for the delivery of health care in the province, and this document is flawed. It has not received adequate debate or public scrutiny. It has not been scrutinized by the public at large. In 16 days it will not, in our view, have reached the consumers of the health care system that it needs to reach. This government has to take a reasonable view.

Serious legislators -- the 75 people who sit in this chamber -- must take a reasonable view in terms of ensuring that every single taxpayer in British Columbia has had some input as to how they are going to receive health care well into the next decade and well into the next century.

We have many amendments to this bill should it reach committee stage, because it is fundamentally flawed; it is not a decent piece of legislation, in our view. We believe -- and we're quite willing to stand by our belief -- that this legislation could be improved by having reasonable time in debate -- and not just debate in this chamber; that is a starting point. We have basically given this bill the starting point by hearing debate in second reading.

At this stage, given the six months of scrutiny that we are anticipating will come forward, that will be an opportunity for the public, the consumer, to come forward and suggest possible revisions and alterations as to how health care is delivered.

[4:45]

It is fundamental that we recognize that we have constituent representation in this province. We are here representing people other than ourselves. I'm not convinced that enough attention is paid to the

taxpay

[ Page 3119 ]

ers, the consumers of health care and the constituents of our ridings. Members in my riding -- citizens of this province -- have sent letters suggesting that they are very concerned about the delivery of health care. I've heard members of the government cry: "It's not the public who is concerned; it's the doctors. This is a money issue." This is more than a money issue. This is bigger than how we pay doctors in this province. This is a fundamental issue as to how we deliver health care in British Columbia.

We believe the six months we're asking for will be very valuable. The larger issue is cooperation. There are key players in this dispute. Unfortunately, there is not an adequate dispute resolution mechanism in place. Frankly, there is no dispute mechanism in place at the current time. This government has chosen to legislate rather than negotiate.

The government was elected on the basis of the promise of open government. The promise was: "You as citizens of the province of British Columbia can trust us." That is what got this government elected: open government. We are simply asking for the natural extension of open government. In my view, the natural extension of that is to give this bill back to the people who will have to survive it as it currently stands, in order to see if their scrutiny can improve it. That is a reasonable choice. The amendment we put forward yesterday, which asked for committee referral, was the first step.

We believe fundamentally that this bill is not decent legislation. We asked for committee referral, and it was denied. A referral to committee would have dramatically improved the essence of the bill, because the bill is bigger than doctors' salaries. The bill is about how people who live in this province receive health care.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There are two issues before us that we might want to address in the next number of minutes. The first is a new philosophical direction for health care. Somehow we are going to marry the concept of community care and Bill 71, mix it all up and hope that in some bizarre way we end up with reasonable health care in the province. That is another aspect where I believe sufficient discussion and planning has not gone on. Bill 71 will have an impact on how community care is delivered, and how health care continues to be delivered. To look at the current direction and the new direction that is going to be overlaid....

Again, we'll be looking at moving from institutional care to community care, and somewhere we're going to overlay those two concepts together, so we can somehow arrive at a new direction for health care in this province. I have no difficulty with that, but I don't think you muddy the waters by tying this to a fee-for-service negotiation. Both of those projects are huge and of tremendous magnitude. Both of those projects deserve to be considered on their own merits, and both of those projects could absolutely stand on their own. Of that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

I mentioned earlier that I have constituents who have been seeking out thoughts and looking at how this is going to affect them in terms of Bill 71. I have a number of letters from the consumers of our health care system -- actual constituents whom we are here to represent -- who believe fundamentally that the way health care will be delivered under Bill 71 will be dramatically different. Do they need time to digest that? Do they need time to adjust to that? Do they need time to be part of the process that looks at that? There's no doubt in my mind.

Some of these letters are incredibly eloquent in terms of how people feel about something of this magnitude moving through this House in a little over ten days. It's unacceptable to the Liberal opposition, and it's unacceptable to a number of consumers.

I'll share one with you, hon. Speaker.

"As residents of the province of British Columbia, we would like to express our concern regarding the proposed legislation. In our opinion, this legislation will cause a brain drain. We are particularly concerned about those doctors, especially those who specialize, who may find that it's no longer worthwhile to practise in the province of British Columbia. We believe there are other, more creative ways of putting a stop to those who abuse the system or are generating income from the budget. But it is