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)

MONDAY, JUNE 29, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 5, Number 9

[ Page 3207 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

B. Copping: I'm very pleased to introduce a group of visitors: my aunt Beth Fitzgerald from Burnaby; extended-family members Bill and Margaret McKnight from Scarborough, Ontario; and Marion Miller from Scotland. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: It is my pleasure to introduce three visitors seated in the members' gallery this afternoon. With us is the High Commissioner of Australia, His Excellency David Spencer, accompanied by his wife and the Australian consul in Vancouver, Mr.John Newell. Would members of the House please join me in welcoming up over our visitors from down under. Welcome to B.C.

F. Gingell: I just happened to see my eye doctor in the gallery, Dr. Bayne, and Mrs. Bayne. I presume that he's here because I don't have time to go in for my examination, which I believe is overdue. Please make them welcome.

D. Schreck: In the gallery this afternoon are my wife, Angie Burgess, and, visiting from Minneapolis, Minnesota, my brother and his wife, Lee and Debbie Schreck. For the benefit of some members of the House, we might say that we came from the same puppy farm. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

Oral Questions

AIR AMBULANCE CONTRACTS

W. Hurd: A question to the Minister of Government Services. On June 22 the minister offered a guarantee that Carson Air would be up and running by June 26 in Kelowna and Prince George. Can the minister confirm that in fact this has happened and that the Southern Interior Flight Centre continued their ambulance service throughout the weekend and are still flying Medivacs as of this minute?

Hon. L. Boone: As I just got back from a beautiful weekend in sunny Prince George, I'm going to have to take that question on notice and get back with that information for the member.

GAMING REGULATIONS

J. Weisgerber: According to the B.C. Gaming Commission, casinos in British Columbia are allowed to advertise their location and hours of operation, but they are specifically forbidden from advertising any inducements to gamble. Can the Attorney General confirm that this is the case? Can he confirm, as well, that to the best of his knowledge the gaming industry in British Columbia supports these regulations?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Knowing how this place works, I'm going to take the question on notice and ask the member if he would be kind enough to help me by providing the additional information later so that I can return to the House with a full and complete answer.

The Speaker: The hon. member has a new question?

J. Weisgerber: Knowing how this place works too, I will start off with a new question.

Given that the existing policy in British Columbia forbids local charities from advertising their casinos, can the minister advise whether he believes it's appropriate, if not illegal, for casinos in the United States to advertise in British Columbia and induce cross-border gambling? In particular, the Lummi Indian reservation has been advertising in the Sun offering free dinners, chances to win a car and that kind of thing. Does the Attorney General support that? Does he believe it falls within the law?

The Speaker: Is the hon. member asking for a legal opinion of the Attorney General? I only want to clarify your question.

J. Weisgerber: Hon. Speaker, knowing not only how this place works but the background of the Attorney General, it would be foolish of me to seek a legal opinion from him when there are so many others available. But given that the Attorney does speak on behalf of the government, I was asking for the position of the government on this issue.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I think the member's question had a double-barrelled element to it. Part of it was asking for a legal opinion, which, of course, even if I were well trained in the matter, I would not provide in this forum.

As far as the issue goes, it's not just casino operations immediately south of the border that are advertising; some as far away as Nevada advertise too. It raises a number of interesting questions. The whole issue of gambling, including casino gambling, is under review by the government, in all of its elements. I would prefer to be able to come back and try to give the member specific answers to some of the questions he's asking, but most of the answers to these questions will come out by way of public policy announcements following the complete review.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: The Attorney General might be aware that the Lummi casino indicates that it gathers about $1 million a week from British Columbia in gambling activity. That money is being denied to local charities and non-profit organizations. Would the Attorney General undertake to ensure that, as far as advertising in British Columbia is concerned, domestic charities are not disadvantaged by being denied the opportunity to advertise what organizations from the United States are allowed to?

[ Page 3208 ]

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm not prepared to give that assurance at this stage, pending our full review.

LUMBER EXPORTS

C. Tanner: I have a question to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade regarding the charge by the IWA that rough lumber and B.C. jobs are being shipped south by Terminal Forest Products in Richmond. Is the minister aware of how many B.C. remanufacturing firms have relocated in the U.S. border areas in the past year and how many Canadian jobs are being affected?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Since I don't recall the exact number, I'm happy to take the question on notice and provide a full answer.

The Speaker: A new question, hon. member.

C. Tanner: My supplementary question is to the same minister. Since this company is using the public's resources to do business in the province, does the minister accept the proposition that remanufacturing lumber lines that rely on B.C. logs should close and then reopen in Washington State? What about B.C. workers and their families, Mr. Minister?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would have to check the facts of the allegations that they are taking semi-processed material across the border. There are no stops on the borders for semi-processed material. We export a lot of rough lumber.

C. Tanner: I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Has the minister held any formal meetings with the lumber remanufacturing sector of the lower mainland, and have they advised this minister why they are shipping rough B.C. lumber to Washington State for processing?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The answer to your question is yes. As you know, value-added industry is very dear to our hearts and very important. It's the way of the future. But it is extremely difficult, and we are putting considerable resources into that. I have to remind you that the standing committee of this Legislature is reviewing the supply of timber to the remanners in the province.

[2:15]

POLLUTION CONTROL

A. Warnke: My question is for the Minister of Environment, and it concerns the recent court decision to dismiss charges against Northwood Pulp and Timber. Since the Crown was criticized for bringing the charge when the company was trying to find a solution -- and indeed the court has even called the ministry's actions unfair and oppressive -- and this especially at a time when there was a pilot project with the full knowledge of the Environment ministry, has the ministry learned a lesson from this case, that when a company seeks help it should respond instead of trying to bring forth a charge that is bound to fail in the courts?

Hon. J. Cashore: It's incumbent on the Ministry of Environment to take those actions necessary to send out a very important message to the public that we're serious about curtailing pollution. At the same time, it's incumbent on all of us to learn from experiences day by day.

A. Warnke: In light of the answer that was provided by the Environment minister, and given the results of this case, will the minister be instructing his ministry to change this policy and work more constructively with industry?

Hon. J. Cashore: The ministry is continuing to work constructively with industry. With regard to the enforcement program, I would point out that if we were to compare the total amount of fines collected in 1987, it was averaging around $35,000 a year for the entire province. Now we're looking at an amount that is well over a $1 million, but still not good enough. We have to improve our enforcement, we have to improve our record on enforcement and we have to improve our ability to send a very clear signal to polluters that this will not be tolerated.

However, those are costly dollars -- the ones that come through monitoring and enforcement -- and therefore we are embarked upon an array of methods that will deal with curtailing pollution.

A. Warnke: It's interesting that when one loses a case like that you can still put a positive spin on it, but nonetheless there's a nice try.

To the Minister of Forests, on a final supplementary: was the minister at any point made aware of the situation, and did the minister talk with the Minister of Environment in an attempt to avoid an unfair, oppressive legal action?

Hon. D. Miller: Hon. Speaker, I know nothing about unfair or illegal actions. The Ministry of Environment has regulations. I don't suppose the member is suggesting that we do not enforce those regulations. What he appears to be suggesting I find very troublesome. If a certain industry is exceeding the regulations established by government, it appears to me that government and people in the ministry have a responsibility to take appropriate action. If it's subsequently deemed by the court that there are mitigating factors, then that often happens. I hope the member is not suggesting that officials do not enforce the regulations we have in this province.

LABOUR DISPUTES

D. Mitchell: Hon. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Economic Develpment, Small Business and Trade. Now that mediator Vince Ready has booked out of the pulp industry dispute, sawmills are becoming idle throughout the province, and unfortunately this dispute threatens to be a long one. I'm wondering if

[ Page 3209 ]

the minister or his ministry is doing anything to measure the impact of this dispute on the province's reputation as a reliable supplier of forest products.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The easy answer is that we constantly monitor changes in the economy, along with the Ministry of Finance and any other ministry that has something to do with it. The suggestion that we don't understand what's going on is the kind of comment that doesn't really add to the debate.

The answer to your question is that we do measure the impact. We're not happy that we have a dispute, and the Minister of Labour will do everything in his power to get the parties to come to an agreement.

D. Mitchell: A supplementary question to the minister. We've been advised that we have now lost more person-days to strikes and labour disputes so far in 1992 than in any year since 1986. Can the minister tell us what steps his ministry is taking to assure our trading partners throughout the world that, despite this dismal labour relations record in our province, we still are a place to invest in for business, and we are still a reliable trading partner?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: You know, this is the first pulp dispute in many years. We haven't done anything to contribute to the unrest in the pulp industry. With respect to what we tell people overseas, we tell them that we're working to establish labour laws in the province that are fair to business and labour, and that we will have the most modern labour laws in the world.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

D. Mitchell: My final supplementary is to the Minister of Finance. We have reports that the current pulp industry dispute is causing a reduction in provincial revenues in the order of $1 million per day -- that's what reports in the media have suggested. Given that fact, I wonder if the minister could tell me whether the pulp strike, which appears to be headed for a long haul, unfortunately.... Is his ministry prepared to begin an immediate review of its revenue projections for this fiscal year?

Hon. G. Clark: If we were to take advice from the Liberal Party, we'd be spending more money in every area of government. Every day they stand up here and ask us to spend more money. They now want to give more money to doctors. They stand here every day and mouth the BCMA executive's line for the government of the day to spend $50 million or $60 million -- and that would affect our revenue projections and expenditure projections. We are looking for a responsible opposition that's concerned about the public interest, not about the narrow interest of people like the B.C.

Medical Association executive, an opposition that does not come in here with silly excuses like the pulp mill question. For us to review our revenue and expenditure.... I want to advise the House that every month the Ministry of Finance does a review of revenue and expenditure. Thank goodness we don't pay any attention to what the Liberal Party says; otherwise we'd be in deep financial trouble in this province.

UNEMPLOYMENT AMONG YOUTH

L. Reid: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade. Unemployment rates among our young people are up 12 percent over last year. What is this government's economic strategy to keep British Columbia's young people working?

The Speaker: Minister, the Chair recognizes it's a very broad question. I would ask the minister to answer briefly, if possible.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: When I spoke on the economic strategy of the province during the estimates, it took 20 minutes. Perhaps I could supply you with a full written answer, and you can read it at your leisure.

Hon. A. Edwards tabled the 1991 annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission; the 1990 annual report of the British Columbia Utilities Commission; the 1990-91 annual report of the ministry; and the 1990-91 annual report of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

Presenting Reports

F. Gingell: Today I have the honour to present the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts. I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I move that the report be adopted.

I am really pleased to present this. I understand that in recent history no other Public Accounts Committee report has contained such extensive recommendations. The committee has truly worked with a great deal of harmony. I also wish to note that three members of the committee get gold stars for perfect attendance. The auditor general and the comptroller general have worked very well together to resolve issues of concern to our committee.

There is much more work to be done. We need time. We also need more authority. We need to be allowed to sit intersessionally and during any sitting of the House. That truly would make the work of the committee easier. We also should have the permission of the House for the committee to make on-site visits.

We look forward to the Crown corporations being examined by the Crown Corporations Committee. Our committee will watch that process with interest, and we look forward to receiving -- very shortly, we hope -- the auditor general's annual report.

[ Page 3210 ]

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark tabled the 1991-1992 annual report and financial statements of the British Columbia Transit Corporation.

Ministerial Statement

TOURISM STUDY

Hon. D. Marzari: During the estimates debate of the Ministry of Tourism and Ministry Responsible for Culture, I mentioned the necessity of building and improving on our research capacity. While the momentum of the industry itself increases the visibility and credibility of tourism, evaluation and monitoring techniques must be developed and refocused accordingly.

We have embarked upon a program that will help us clarify in Tourism the needs and goals with a research base. Today I am tabling a commissioned report entitled Tourism: The Professional Challenge. It reveals that we can expect an additional 60,000 jobs in British Columbia's tourism industry by the year 2001. It describes the types of jobs which will be created and the training programs facing the system. In 1990 there were approximately 181,600 people working in tourism-related sectors, the largest being in food and beverage, representing 40 percent of the total.

An addition of 60,000 people to that workforce within the next decade means a growth rate of 2.6 percent, or about one and a half times the general employment growth rate.

I want to give all members an opportunity to reflect upon the implications. Naturally, there are direct implications for the tourism industry. If well-trained individuals are not available to meet the needs of our visitors, our reputation as a destination could be in jeopardy.

This report spells out implications for our labour force, our training institutions -- those existing and those which should be created -- and the general economy of this province. You will be interested that the report's first suggestion, at the top of the list, is for a change in public attitudes about the economic benefits and employment potential of British Columbia's tourism industry. That's where we come in. As members of the Legislature, we can help empower individuals and organizations to realize the full potential of a tourism workforce.

The industry will come of age only when its employees sense that there is a future in tourism and are a part of a well-paid professional workforce and recognized as such by the community at large.

I would like to acknowledge the fine work of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology for its major contribution to the study. The authors were supervised by the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, an agency which works closely with the ministry. Acknowledgements would be incomplete if Employment and Immigration Canada were not mentioned and thanked for its funding as well.

I know all members will find in this document keys to the directions and challenges facing this province's fastest-growing industry.

[2:30]

C. Tanner: I would like to thank the minister for her report, assure her that we'll be following very closely what the report contains and tell her that we're a little disappointed in that 60,000 jobs aren't enough in the next eight years. We expect better than that. A growth rate of 2.5 percent is not what we expect in the tourist industry. We will make suggestions this time next year which will better that figure by quite a long way. Finally, we commend to the minister her very close association with those tourist associations that are out there, encouraging them to employ even more people in our industry, which will make us and the province rich.

L. Hanson: I look forward to an opportunity to read that report with great interest.

The minister suggested that there was some change in attitude needed by the tourism industry as well as the people of British Columbia towards the tourism industry. I think it has long been a fact, and I would question the minister's statement to that effect, because the people of British Columbia well recognize the tourist industry -- what it does contribute to our economy and how important it is to encourage and, in fact, assist through government programs.

I look forward to reading that report. I hope that the Ministry of Tourism will be able to, again, support the tourism industry in the way that it has in the past; rather than reducing the budget, they will hopefully bring it back to a level that will show the British Columbia government's enthusiasm about the tourism industry in British Columbia.

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

Leave granted.

B. Jones: I had the privilege the other day of welcoming to this country and this province a group of opticians who are attending the international guild conference in Vancouver. Visiting us today are 40 persons from that delegation -- opticians, spouses and their children -- and I'd like to read the names, with your indulgence, of some of the members in the party. From Canada we have Mr.

Dan Pavan; from the U.S.A., John Durkin, Bernard Altmann, Art Clancy, Charles Hargrove, Juanita Moman, Richard Sanders, Betty Sanders, Ernest Streiner; from New Zealand, James Tritschler and Robert Williamson; from Australia, John Jackson, Jim Geddes and Lindsay McGregor; and from the U.K., Tony Westhead, James Hawes, Michael Barton, John Humphreys, Anthony Jarvis, David Kirk, Richard Leighton, Rosalind Kirk, David Or and Barry Smith. Would the House please make these visiting opticians welcome.

Orders of the Day

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

[ Page 3211 ]

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE

SERVICES ACT

(continued)

On the amendment.

D. Mitchell: I am pleased to resume adjourned debate on Bill 71, the Medical and Health Care Services Act, and in particular on the amendment moved last week by the member for Chilliwack.

For the benefit of members of the House perhaps I could read the amendment into the record so that it's very clear what we're debating here, because we're debating an amendment that I think is an important one. The amendment, of course, is to the motion that this bill now be read a second time; in other words, that the bill be approved in principle. Of course, we don't believe that the bill should be read a second time.

The amendment, therefore, moved by the member for Chilliwack says: "Bill 71 be not now read a second time because: (1) the powers of audit and inspection allowed for in the bill will seriously compromise every citizen's right to privacy; (2) this bill will drive doctors, especially specialists, from the province; (3) the proration and capping of fees allowed for in the bill amounts to a rationing of health care and the introduction of a two-tiered system of health care in British Columbia.

That's what the amendment says. I want to put on record that I support this amendment. I'm sorry that I have to get up to support this amendment. The reason I have to support this amendment is because two previous attempts to amend the second reading motion for this bill have failed. I might remind hon. members of this House what they were.

The first one was an attempt to refer the subject matter of the bill to a select standing committee of the House. That amendment was moved in very good spirit. In all honesty, it was moved as an attempt to improve this bill, because the bill has been brought forward in haste. The bill, which is some 40 pages, is a very important bill governing the whole medical profession in our province, and it has been brought in in a very hurried fashion. We know what haste makes. We know that this bill and our House deserve better, when we talk about our legislative powers and our law-making abilities.

We suggested that this bill be referred to a select standing committee of the House for further study by all members of this House, and for input from the general public as well as from the physicians of this province. Perhaps when we come back for a fall sitting of this Legislature, we could deal with this bill and with amendments to the bill in a rational manner, in a manner that reflects wise decision-making rather than the hasty manner in which this bill has come to the House.

The throne speech that commenced this new first session of this new parliament suggested that the government was in favour of sending important matters to select standing committees of this House. In this whole session we've dealt with no topic more important than the matter contained in Bill 71, the new Medical and Health Care Services Act. Yet the government defeated the amendment. It chose not to accept that amendment which was offered in goodwill, in the very best of intent. It defeated that amendment. We were forced to try another angle.

Having had that amendment defeated, we moved a second amendment to the motion. Our second amendment was a six-month hoist. What that amendment did was attempt to delay the second reading of this bill to six months from now. That was an attempt to allow time for study, to allow for exposure of this bill, to allow the public and physicians of the province to have some input so that the bill could be improved. It's simply an attempt to improve the bill. There might actually be some good in this bill, but there are significant things that are overlooked.

Again, that amendment was defeated by the government voting against it.

We had no other opportunity to debate this bill further but to move a reasoned amendment -- a third amendment, which I just read into the record. This amendment, moved by the member for Chilliwack, highlights three of the main objections that we have to this bill. That's why I must speak today, although I wish I didn't have to rise to speak in favour of this amendment. I must speak to this, because I believe that the amendment is really the only alternative.

The bill should not be read a second time now. It shouldn't be read now, for the reasons that we've highlighted and for the flaws that it contains. This morning we came back to the House after being home in our constituencies on the weekend. We came back to the House after a weekend at home in our ridings, where we had a chance to talk to real people in the real communities where we live. We got away from the debating and wrangling.

Interjection.

D. Mitchell: I'm not suggesting for a moment that the member for Burnaby North is not a real person, but we had a chance to talk to real constituents in our communities over the weekend. While we were there, the government was engaged in negotiations with the BCMA. What happened? We were all listening very closely to news reports over the course of the weekend to find out what would happen. We were hoping that there could be some breakthrough in these negotiations. We were hoping that the government was truly willing to listen and negotiate in a free spirit and to listen to the doctors this weekend.

We were hoping that we could come here today with the logjam broken, with an agreement in place that would allow amendments to take place to the bill, or for the process of approving this bill so that we can get on with the people's business and adjourn for the summer.

What happened this morning? The hon. Minister of Health came to this House and delivered a ministerial statement. We were very disappointed -- in fact, we were dejected -- to learn that not only did the negotiations not go well, but from her report to this House this morning, it sounded like there was never any intention for those negotiations to go well. In fact, it sounded very much like the constitutional negotiations at Meech Lake a few years ago, where there were last-minute

[ Page 3212 ]

negotiations with guns held to the heads of all the parties saying that there must be a deal. Of course, there couldn't be a deal, because there was no room whatsoever for compromise or consensus. We were disappointed to hear what the Minister of Health had to say today and with the tone of what she had to say.

Hon. Speaker, if there is room for conciliation, consensus and cooperation among all participating parties in this dispute, then the ministerial statement of the Minister of Health this morning did not reflect that. It reflected a further continuation of the adversarial approach that this government has taken from day one with this bill. The government has taken an adversarial approach when the people of the province have said they reject confrontation.

If there's one lesson that we've learned from the election of last fall -- from October 17 -- it is that the people of British Columbia want an end to the confrontation, bitterness and polarization that has characterized public life in our province for far too long. That's what the people have told us.

Does the government opposite understand that? No, and I'll tell you why. They bring in a bill that sets up an adversarial approach in our health care system; that pits physicians against patients, the government and other stakeholders. It doesn't bring the parties together in the way that they must so that we can truly have a consensus-based approach to the problems in health care in our province. It doesn't do that. Instead, it furthers the old process of adversary against adversary and confrontation; it's wrong.

The government opposite criticized the previous government for the approach that they took to health care. At this point I would almost be willing to say: "Let's bring back the previous administration and their approach." At least they were willing to negotiate with physicians. This government has rejected open negotiations in any way. They simply said that they know what's best for the province, and they will tell us. They've told us in this bill. Bill 71 tells us that this government knows what's best.

They don't have to listen to physicians; they don't have to listen to the opposition; they don't have to listen to the public. They know what's best. They have a monopoly on knowledge, and they're going to run the health care system the way they see fit.

It's a shame that they've had to go this way, and it's a shame that it has come to this in this province. We have to ask a question about who is in charge. Is the hon. Minister of Health really driving this process, or is it, as has been said so often, the Minister of Finance? We know that most of the crucial issues surrounding public health and our health care system are really financial issues. We know that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health both went back east recently to a meeting of their provincial counterparts from across Canada to discuss some of these crucial issues.

We were hoping that they would come back in tandem with an approach that was more conciliatory and say: "We're going to consult with the people, the physicians and others who provide a leadership role in our health care system in the province." But what did they do? They came back and basically said: "It's our way or the highway." They came back with an approach that, if anything, was much more entrenched than anything they left with.

The leadership that we've sought from the Minister of Health and, more particularly, from the Minister of Finance -- because we know that this is driven by financial implications -- isn't there. The leadership of our doctors in our health care system is not being allowed to have a voice either, because the government opposite will not hear that voice. Where is the leadership? Who is in charge?

This government cannot manage. They can't manage with an adversarial approach. They can't manage with a bill that doesn't clearly indicate who is in charge and who is operating here. The Minister of Health, who chooses not to be in the House during the debate on her bill -- and that's unfortunate -- will have to address some of these concerns in her closing statements. I hope that she's watching; I hope that she's listening; I hope that she's taking notes.

M. Farnworth: Point of order. Earlier today there was a point of order made that it was objectionable to refer to a member's presence or absence from the House. You ruled at that time that that was indeed a valid point of order. Again we are seeing the same thing. I would ask you to make the same ruling.

The Speaker: Yes, I would remind the hon. member who has the floor of that ruling this morning.

[2:45]

D. Mitchell: In a ministerial statement this morning the Minister of Health, as I said earlier, was taking a very adversarial approach. She implied, and she said outside the House after she left, that the doctors' only concern was money. She was attacking the physicians. In other words, she was continuing an attack that is most unconstructive at this point. When she was asked what the BCMA and the physicians wanted, she said: "They want only one thing -- money."

I ask you to think about your physicians so that you might consult them in your private life. Is that what motivates our doctors in this province? Is it only pure, naked greed, as the Minister of Health suggested, that is motivating the physicians of our province? Surely not, hon. Speaker. That's a shameful remark to make, and it's untrue. We know that among the physicians in our province are many caring people who have put years of their lives into training for service to British Columbians. They want to be consulted. That's the only thing they've asked for. They've only asked for what's reasonable.

They want to be consulted so that they too can play a role in addressing the challenges in our health care system.

We know those challenges are formidable. Probably the single largest issue in public administration in Canada today is coming to terms with the challenges and the costs of managing our universal medicare system. We know that, and we want to play a role as an opposition in helping the government to that end so that we can guarantee that every British Columbian has access on the same basis, on a level playing-field, to the best-quality health care that can be available to them.

[ Page 3213 ]

We want to achieve that. I think that's what the doctors are asking for as well. They want to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Unfortunately Bill 71 is punitive toward the physicians who should be taking that leadership role, and that's one of the major reasons that we can't support it.

There are a number of reasons why we can't support this bill, but one of the very dangerous things we're witnessing and hearing about right now is the possibility of strikes. We're hearing about doctors withdrawing their services. We've heard that in Prince George, northern British Columbia and Quesnel doctors are going to be staging a walkout on Thursday of this week. That is something that we, as members of the official opposition, do not condone. We can never support that, but we are sympathetic to the level of frustration those doctors are experiencing right now.

We have to be sympathetic to the high degree of frustration they are experiencing because their voices cannot be heard. The government is intransigent. They enter into phony negotiations that are never meant to achieve any end, and they blame it all on the physicians. So we are sympathetic. We have empathy for those doctors who are withdrawing their services, but that's what it has come to in our province.

It's come to the point where health care professionals -- the very best and brightest minds in our province who are operating our health care system today -- are being forced to express their frustration by withdrawing their services. It's a tragedy that it has come to that.

Last week in debate on this bill, on a previous amendment, I talked about the brain drain, and the fact that this bill is going to accelerate the move out of the province of some of our very best specialists. They simply don't want to practise here under the circumstances contained in this legislation, which they have had no chance to give any input to. That's a tragedy if it's going to accelerate the brain drain of some of the best specialists and some of the best medical minds in our province. They're leaving the province as a result of this bill. I think we all have to acknowledge, to be fair, that the bill must be wrong-headed.

I made some statements last week in the debate with respect to the hon. Minister of Advanced Education. I'd like to clarify that now, because the member for Burnaby North drew to my attention that perhaps the hon. Minister of Advanced Education did not say what I attributed to him. My

interpretation of what the Minister of Advanced Education said last week was that he was effectively saying "good riddance" to those doctors who would choose to leave the province rather than to practise here. That was my

interpretation of what the Minister of Advanced Education said. The member for Burnaby North drew to my attention afterward that I might have misinterpreted the minister. I've gone back and checked the records since then, and I can tell you the Minister of Advanced Education's comments certainly are open to interpretion. But if in fact I have misinterpreted his comments, I withdraw those comments now. I'd like to put that on the record right now. I would withdraw those comments if I have offended the Minister of Advanced Education in any way. But the point I was trying to make is an important one.

I would like to reiterate that. If this bill is going to accelerate the movement of some of the very best specialists in the health care field from our province to south of the border or wherever it might be, then that is evidence that this bill is wrong. We already have evidence through some of the letters that have been cited in this debate and through some of the other news reports in the media that it's already happening. It's happening on the North Shore at Lion's Gate Hospital, where we know that two experienced neurosurgeons have left the province to go practise elsewhere, and that's caused some problems. We know that's true, hon. Speaker, and that's a tragedy.

The government in our province sadly -- and this is my opinion -- with this bill is destroying medicare as we know it. I think that's ironic when you think about the traditions of the New Democratic Party, the genesis of health care in Canada and medicare in particular and Tommy Douglas in Saskatchewa leading in the vanguard for a national medicare system. Yet here we are in 1992 where an NDP government in British Columbia is actually leading the charge to destroy medicare in this province.

I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that is going to be one of the effects of this bill, because it's going to bring in a two-tiered health care system. That's one of the issues that's addressed in this amendment. The capping and proration of fees is going to lead to a two-tiered system of health. It's going to lead to a rationing of health care that's going to put doctors in our province in a very difficult situation.

It's a situation that really presents a moral dilemma for practising physicians who have been trained to serve their patients and to never deny the best quality medical care that they are able to afford and provide to patients who want it. Yet through this government's legislation, doctors are now being forced into deciding whether or not a patient will receive the health care that a proper medical diagnosis suggests they should receive.

Last week I read into the record a letter from Dr.Tony Chan, a practising physician on the North Shore, in which he wrote about the difficult and agonizing choice that he had to make about not performing bypass surgery on one of his patients. That is the kind of terrible dilemma that we are forcing our physicians into with this health care legislation. It's something that doctors haven't been trained to do; in fact, it's a violation of the Hippocratic oath that they take when they enter the profession. That's another reason why we cannot support this bill, and that's why the amendment standing in the name of the member for Chilliwack, unfortunately, must be supported.

It's important to recognize that in opposing this bill, the official opposition is supporting the public interest. The government opposite tried to suggest that we're simply supporting physicians or trying to defend one interest group, the B.C. Medical Association. Nothing could be further from the truth. In opposing this bill and deciding to vote against it and to vote in favour of this amendment, we are suggesting that it is not in the public interest for the government to proceed in this

[ Page 3214 ]

ham-handed manner without proper consultation with those who will be most affected. That's why we're supporting the amendment, and that's why we can't support the bill. We want to have fair and open negotiations.

We have not yet had one convincing argument from the government opposite as to why the bill must go through now. Why couldn't it wait until the fall or the spring in order to provide full exposure to the public of British Columbia? Why not provide the opportunity for the medical specialists, the physicians, the BCMA and other medical associations to have an opportunity to have full input into something as important as a legislative act, a statute of our province, that is going to affect every one of them? It's a reasonable request.

The government has not yet explained why it is important for this bill to pass before this House adjourns for the summer. That's why we're here in the first week of July to debate this legislation. We have other business that must take place. We have yet to pass the Health estimates, which represent about one-third of the provincial budget -- some $6 billion. We have a few other pieces of legislation that must be approved as well, which were introduced into the House as late as last week when the government was still introducing legislation.

So we have some other business that we could be conducting while this bill goes out to the public and interested parties to be studied over the summer and, if necessary, the fall, and then they could come back next spring. There's no hurry. If we want to have the very best Medical and Health Care Services Act that we can have, then there's no hurry and there's no reason why we can't delay it until then.

In her closing remarks on debate in second reading of this bill, the Minister of Health is going to have to address some of these comments, and she's going to have to address some of the valid concerns that have been raised. She's going to have to tell us why the negotiations broke down this weekend and, in fact, why she ever entered into them if she had no faith that they could be successful. We remember very well that right up until Friday of last week she was still complaining about the doctors and criticizing and castigating them, until she went into negotiations with them.

Then this morning, unfortunately, she continued to castigate them by calling them greedy and saying that they're in it only for the money. There hasn't been a genuine demonstration that this government is truly interested in consulting with doctors. There hasn't been a demonstration that the government is in anything other than in a hurry to get this bill through so they can have their summer holidays. I think that's shameful. For all those reasons, I must support the amendment that states very succinctly why this bill should not be supported and should not now be read a second time.

I'm sad that I have to rise in this House to do this today. I'm sad that it's come to this in British Columbia, where a newly elected government early in its mandate is trying to push through a bill in this manner. It's been referred to in the past as legislation by exhaustion. That's a term that many of us will recall from a generation previous. That's what we're witnessing. This government is simply determined to push this through at all costs, damn the torpedoes. They don't care what the opposition says. They don't care what the public says. They don't care what the physicians say.

They simply want this bill passed. I say that's wrong. It's a negative approach to what the public process should be. It's a negative, non-consultative approach which denies all the promises they made when they were in opposition, all of the promises made in the last election campaign and all the promises made in the throne speech which commenced this session. It's negative. It's what the people voted against. This government hasn't learned their lessons. They've gone back on all the promises made -- and only eight months in government. They've shown a degree of hypocrisy which is shameful.

For all those reasons, I cannot support the bill, and I must support this amendment.

H. Giesbrecht: I rise in this debate to oppose this hoist motion. I say that because it is, in fact, a hoist motion, albeit an indefinite hoist motion. The previous speaker presented the previous government as one that negotiated and consulted. That's utter nonsense, and he should know. He obviously hasn't spoken to any public sector workers in the past six years, perhaps even the past 16 years. We have had hours of debate. Almost all of the 17 members from the opposition have risen three different times on three different amendments for the customary or traditional half hour.

What we've heard is something that applies in terms of that old adage: that after all is said and done, more is said than done. Almost 99 percent of it has been said by the opposition. All that has been done has been by the representative of the doctors and the Ministry of Health.

There are good doctors in this province. They're dedicated and caring. I speak from personal experience that they're far better than the opposition gives them credit for. They certainly deserve better than they're getting from the opposition, which brands doctors as rationing medicare, as being in a position to kill medicare and talk about user fees and that sort of thing. They're much better than that. Indeed, the people of the province deserve much better than they're getting from the opposition on this bill.

The opposition's role -- and we've heard it time and time again -- is to debate, offer some alternatives, not delay simply for the sake of delay. There have been no constructive alternatives offered except to delay passage of this bill and do it by amendments. This amendment is no exception.

It would be appropriate during the committee stage of the bill to propose some well-thought-out amendments. Every constructive suggestion that's been made since this bill was introduced in the middle of this month has come from the representative of the doctors or the minister in the negotiations that have taken place. None have come from the opposition. I think that's an absolute shame. What they have engaged in is delay tactics. We've heard repetition beyond anything I could ever imagine in my first six months in this office. The argument doesn't improve with the repetition.

That's something they perhaps haven't understood. The more I listen to the half-baked rhetoric, the more I'm convinced that this bill deserves a chance.

[ Page 3215 ]

Many years ago when my children were still young, we used to spend part of the weekend watching the "Bugs Bunny-Road Runner Hour" on TV. I could never quite understand, with the repetition, what my children found so entertaining about that. After about a dozen years -- and I haven't watched an episode since -- I've developed a new appreciation for the repetition in the Bugs Bunny-Road Runner show because I've witnessed it here in the past three months consistently. The repetition doesn't improve the logic, nor does the volume.

I added that because the member for Richmond-Steveston entertained us this morning quite substantially in terms of the volume. The member for Richmond-Steveston also said that some of the amendments the minister has suggested in her ministerial statement this morning proved that they were, in fact, right after all.

[3:00]

I would like to read just for the record again, out of Hansard , that when the bill was introduced the minister said:

"Throughout the development of this legislation, government has sought the views of practitioners and consumers, received many helpful suggestions, and the bill has been improved as a result of them. Some of these discussions are still ongoing, and I say here again, as I have said in public before -- I recognize the time, hon. Speaker, and will be as quick as I can -- that we will be prepared to bring forward amendments at committee stage should we be able to reach agreement with the BCMA on the nature of those amendments."

That was on June 16. Again on June 22, just a short quote from Hansard : "My staff continues to be available to meet with the B.C. Medical Association to see whether we can agree on any further refinements to the legislation." That's ongoing, but from the opposition what we've gotten is an amendment which kind of includes a lot of politically self-serving rhetoric.

Let me deal with the first point. It suggests that it will compromise privacy. There is no control now in terms of privacy except in relying on a doctor's commitment to professional ethics. When I go to see a doctor, I have no way of knowing whether or not they talk about my case with anybody else, but I am confident that they don't do that. When I go to the lab for tests, I'm confident that the professionals there don't speak about my problem, if I have one, to anyone else. The only assurance we've got is that the professional doctor will treat confidence like a sacred trust.

I don't rely on the BCMA to defend my right to privacy. I rely on my family physician to do that, and I think we do a disservice by suggesting that Bill 71 will in any way compromise that. The audit that's been suggested in Bill 71 is for a specific purpose. That is accountability of costs, not to find out who's got what disease, not to be government inspectors as the opposition is fond of mentioning. It has nothing to do with government inspectors; it has everything to do with a professional doctor looking at accountability for health care dollars. So the fear tactic that's being engaged in is nothing more than self-serving political rhetoric.

The second point is that it will drive doctors out of the province. I would suggest that that was probably the same argument heard in Saskatchewan when medicare was introduced. No doubt some left, and there will perhaps be some so offended by Bill 71 that they might leave as well. I rather doubt it, but there may be the odd persons who have backed themselves into a corner and have no option but to leave. But it isn't a given. There won't be a mass exodus because of Bill 71.

People live in this country because it's one of the best places in the world to live. They live in B.C. because it's the best province in this country. Bill 71 is not going to change that. The option of going to the U.S. and practising medicine has a lot of other downsides. So to suggest that the doctors are going to engage in a mass exodus out of this province is not real. Again, it's a fear tactic promoted by the opposition, and it's politically self-serving.

The third point, of course, is the rationing of health care. I would guess that was probably the same argument that was heard in Saskatchewan prior to the introduction of medicare by Tommy Douglas. If a doctor decides that a patient does not require a particular treatment, that's not rationing; that is sensible medical service. You don't treat somebody who is not sick, and the doctors should be able to say that. To suggest that somehow they would ration health services is another insult on the professionalism of doctors.

Interjection.

H. Giesbrecht: The opposition has the audacity to suggest that Tommy Douglas would not have approved of Bill 71. I don't know what Tommy Douglas would have approved of. I do know that he knew he had to keep the province's finances in order; he did that before he introduced medicare. He probably would look at Bill 71 in terms of its accountability and be quite comfortable that we were doing whatever we could to preserve medicare. In order to afford the services and for the province to afford medicare, it's important that we get on with Bill 71.

I might add that if -- by whatever miracle the opposition is hoping for -- Bill 71 does not pass, they will be the first ones here complaining about why it cost another $60 million this year in MSP payments.

R. Neufeld: I rise to speak in favour of the amendment, against Bill 71 and on what I believe will happen to our health care system if Bill 71 goes through. It has been said quite a few times before that this government campaigned -- effectively, I might add -- on the fact that it would be open and honest, that it would consult with British Columbians before making any drastic changes to anything, including the labour laws of British Columbia. What is evident in the first session, within the first six months, is that that was a promise made to be broken.

It's obvious that when you fly a trial balloon, as the earlier bill did.... Now it has been incorporated into another one -- Bill 71. They introduced it on June 16 -- if my memory serves me correctly -- and here we are on June 29 debating second reading. The government wishes to put this bill through in a hurry; it's called jamming it through the Legislature. I find that totally unacceptable for British

Colum-

[ Page 3216 ]

bians, for myself and especially for my constituents. I stand here to represent those constituents in Peace River North and on the effect it will have on the health care of those people.

Bill 71 will incorporate changes in the health care system that will make it two-tiered. Unfortunately, it is unfair when we start making a two-tiered system of something which all British Columbians have always felt was their right -- to have complete access to medicare.

The people whom it hits hardest are those who live in the north. It doesn't matter whether it's health care or any other kind of service provided by government, such as services provided by Crown corporations; the people who get hit the hardest are the ones who live in the remote areas and, specifically, in the north -- and those are the people I represent. Constituents of mine have phoned me. They're worried about it, because they face greater costs than anyone down here does to avail themselves of health care services.

That's unfortunate, because as I said, this was a government that said it was going to consult with the people, consult with all those concerned -- the stakeholders, which is the favourite term to use. Obviously with Bill 71 this government has decided not to consult with all the stakeholders. They know best, because they elected 51 members. All of a sudden they became experts in the field. "We're going to do exactly what we want to do."

I'll just back that up with a few write-ups that I have here and a few notes about some of the members when they were in opposition and how they thought the then government should have handled some of these problems. In fact, one of the first ones is about the now Minister of Labour, who should be the one who really understands how you should consult with people, how to get a consensus or something close to a consensus. The hon.

Minister of Labour, when the past administration was having trouble negotiating with the medical profession a year ago, said: "The government should enter into fair negotiations with the physicians. If we were to form government we would take that type of approach to the bargaining table."

Well, when I speak in favour of the amendment to the motion and against Bill 71, I just wonder if that may be the reason the Minister of Labour has absented himself from the House so much lately. Because some of this is coming to light; it's coming to bite him in the heels, as you could say. He talks about consulting, about talking to the stakeholders, and then all of a sudden by magic -- an election, pardon me, and then magic -- he ends up on that side of the House with a totally different viewpoint. That's indicative of almost all members opposite who were here before on this side of the House. They all had those opinions.

The Minister of Advanced Education. This is a quote out of a newspaper. It says his name, but I'll use "the hon. Minister of Advanced Education." He said: "The only solution to dispute seems to be binding arbitration, on the condition that Couvelier vows to accept an arbitrator's award and the doctors realize the province is in a financial crunch." It's amazing, when you listen to that minister speaking here a number of days ago. That wasn't even in his vocabulary. He had totally forgotten about it. He was the critic for health care at that time, I believe. How could he so quickly forget some of the words of wisdom that he delivered just a year or so ago?

I'm going to read another one. This is a quote from the Minister of Advanced Education in the Hospital Employees' Union paper. It's a little lengthier, so I'm going to read part of it into the record. The title is: "Government is Out of Touch." Amazing, isn't it? That's exactly what the opposition is saying now to those members. It says:

"B.C.'s health care system is seriously ill. From unconscionable waiting-lists for heart, eye and hip surgery to mounting discontent by professionals and workers, the symptoms are unmistakable. Throughout B.C. I encounter the same problems time and time again: overworked, undervalued nurses" -- and physicians; it's amazing -- "physicians frustrated they can't offer their patients the highest standards of care; institutionalized cutbacks without improved support for community services; little people falling through the cracks."

We have to remember that this was the critic for Health -- who is now the Minister of Advanced Education -- speaking on behalf of his caucus at that time.

"My diagnosis: government is seriously out of touch with the problems in our health care system and the need for coordinated, long-term planning. My prescription: it's time for a change and fresh look."

I assume that he is talking about an election. We had the election, and now we're waiting for the fresh look. We haven't seen it yet.

"Health promotion and high-quality sickness care must be mainstays of health care policy. Here are a few health priorities."

This is interesting. It says:

"End the climate of confrontation between government and B.C.'s health professionals. A cooperative working relationship with doctors, nurses, pharmacists and all other health workers is essential."

Ramming through a bill that is going to totally change the health care system in British Columbia, and something that one part of the system is not happy with -- which happens to be the medical profession.... I don't think we're going to have a happy medical system if we have unhappy doctors. Continuing down this road that we're on now, we're going to have unhappy doctors. I think that it's showing where some areas are closing their facilities. The doctors are walking out. They're saying: "We can't do it."

[3:15]

I'll go back to the advertisement. It says:

"Ensure equal access to necessary health services throughout the province. Absurdly long waiting-lists for surgery must be eliminated. Northern British Columbians..."

I thank him for thinking about northern British Columbia at that time, but now that he's on that side of the House, he's forgotten that there's a northern B.C.

"...need better programs to ensure equity with city dwellers. Coordinated planning for community health service delivery. End moralistic interference in health care. Abortion must be treated as a health service. People with AIDS must be treated with compassion and dignity. The AIDS epidemic demands responsible and urgent action to save both lives and tax dollars. Deal

[ Page 3217 ]

with the preventable root causes of ill health. Poverty and violence against women and children often establish lifelong patterns of ill health. Without society's commitment to eradicate these scourges, much of our health promotion is nothing but talk.

"It's frustrating to meet many creative people in the health field who are increasingly discouraged about where we are headed or to read complaint letters from patients who can't get basic services for which they pay heavy taxes. I know we can do much better in B.C."

I thank the minister for those wise words. I would hope that now he would continue those wise words into the cabinet discussions along with his counterparts in how they're going to deliver health care in British Columbia. Part of it, as he also says -- as does the Minister of Labour -- is consulting with those affected. That just isn't the people who pay the taxes, but it is the doctors, the nurses and all those associated with delivering those services.

I've listened to another member of the back bench, who is a newly elected person in this Legislature like me. He spoke a year ago, in February 1991, about health care and what was happening in British Columbia at that time. I just want to take a few quick.... It's pretty lengthy, hon. Speaker, so I don't think you want me to read everything. I am not going to; I'm just going to read some of the items that stand out the most.

This is the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale: "We have to have doctors if we're going to have a health system. Ideally, we should have doctors and government minimizing what is inherently an adversarial relationship." That comes from a new member who was, over a year ago, talking about adversarial relationships between the former administration and the medical profession. He professes that to have a happy and good system, we need to have all the players and stakeholders maybe not agreeing on everything, but at least agreeing on most things so that they're happy.

I want to make sure you understand that he's not criticizing his own government; he's talking about the Social Credit government. He says: "I criticize the government a whole lot for not representing the public interest. I criticize the government even more for not being open and honest and truthful." My goodness, they had it back then. "I don't consider misleading statements and half-truths to be lies, but they come awful close, and it upsets me a whole lot." That's the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who has spoken in the House a number of times on what was happening with Bill 71 and why it was so good.

There are a few more quotes that I should read, so the people of British Columbia fully understand, when he gets up and supports Bill 71 fully and completely and that they have completed all those obligations that he talks about being open, honest and consultative -- that they haven't done that. The government has not done that, or they would have had some kind of an agreement by now. It's obvious after the last weekend that the talks broke down because there is no agreement. I'm not saying that the medical profession is totally right; I'm not saying that the government is totally right.

I'm not saying that any way at all. What I am saying is that the government has the responsibility, by being elected as a government, to work with that profession until they come up with an agreement that will work for both of them, not just one side or the other.

It seems to me that what this government wants to do.... I appreciate that they're faced with some costs; I know that the medical budget is the largest one. I know it represents one-third of the total budget. They still have to sit down, on behalf of the people of British Columbia, and collectively work out what's best for all British Columbians. What's best for all British Columbians is not what that enlightened group thinks their position is. It's somewhere in between; that's where we have to work toward. That is what has happened before. Every government has arguments with the doctors.

I was on a radio program in my home town the other day, and I had some medical professionals phone me and give me a hard time because they had difficulty in negotiating with the Social Credit at times. That's true; I think that always happens. But in the end, what was agreed to was collectively agreed to by both sides, not just one side, for what they believe is their driving force.

The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale also, in the notes I have.... I'll read one more paragraph:

"It's very important that people understand that this is not an exercise in doctor-bashing. If there had been an NDP government and we had been deadlocked in these negotiations, we would have looked. And the president of the B.C. Medical Association, Dr. Frye, said that she'd been calling for months for binding arbitration. Before we had given away the shop on cost control on computers or a sweetheart deal on pensions, we would have said:

'Yes, Dr. Frye. Let's submit our differences to arbitration'."

There comes a time when this government has to start living up to some of the promises it made in the past in dealing with the medical profession and dealing with all parts of British Columbia, because, my goodness, this is just the start of it. I think earlier today in the House it was mentioned that there's been more labour unrest in British Columbia in the last eight months than there was in the last six years. I submit that that's probably true; but it shouldn't be. Really, if this government is representing what they say they represent....

But obviously they've let some feelings out that there are going to be some people who are going to receive a whole lot more than others, and for some reason the medical profession is catching it in the neck right about now.

We're talking about a bill that's going to totally change the way health care is delivered in the province. We talk about the amendment to the motion, the powers of the audit and inspection -- for the government to be able to appoint someone to come in and look at confidential files. That is the fear of a lot of people, because they don't want just anybody looking at their files. They don't mind telling their doctor their special little secrets, but they don't want somebody in the government or a collective group saying that somebody else can now come in and look, take those records from the office and decide whether this doctor is billing the system rightly or wrongly.

That is a big budget: $6 billion. That is an awful lot of money. I submit to you that we cannot begin to attack

[ Page 3218 ]

the increase on our health care that each and every one of us holds so dearly.... We cannot totally control the costs of the health care budget by just looking at a number of the top professionals. If we're going to seriously look at the cost of health care in the province today, tomorrow, in the next ten years and in the future, we have to somehow devise how we're going to do that, and that's not by just limiting a few doctors on what they make.

That isn't going to work. That's just like going to the construction union and taking out the painters and saying: "Well, I guess you guys are the highest-paid part of this construction industry. We're just going to cap your salaries and you're going to have to live on less than everybody else for the next four or five years, whether you like it or not, and that's tough." That doesn't work. Of course you're going to have turmoil, and that's why they have turmoil now.

This is a bill that will put a cap on doctors' fees, and doctors are going to have to decide while they're talking to their patients what services they're going to deliver -- whether they can afford to deliver them or not. If they don't make that decision, they'll continue on the way they are, and in about nine months' time they'll all be in Florida -- other than the ones who will stay here and work for nothing. Then where will we be?

Systems were worked out before. When you reached a certain amount of money in the health care budget, the doctors took a percentage cutback and the government paid more. That system worked. Why can't we continue with something in that vein? Changing the health care system the way this government is wanting to do is certainly not going to be beneficial to all British Columbians and especially not to those constituents I represent from the northernmost part of the province.

I often go back to the Seaton report, because I think it was well documented and took a lot of time to develop. That report said that all we had to do was change how we delivered health care to British Columbians, and we could almost live within the budget that we have. Well, we've added $400 million to it, we're going to hire 700 more health care workers, and we're going to cut the doctors' salaries. It's certainly not the way the Seaton commission talked about delivering health care in British Columbia. I know that's a pretty simplistic way of saying it, but it is almost bang on what the Seaton report said.

You can live within the $5.6 billion or $5.7 billion that you had before; it's just a matter of how you spend that money. Obviously this government wants to up the employment statistics for British Columbia by hiring 1,500 more full-time employees collectively through the whole system, or 700 into health care -- and advertise all across Canada. A tremendous amount of money was spent in advertising. I think we could have kept that money at home and maybe kept our own people busy.

The hon. member over here asked how much, and I would venture to say it was about $9,000 a page in the Montreal Gazette. I don't imagine he would know that unless he read back a bit in the Blues. I think the budget was around $100,000 in advertising, if I remember correctly, but I'm doing that off the top of my head.

[3:30]

I spoke before on Bill 71, and I now speak again in favour of the amendment to the motion on Bill 71. I think that with this bill, if it really is all the government says it is, and each and every part of it is needed, there should be no fear from this government to wait until the Legislature is called again next fall, as we seem to be told it's going to be, so that people -- British Columbians, physicians, people within the medical system -- have until that time to go into the bill, discuss it and feel confident about it.

The people of British Columbia right now don't feel confident about our health care system -- especially our seniors. Those are the people who are most affected. They don't feel comfortable. It's not each and every one of them, but the ones who are watching and listening who don't feel comfortable with what's happening.

I guess the fears that are coming back to them.... They saw the Premier of the day, during a televised debate, hold up an American Express card and a CareCard and criticize the then government for doing something to our medical care system. Well, it looks like we're going to make a two-tiered system in British Columbia now with that government -- and that person is now Premier; he isn't the Leader of the Opposition.

I just wonder if there wasn't an underlying message from the Premier when he held up those two cards, knowing full well that this was some of the plan that they were going to bring in -- Bill 71 -- to change the health care system where some may get it and some may not. Maybe he knew; maybe he had the premonition that there was going to be a drastic change. Obviously he would, because he was a member of the opposition for long enough to know that they had something in mind as to what they were going to do with medicare and how they were going to handle the costs in the medical system in British Columbia.

So there he is, large as life, holding up an American Express card and a CareCard, and it's slowly coming to pass that we may have a two-tiered system delivered by that person.

That is why people in British Columbia are concerned, and that is why I've said that if it's good legislation it will stand the test of time. If it's fine legislation and it's what's needed in British Columbia at this time, people will accept it. They will go along with it. There is no problem. But they will have a hard time going along with it when you try to push it through the House in a hurry.

There are a lot of people who don't understand this system or how it works -- when governments decide they want to push something through in a hurry, what they're trying to do, that there's some underlying reason someplace. It's not leadership that does this; it's the lack of leadership. It's the lack of leadership and the lack of confidence in your own legislation, that it will not stand the test of time, and you try to jam it through the House in a hurry by exhaustion. That's what this type of leadership is doing to the province of British Columbia.

I want to talk a little bit about doctors' salaries -- what they make. Again, I'm going not by what's been delivered to me by the Medical Association but by what I have researched and found. I'm going to read this part

[ Page 3219 ]

of it. B.C. physicians earn $91,315 a year. This is a Revenue Canada figure. Physicians average a work week of 56 hours, or 243 hours a calendar month -- Price Waterhouse study.

As much as we went through this House on different financial institutions and what not, deciding what was right and proper in the province of British Columbia.... I would think that that's probably the average salary for the average physician in the province. Let's round it out to $92,000; that's easy to remember. Now to someone making a salary of $35,000 or $40,000 a year, that's a tremendously big salary. But I know how much time doctors in the north put in and how much they're on call, because we're always short of doctors.

When you think that we pay high-school principals in excess of $80,000 a year for nine months' work, deputy ministers about $104,000, school superintendents in excess of $100,000, city administrators from $80,000 to over $100,000 a year.... The IRC commissioner makes $115,000 a year; the director of patronage makes $73,000 a year; the Crown corporations secretary makes $108,000; and the Energy Council chairman makes $100,000. I would add that most of those are also backed up with pensions that are contributed to by the public purse in a far greater amount than what the doctors' are.

We have doctors, those we depend on mostly for our health care system, making an average of $92,000 a year. I think we should be a little bit concerned. Just recently the Minister of Finance took the freeze off those who make over $79,000 a year in the public service. Yet we're attacking one

section of the medical profession, the doctors, who are not unionized. Maybe that's the problem, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: I regret, hon. member, your time has expired.

H. De Jong: Hon. Speaker, I just wish to speak very briefly on this amendment. [Applause.]

An Hon. Member: Be nice.

H. De Jong: Well, I'm usually not lengthy, so I guess they know this by now.

I've said before that I think that negotiation through legislation is not the way to go. Certainly the passage of this bill is intended to do just that. I don't think the public, the medical profession or the government are well served by it. I think it behooves the government to take a second look as to what is really going on in the communities. I'm not putting all the blame on the government, nor am I putting all the blame on the doctors.

I'll just give you an example of what I was called about just half an hour ago by one of my constituents. His mother, who is in the upper seventies, attended an eye specialist. Apparently she needed a cataract job on one eye and a laser job on the other. But before she could get this type of service, she was told by the specialist that they would have to pay $50 rent for the laser machine to be used for the eye that needed the laser job. We can call it what we want, but it really becomes a user fee.

If, in fact, the intent of this bill is to cut out those specifics, and if the people who are providing the service have an understanding of the limitations that are presented with Bill 71, then it's no wonder that the opposition is opposed to what is being presented in Bill 71, and rightfully so. This debate should continue, because I believe that if the general public can no longer trust the medical system that they have enjoyed and were entitled to for so long, and that is now being eroded -- or tends to be eroded -- by Bill 71, then surely the government should take another look at it.

The bill, as I said earlier, is being used as a bargaining tool. It's not right, has never been right and never will be right to use legislation for the purpose of bargaining. So I again want to urge the government, particularly the Minister of Health, to give this bill careful consideration and, as the amendment says, postpone it for some time so that these issues can be properly looked at, discussed and understood by all parties. I think, if I sense the complaint I had from that one particular citizen, that neither one of them understands what Bill 71 is intending to do. Therefore I think the amendment is appropriate, sensible and should be acted upon.

L. Reid: I rise this afternoon as the official opposition Health critic because there is a principle at stake here. Second reading is debate in principle, and the principle of universal health care is what must be protected this afternoon. Allow me to consider the words of Dr. Ling. He writes: "Health care is the single most important concern for British Columbians.

Legislation affecting health care needs to be carefully considered, and ample opportunity for debate and discussions must be provided." In his view, the government of British Columbia is acting too hastily in trying to ram Bill 71 through this Legislature. This individual is from the area of Kitimat. They are hoping that this bill is withdrawn.

There must be meaningful discussion with all health care providers before drastic changes are introduced, or we risk the demise of what has been an excellent health care system. The people of British Columbia deserve good legislation, debated for as long as it takes to arrive at a plan that will serve British Columbians well for years to come. This individual feels very strongly about that.

In my view, Bill 71 is bad news for the health care system and for health care consumers. Who are these health care consumers we continually refer to? They're taxpayers. They're the people who create the system. They're the folks who fund health care delivery in British Columbia -- each and every single taxpayer in this province -- the individuals who carry around the British Columbia CareCard that my colleague referred to. This is the very same card that the current Premier, prior to the last election, had the audacity to wave around at British Columbians, suggesting somehow that he had the answer to resolving health care and delivering universal health care in this province.

I would suggest that at one point in the life of this current New Democratic administration we will see the wording on that particular health care card changed. It

[ Page 3220 ]

will say, in addition to the card being the property of the province of British Columbia and that it is to be presented when using all provincial health care programs, including the Medical Services Plan: "Please note that the care provided to you within the province of British Columbia is now limited."

This bill is about rationing health care. Our health care system needs a commonsense approach. No one will win if this government continues to be entrenched in their narrow focus. Some months back I had the opportunity to write an open letter to the Minister of Health in the province of British Columbia. My closing paragraph was: "We do nothing if we pit one aspect of the health care system against any other. The education system in our province did not benefit from teacher-bashing. The medical community will not benefit from doctor-bashing."

[3:45]

This issue is bigger than the income we provide to physicians in this province. I think the Minister of Health would have us believe that it is a narrow, tidy little issue in terms of how many dollars are available for health care delivery. It's not that simple. This is a much larger issue. This is how we deliver health care in the province. We're looking for creative solutions and a recognition from this government that the costs of health care are shared costs. It is not appropriate to suggest that any one group must bear the entire cost of delivering quality health care within British Columbia.

Restructuring health care requires a certain maturity, and I certainly do not believe this current government has demonstrated any particular level of maturity as it relates to the delivery of health care in British Columbia.

This morning in her ministerial statement, the Minister of Health somehow suggested that she had resolved the conflict as it pertained to the Professional Association of Residents and Internes of British Columbia. I have a letter dated today's date.... They believe the hon. minister misled this House, the government and the province's taxpayers:

"...the minister assured us of her support for our contention that we should not be treated in a discriminatory fashion and agreed to seek an appropriate amendment to the act which would address our concerns."

Again, this is coming from the Professional Association of Residents and Internes of British Columbia -- practising physicians, not students.

"Unfortunately, the proposed amendment suggests that differential treatment would not be permitted on the basis only of

'age or gender.' Needless to say, this does not address our problem at all. Frankly, I am astounded that if the intent of this legislation is not to discriminate against doctors entering or in the early years of practice, it is so difficult to provide an amendment explicitly excluding them from such treatment."

David Forrest, president of the Professional Association of Residents and Internes of British Columbia, writing as of today's date to suggest that when the Minister of Health in her ministerial statement at 10 a.m. today somehow suggested: "No, they don't have concerns. I have taken care of that. Be reassured that that particular group will not be discriminated against in this piece of legislation...." That is abundantly untrue, and is an issue that needs to be put to rest today.

Also this morning the minister tried to separate the future of medicare from this issue. This issue is the future of medicare. This is the issue facing the province at this time. We have the term "blame" continually tossed out there. Why is that considered any response at all to a very complex problem? Restructuring health care is a huge challenge. Realistically it will not be done in any given budget year. In fact, it should not be pursued in concert with the discussion of physicians' salaries. They are separate and distinct issues.

Again, if I might give the example of education: you do not see the education ministry in this province going forward at any time with the restructuring. Let's use the Year 2000 document as an example of how we deliver educational programs to our young people. We don't see reasonable Ministers of Education tying that discussion to how we negotiate salaries with our teachers. Those are separate and distinct entities, and they must be continued as that.

To put them together only clouds the issue in the eyes of the public, only muddies the issue in the eyes of the public and, I believe, misleads the public as we go down this road.

The minister, in her ministerial statement this morning, suggested that the physicians in British Columbia had called for a slush fund. The fact is, this Minister of Health has a slush fund. It's called the health special account. Opposition members on this side of the House suggested strongly.... Brenda Parkes, the young woman from Nanaimo with the petition that carried 72,000 signatures, said that any dollars, especially those flowing from 50 percent of lottery proceeds in this province, be directed to urgent health care priorities.

What we now have before us in a health special account -- slush fund, if you will -- is the general expenditure of dollars anywhere from education to consultation. No, I do not accept the notion that the physicians were advocating for a slush fund, but I would suggest that the minister is intimately aware of how slush funds operate.

The minister also suggested this morning that you somehow do not require two visits to a physician to have a Pap smear done in this province. What, both the physician and the patient wait 48 hours in the office to preclude having two separate visits? It takes a minimum of 48 hours to have that test carried out appropriately. That's standard practice, and I do not believe that the Minister of Health, who is not a physician by training, can deem that to be inappropriate.

I am speaking very strongly in support of this amendment for all the reasons that I have stated. The restructuring of health care in the province requires more than ten days of debate. Debate in second reading is on the principle. In our view and in the view of many British Columbians, all of whom are taxpayers, we are looking at a bill that has the potential to seriously compromise every citizen's right to privacy. That is a huge issue. When I look at the government side of this House, do I feel reassured when they say that it's not a problem? No, I'm not feeling reassured by that "trust me" stance, because they have done nothing, in my

[ Page 3221 ]

view, to earn the trust of this official opposition or of British Columbians at large, who are taxpayers.

This bill will drive doctors from the province. I think that is a given. You will find serious professional people -- not just doctors -- leaving when it becomes common and accepted practice to insult them at the outset of negotiations and at the outset of an understanding; and in this case, to have insulted and tarred an entire profession during the introduction of previous legislation in this House. We had Bill 13 and Bill 14, and we now have Bill 71. Each and every piece of legislation that I have now mentioned did nothing but decry an entire profession by suggesting that they weren't honest, hardworking people.

The Minister of Health suggests that she was misquoted in today's paper when she suggested that doctors were overpaid and underproducing individuals in our society. If you are truly committed to believing that all those professions have something to offer, you don't make inflammatory comments like that and then retract them. It won't do at the end of the day. We have the official retraction, but that does not go any distance to repair the damage that has been done to serious professionals in this province who, in my view, do not deserve to be treated badly.

I would not suggest that the mission of any administration is to treat any group or individual taxpayer badly. But I can tell you that many groups in this province feel that this administration has treated them badly, and that is certainly not isolated to physicians. Unfortunately, it just happens to be their turn. But who is next in this government's whitewashing of the true facts and their sense that they are saving the common person? That's absolute rubbish, in my regard, and it's rubbish that will not continue to be perpetuated in the minds of the public.

With Bill 71 we will certainly be looking at a rationing of health care. That is the logical consequence of limiting the number of dollars that you will pay for health care in the province. When they run out of dollars, the government and the minister have suggested that further health care will not be available. That is rationing; that is an elimination of a service. It is not appropriate to continue to whitewash that as somehow being in the public's best interest.

I'm not convinced that the average British Columbian taxpayer -- the patient -- would ever believe that this government was acting in their best interests if they were not able to acquire the service they so desperately need in an emergency situation. They will not thank this government for doing them any favours.

Another issue I would take forward at this time is the timing of this particular piece of legislation as it fits into the overall legislative package of this NDP administration. In my view, the biggest issue before us today that must be addressed -- I understand by midnight tomorrow -- is Health estimates. We have $6 billion that somehow we're not prepared to look at with every single legislator present in this House. We're talking $6 billion for a health care system. Health estimates were called on June 22. They had planned to be finished by June 25, if you believe the rhetoric -- four days, $6 billion.

The same comment must be ascribed to Bill 71 -- tremendous upheaval and restructuring of the system in a little over ten days. I cannot accept that as being a reasonable approach, and I can tell you that my constituents are looking for reasonable government. They are looking for a reasonable approach in this province. The fact that we have not handled Health estimates carefully is one more example of this government's inability to manage its legislative program. Reasonable legislators do not, I believe, bring forward a budget item of some $6 billion days before the House is supposed to rise.

It makes limited sense and only lends credibility to the fact that the NDP administration in this House is simply not prepared to govern, in my view.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

My constituents, the taxpayers in this province, are looking for and deserve reasonable government. I can tell you that I have many pieces of correspondence, mostly from taxpayers in this province, folks who believe that they have every right to expect reasonable health care from their practitioners and have a reasonable system in place from their government. I also have a number of physicians who have come forward who are, as well, taxpayers within this province. One individual from Squamish, Dr. Quiring, suggests that:

"Last year after office expenses my income was $65,000. I spend more than 50 hours a week directly related to my job, and this gives me an hourly income of $25 an hour. After this I paid $21,000 in federal and provincial income tax. A nurse gets $24 an hour plus at least a dozen benefits, which brings her employer's costs to over $35 an hour."

We are somehow suggesting that our physicians can work for a whole lot less, and we're somehow suggesting that that's a saleable item that we can somehow sell to the public. I can't sell that to my public. I can't sell that to my constituents.

This individual continues: "A certain amount of common sense is all that is needed to reduce some of the costs of health care." I would certainly concur. This official, Liberal opposition in British Columbia has put forward many reasonable, reasoned arguments as to why this particular government need not go forward at this time. Our first amendment spoke to that. Our second amendment spoke to that. An unprecedented third amendment has spoken to that. People expect decent consideration from their legislators.

We have a Dr. Thompson from St. Paul's Hospital who believes "that Bill 71 is unnecessary, unjust and likely to be harmful to the health care...system in British Columbia." That is the issue that we are speaking to in our third amendment, the very same amendment that suggests that we take time to look at how important all of these issues are and how important they are to the delivery of health care in this province.

Again, we have an individual from Victoria, Dr. McCaw: "The physicians of Victoria support the principles of medicare as defined by the Canada Health Act. We have worked hard to make a success of it and are concerned that the proposed legislation will lead to a system which will be unacceptable" to the public at

[ Page 3222 ]

large. Hon. Speaker, that is the commitment that needs to be recognized and acknowledged. At the end of the day, universal medical care -- our health care system in the province of British Columbia -- belongs to the people it serves. We have to recognize that. I'm not convinced that this government has recognized that.

[4:00]

Health care will be rationed in the province of British Columbia because, simply, the Minister of Health doesn't have any better ideas. The rationing of health care must be laid squarely in the lap of this Minister of Health. The demise of medicare must be laid squarely in the laps of all government members. These issues are too important and too costly to the future health of British Columbians to sugggest that once we get through this, we will somehow magically have a better health care system.

Bill 71 is 41 pages long. It was introduced at the end of the legislative session, when we can't give it reasonable time, and when this government is unwilling to take it to the people for scrutiny. My point is that this legislation must be satisfactory to the people it was designed to serve: the patients and the taxpayers in this province. This government is not allowing for that. Somehow this government has decided what is best for taxpayers in this province. I can't support that. Quite honestly, we have a number of individuals who can't support that, such as Dr. Wray this morning.

"This bill is particularly sad when you consider that physicians' billings have decreased as a portion of the total health care budget since 1986. We have been doing our job at cutting back health care costs; no one else has." This individual is absolutely right. Physician billings in this province have either stayed constant or have decreased. It is not appropriate to lay at the doors of the physicians that they're somehow responsible for the costs of health care.

Hon. Speaker, we're looking at $1.27 billion of a $6 billion budget. We need to be prepared to be reasonable and to look at the entire $6 billion package. Hopefully we would never ever again believe that it's appropriate to bash any one aspect of the health care delivery system that we as taxpayers in this province enjoy. That is the issue we have before us today, and somehow the members of this government have justified the position they have taken. I find their position unacceptable.

Dr. Wray continues: "When this government was running for election, the Minister of Health promised the physicians of this province fair access to negotiation." I would submit that upwards of thousands and thousands of letters have come forward, not just to members of the official opposition, but to every single MLA in the province of British Columbia, because their constituent base believes that the person they elected in their constituency is their representative. I can attest to the fact that it is not just the Liberal opposition who have received correspondence.

I would go so far as to say that I can prove it. So many letters I have been copied were addressed to the Minister of Health, the Minister of Finance and to many members of the government.

These are not issues that we have somehow uncovered; these are issues that need to be brought forward and that need to have the true light of day shone upon them. Again, Dr. Wray says: "One has to ask how far this government will go with its lack of concern for health care in this province."

When I opened my remarks this afternoon, I said that the issue was the future of medical care in this province. That is what physicians are speaking to; that is what taxpayers are speaking to. When they go into their doctor's office, they want their CareCard to mean something. They want it to stand for something. They want to be able to believe what it says on the back -- that they will be eligible for the services they've always been able to receive.

This legislation doesn't allow for that. In fact, this legislation rations where we're going in this province. One of the comments this individual makes is: "The government says there are too many doctors, and yet my patients still have to wait months to see a specialist or consider going across the border to get urgent health care concerns addressed." We're not doing ourselves any favours, and we're certainly not doing our constituents any favours, if we somehow suggest that capping salaries is going to address the concerns about where, and in what time-frame, they receive their health care.

That is a problem today, prior to Bill 71. Putting Bill 71 on the table is only going to compound that problem; it is not going to resolve it. Again, my view continues to be that this bill will restructure health care. As it stands, it's not going to restructure health care in a positive way. It's unwieldy. It doesn't make a great deal of sense. It doesn't have the support of other care groups, other providers in this province.

In my opinion, this government had a glorious opportunity to be forward-thinking. They had an opportunity to resolve some really serious issues. They had an opportunity to come forward and say: this is what we want our health care system to look like in six months, in a year, in five years' time, in ten years' time. We're working towards something very critical here: the next decade in the delivery in health care. It doesn't just apply to British Columbia. It applies to every single province in this country and probably to every country in the world. The next ten years are going to be critical, because they will decide how we go forward in the delivery of health care.

What the official opposition has asked for is time to look at this bill. The public has asked us for that opportunity. That is a reasonable request. It's a significant request. It's a request that allows for reasoned debate. It's a request that allows for public education. Certainly the Minister of Health spoke of that this morning -- that we will magically have programs in place that will educate the public. All of a sudden they will know how their utilization of the system incurs costs.

I can appreciate the intent of that, but I can assure you that no change of that magnitude is going to happen in this budget year or in the next budget year. That is a five-to ten-year educational cycle, a process that this government has not bought into.

Somehow Bill 71 is being tossed out as the placebo, the answer. Somehow it's going to magically take away the rough edges and make the rationing of health care more palatable to British Columbians. No, it isn't. It

[ Page 3223 ]

simply removes the scrutiny of the immediate issue, which is rationing of health care, and whether or not we as British Columbians want to continue to have universal access to medical care in this province.

I would submit to you that we do, and I would submit to you that the official opposition in this province is well and truly behind practitioners who have said: "We are prepared to look at treatment protocols. We are prepared to put together guidelines of practice." This is not a new attempt to somehow soften the blow of Bill 71. This is an ongoing commitment on behalf of practitioners in this province, a commitment that extends back ten to 15 years. This is not something they have dreamt up in the last few days. They have been committed to this process, because they believe in access to universal medical care.

Frankly, we're giving them less and less reason to continue to believe in a system where the administrators of that system, if you will, have golden opportunities every single day to bash them. We are somehow holding up universal medical care and saying: if you don't buy into what we have said, if you don't allow us to market it to you in this particular way, you will somehow be responsible for the end of medical care in this province.

Hon. Speaker, let's close the loop on that. If medical services in this province come to an end, they will come to an end because of the government of British Columbia, not because of one of the players in the field. Make no mistake about that. There is a role of responsibility that must be recognized: the responsibility for the future of medical care rests squarely in the lap of this government. There is no other answer. There is no other truth that can somehow be elicited from this discussion.

In my view, this glorious opportunity for forward thinking has been given away by this government. It is simply not interested in pursuing it. We're not clear as to why, because the goal lines tend to change every few moments, depending on what press conference we happen to be in. It's a concern for me. Health care in British Columbia is in a mess, not because of the practitioners who deliver health care but because it is being impacted upon by poor legislation -- poorly understood by the government, poorly understood by the public. The government is marketing it as something it simply is not.

It is and needs to be about how we restructure health care. It needs to be taken seriously by every single taxpayer in this province -- every single recipient, every single consumer. Quite honestly, it is in the government's best interest to advance medicare on behalf of all British Columbians. Given the entire lack of respect shown the physicians by this government, I'm convinced that they must be asking themselves why they should continue with medicare. Quite honestly, it's not in their best interest.

This government hasn't consulted the dentists yet, who currently directly bill their patients. Let me assure you, hon. Speaker, this is not about user fees. Direct billing is a different issue. Should this government continue on this bent, and patients in this province find themselves directly paying for service when they visit their physician, the backlash on this government will be tremendous, and there will be no one left to blame but themselves. As it stands, rationing of health care will be the only outcome of Bill 71. Bill 71 is not responsible legislation.

Blame is easy; blame is convenient. However, the cost of health care must be shared by everyone. We must recognize that. We have lost confidence in this minister's ability to manage our health care system. This government promised an end to confrontation; this has not been delivered. We would ask that this government either be prepared to take a serious look at how it delivers health care, or this minister should do the honourable thing and resign.

The Speaker: Seeing no further speakers on the amendment, I will read the amendment before you: "that all the words after

'that' be deleted and 'that' be followed by:

"Bill 71 be not now read a second time, because (1) the powers of audit and inspection allowed for in the bill will seriously compromise every citizen's right to privacy; (2) this bill will drive doctors, especially specialists, from the province; (3) the proration and capping of fees allowed for in the bill amounts to a rationing of health care and the introduction of a two-tiered system of health care in British Columbia."

[4:15]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS -- 18

Reid

Mitchell

Cowie

Gingell

Warnke

Hanson

Weisgerber

Serwa

Dueck

De Jong

Neufeld

Fox

Dalton

Anderson

Symons

Chisholm

Jarvis

Tanner

NAYS -- 36

Petter

Marzari

Boone

Priddy

Edwards

Cashore

Charbonneau

Jackson

Pement

Beattie

Schreck

Lortie

MacPhail

Lali

Giesbrecht

Conroy

Miller

Gabelmann

Clark

Cull

Zirnhelt

Perry

Barnes

Pullinger

B. Jones

Copping

Ramsey

Farnworth

Evans

Doyle

Hartley

Streifel

Lord

Krog

Kasper

Simpson

On the main motion.

Hon. G. Clark: I hadn't planned to rise in debate on second reading, but I thought I would make a few remarks today.

Bill 71 is an innovation. When you look around the country, I think you'll see that it is an innovation designed to be more cooperative than in most administrations in terms of trying to deal with managing our health care system. Bill 71 is about saving the medicare system as we know it. It's about our medicare system in this country, which is very much in the hearts and

[ Page 3224 ]

minds of all Canadians. The previous Prime Minister of Canada called it a sacred trust, and it truly is.

Hon. Speaker, the medicare system is under a great deal of pressure across the country, pressures to undermine the system. There are pressures to impose user fees, pressures to deinsure services -- in other words, not to provide universal access to the full range of services that we have today -- and pressures to eliminate health care coverage for a whole range of services.

When I attend Finance ministers' meetings, as I have on a few occasions now, or joint Finance and Health ministers' meetings across the country very recently, it is quite clear that the medicare system as we know it is under attack from underfunding by the federal government. That is a great deal of the problem. What has happened is that we are seeing a drive for user fees across the country, led by the three Liberal governments of Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Quebec. At every single Finance ministers' conference we hear the Liberal government of New Brunswick raise the demand for user fees.

We on this side of the House reject that notion of reforming health care. We believe in universal access to health care. It was our movement, our party, that brought in health care, over the objections of the Liberal Party of the day in Saskatchewan and over the objections of doctors, heaven forbid.

Over their objections we established a system which is a model for the world, and Bill 71 continues a tradition, which the New Democratic Party established in this country, of saving medicare, reforming medicare, retaining universal access to medical services and not having a two-tiered system, one for the rich and one for the poor.

Is it any surprise, hon. Speaker, that Liberal governments are driving for user fees? The answer is no. It's no surprise, because that party has a history in this country, when it came about in Saskatchewan and elsewhere, of being opposed to the medicare system. Hearing what the opposition has had to say in this debate, if they had their way, there is no doubt in my mind that we would have user fees in this province as well.

It is clear that the Liberal Party is in the pockets of certain elements of the B.C. Medical Association, certain elements that are opposed to universal access to medicare. They are in the pockets of the B.C. Medical Association.

Hon. Speaker, this dispute between the government and certain aspects of the BCMA has boiled down to money and to universality of our health care system. The doctors' leadership is demanding $50 million to $100 million more in '92-93. We had it on the weekend; we had it last night. They're not content with what I think will be the second-or third-largest increase for medical services in the country. Over and above that, they want special provisions for a slush fund; they want special provisions for a northern allowance; they want special provisions for other aspects of the medical profession.

And they want us to rely on special warrants, as the previous government did. The bottom line is that they are demanding some $50 million to $100 million more this year alone.

That's bad enough, as we all know, but what else have they asked for? And it is the "else" that concerns me more. They have asked the government of British Columbia to delete reference in Bill 71 to the Canada Health Act. What does that mean? It would allow medically necessary services to be delisted, or deinsured. It would make it possible for the government to make people pay for medically necessary services. That's what the B.C. Medical Association demanded last night at 11 o'clock. They demanded that we amend the bill to take out the reference to the Canada Health Act.

That is not what this government is going to do, nor is it what British Columbians want. Yet the Liberal Party stands up here hour after hour and mouths support for the BCMA. We have to assume they also support deleting the reference to the Canada Health Act, and that's shameful.

In addition, they asked us to give them money by deinsuring exams for prescription eyeglasses. In other words, they want us to reduce service to British Columbians so that more money can go into doctors' pockets. It's as simple as that. They actually demanded that this government deinsure the tests that people receive for eyeglasses, which they now get for free. They demanded that we make people pay for that, take the cost saving and give it to doctors. This government is opposed to that as well.

Worse than that, the Liberals, by their actions in here, demonstrate they're in favour of that kind of tactic, because they have taken the BCMA position, lock, stock and barrel, in this House. The B.C. Medical Association has asked that, in addition, we eliminate any reference to extra-billing their patients, because they would like the right -- or they would at least like not to be prevented by law -- to extra-bill their patients, and they would like the right to opt out of medicare, out of this sacred trust we talked about that British Columbians and Canadians want to see survive.

The doctors have asked us to allow them the right to opt out and to extra-bill, and the Liberal Party stands here for hours and hours and defends the B.C. Medical Association. As long as we're the government, there will be no opting out and no extra-billing in this province.

We have the pitiful sight of the Liberal Party of British Columbia coddling up to the BCMA executive, an executive in my view not representative of the vast majority of doctors in this province. If you had phoned the BCMA over the last week or so and asked for Dr.Finlayson, the staff rep, you'd have got a recorded message. That message says they're not in right now, phone this number; and if you phone that number, you get the Liberal Party opposition. Shame on them!

They have had staff people from the B.C. Medical Association, paid by the B.C. Medical Association, sitting in their offices for weeks on end here, telling them what to say in this House. Their lips move, but it is the staff people from the BCMA who are sitting there giving them advice day in and day out. It is shameful that we would see BCMA-paid staff people sitting in the House telling the Liberal Party what to say, and that they don't have the respect or the integrity to stand up to that and speak their own minds in this House. But I guess they don't have it because they have sold their

[ Page 3225 ]

souls to the B.C. Medical Association. Sitting in the legislative precincts are paid staffers from the BCMA. They pull the strings, and the Liberal MLAs mouth. Their mouths open, and they're puppets doing their bidding.

It gets worse. The Minister of Health has said that this dispute is about money. It's about money -- and we all know that -- but we thought she was talking about money for doctors. Now I have a letter, a shameful letter, written by the Leader of the Opposition to every doctor of this province asking for money -- asking for financial assistance to the Liberal Party to fight Bill 71. This Liberal opposition is bought and paid for, and it's shameful. The best opposition money can buy sits right here -- the Liberal Party -- day in and day out. They pretend to be standing here concerned about health care or medicare.

They don't care about health care. They don't care about universal access. They don't care about user fees. They care about money for their own pockets and for Liberal Party pockets, and they're using this as an excuse to fund-raise among doctors in this province. I think it's disgusting. It is shameful. It is nothing short of scandalous that the Liberal Party would filibuster a bill in this House and stand up and mouth the words of the BCMA -- and certain elements of the BCMA at that -- while they secretly mail a letter asking for money in the pockets of their partisan interests.

This has nothing to do with health care; it has to do with their own vested interest, their own personal gain and their own political gain. It has to do with them shamelessly using this dispute -- the future of health care -- for fund-raising. I think that when all British Columbians find out about this, they will be disgusted by it. Perhaps they will shorten the debate and talk about real issues that concern British Columbians instead of trying to line the pockets of the Liberal Party.

[4:30]

In the last day or two, what the BCMA has said is the bottom line. Their bottom line is that they want user fees; they want the right to opt out; they want the right to extra-billing. They want to deinsure services from British Columbians, and they want more taxpayers' money put into their pockets. The inevitable result of what the BCMA has asked for is a two-tiered health care system: one for the rich and one for poor. On this side of the House, we will fight that even if the opposition is bought and paid for, and they will say whatever the BCMA asks them to.

Every single speech made by the opposition reinforces the view that they support the BCMA leadership and certain aspects of it that have dominated the news. It is not in the interest of the public. The opposition should rise above this and talk about the public interest and not about vested interest. They represent narrow, private interests in this chamber, the likes of which we have never seen before in this House. We have seen a vested interest pay for their opposition, sit there in the precincts and provide free research services. I think it is shameful.

We have a fiscal crisis in this country the likes of which we have never seen before. We have inherited a $2 billion deficit that the government is trying to deal with. In spite of a fiscal crisis, we have increased funding for doctors and medical services in this province by 4.7 percent. This is one of the highest increases in medical services in this country. If you take a look at Saskatchewan, they voluntarily took a minus 5 percent in the funds allocated for doctors' billings in that province. What has happened in this province? This government has taken a reasonable approach.

We have compromised every step of the way. We have provided the most reasonable funding, in spite of our fiscal situation, for doctors and other public services. In spite of that, this opposition demands that we give doctors more and more, because they're bought and paid for.

The Speaker: Order! Would the member take his seat. I would hope the hon. member who has the floor was not impugning the motives of any other hon. member in the House by that comment.

Hon. G. Clark: I would certainly not personalize it. It's a Liberal Party position, and I don't mean to impugn individual motives.

Let me tell you that doctors in this province opposed the medicare system. They went on strike in Saskatchewan when we brought in the Canadian medicare system.

L. Reid: Point of order. I ask that the hon. minister withdraw those comments, which I believe did impugn the motive of this side of the House.

The Speaker: Order, please. Hon. member, I did in fact ask the minister if he did intend to impugn the motives of any hon. member, and he has said he did not.

Hon. G. Clark: When medicare was brought in in this country not that long ago, the doctors fought it. They went on strike in Saskatchewan. What has happened in the intervening years, in my view, is that the majority of doctors in this province and this country support our medicare system. It is absolutely correct to say that there are many thousands of hardworking doctors in this province who deserve to be paid well, and they are. We have no intention of trying to undermine the kind of medical services provided by health care practitioners in this province. We want to support them. We want to work with them.

That is why we have brought in Bill 71, which is a compromise bill. It is an attempt to have practitioners as part of the solution in this province. We have asked them to work with us. It is not too late. When this bill passes, the mechanisms will be there to give the kind of co-management of our health care system that will be the envy of the rest of the country.

Members and British Columbians should know that this government is not backing down on user fees. It is not backing down on extra-billing for doctors. It is not going to allow opting out or the undermining of universal medicare in this province. We will do everything we can to ensure, protect and enhance our medicare system as we have come to know it over the last few years. Bill 71 is an improvement. It is a way in which we can deal with these fiscal crises together. It is a way in which we can buy people into the solution. I

[ Page 3226 ]

am convinced that cooler heads will prevail. This bill is essentially a positive bill, and the vast majority of doctors who have an interest in medicare and this province will work with the government of British Columbia to ensure that we maintain the kind of universal health care system that we all desire in this country, in spite of the fact that the opposition continues to be bought and paid for and use a narrow special interest, which is advanced by a minority of doctors in this province.

I ask all members to vote in favour of Bill 71.

Hon. E. Cull: I'm pleased to be able to close debate, to address some of the many points raised during this debate and to try to bring a little reality to exactly what is happening with Bill 71.

I want to start by reviewing how we got to where we are right now. The member for Okanagan East said: "Well, why didn't you bring this bill in at the beginning of the session? If you've been working on it for so long, why didn't it come in right at the beginning?" I want to take us through the history that got us here.

We established a budget this year on March 26, as part of the provincial budget, that was $58 million over last year's expenditures -- a 4.7 percent increase over last year's expenditures. That's twice the rate of inflation and an amount that, I daresay, many in this province would like to see as an increase this year.

Bill 13 was brought in as a budget bill at that time to try to allocate this budget in a way that we thought would be fair and equitable for doctors. It was a progressive bill in the sense that it provided bottom-end loading -- a very progressive concept. The majority of the money would go to those doctors with the lowest billing. Only 300 doctors would be affected by the cap. But the doctors of this province said they didn't like it. The day after, on March 27, when the budget came in, I said: "Fine. Our position on medical services in British Columbia is that we have established a budget that is fixed.

It is the obligation and the responsibility of this Legislature to fix that budget. If there are other ways for allocating that money, another pattern of distribution, then that is negotiable." That has been the position since March 26.

We have been trying very hard over that time to negotiate in good faith with the doctors a way of allocating that money that will meet their needs, but more importantly that will meet the needs of the consumers and the taxpayers in this province. Bill 71 arrives here today as the result of those discussions over a long period, over three months of intensive discussion since the budget came in and since many of the amendments, which go back before that.

Bill 71 is a creative, innovative solution to a problem that we have been trying to address through discussion with the province's doctors. Having said that, I believe that when this joint commission is in place -- where, for the first time in this country, the public, the doctors and the government will be sitting down with equal representation to make decisions about how medicare is del