[ Page 4929 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4929

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

On the amendment to section 6.

Mr. Leggatt –– 4929

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4929

Mr. Cocke –– 4930

Mr. Barber –– 4931

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 4933

Ms. Sanford –– 4934

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4936

Mr. Mitchell –– 4937

Mr. King –– 4938

Hon. Mr. Hyndman –– 4940

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

(continued)

On the amendment to section 6.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, we are somewhat surprised on this side of the House that the proposals that have been made in a very constructive manner do not, at this point, appear to have been adopted by the government. I might say that not only are we disappointed, but I think a great many other people are disappointed that the government has taken this inflexible position with regard to arbitrating what can become an extremely bitter dispute in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, there is no reason why physicians should be treated as any less important than any other group in our society. We are looking at approximately 4,000 individuals in British Columbia who simply ask to be treated no worse and no better than, say, the teachers of the province of British Columbia.

Let us examine the provisions that are presently in the law to resolve disputes between school boards and teachers. Under the provisions of the School Act, provision is made under section 136(2), quite simply, for there to be an arbitration board — one appointed by the school board, the other appointed by the teachers' organization — those two nominees, therefore, to choose a neutral chairman, one in whom they both have confidence. Now what is the matter with that? Surely it is absolutely vital, and surely the onus is on the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) to stand up in this House and tell us why the arbitration provisions that apply to most of those people who are submitted to arbitration in British Columbia are not good enough for the doctors of the province of British Columbia. Why is it that we have to single out the doctors for this Draconian measure? We have a measure here in which the government is the prosecutor, judge, jury and, yes, the executioner. That's wrong, and the Minister of Health knows that's wrong.

We have to look, Mr. Chairman, at the motivation of this government as to why they have rejected this proposal. Is it because they are sloppy draftsmen? Is it because they haven't looked at the legislation? Is it because they haven't examined it? Or is it because they want a confrontation with the doctors of this province for political reasons? That's the concern that we have in this House.

We don't need this kind of a confrontation. The number of people who support extra billing in this province is negligible, but the number of people who support fairness for the doctors of British Columbia is very high indeed. Unless this government understands that, they will provoke an unnecessary confrontation, and instead of defending and protecting the medical-care system, as they claim to be doing, they will be contributing to its destruction as a result of that confrontation. We have to ask ourselves: is it sloppy draftsmanship or is it a slick political manoeuvre, to pick up a few cheap points and inspire a confrontation with a group who are influential but not large? There is no doubt that they would have some momentary unpopularity when the opting-out process begins, but no one wants to see that happen.

Why this government fails to be reasonable and fair in terms of the arbitration procedure is really beyond the comprehension of most fair-minded people, Mr. Chairman. You see, doctors are people like everybody else. They're no different than teachers and workers — they all participate in the life-blood of this province. And when the former administration of W.A.C. Bennett decided to distort the question of medical incomes by publishing gross medical incomes in this province, that was an attack on the medical profession which was unfair and unwarranted; because, as we all know, gross figures are a complete distortion. Every small business has a large gross figure; the question is net income. The doctors don't want to be misrepresented to the public by the government, and that's what happens when you try to distort this whole idea of medical income.

Medical incomes are something that will ultimately be set — to a large extent — through the arbitration process. Surely the minimum that this government must give is fairness to the medical profession in terms of a resolution of this dispute, and they haven't done it. They are therefore encouraging an unnecessary confrontation with the medical profession, and in a way that could be contributing to the destruction of medicare. I hope that's not their plan.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I appreciated hearing those comments from the member who just took his seat, and I recognize that that's his interpretation of our government's plans or intent, as stated in the bill. I can appreciate that upon examination of the words of section 6 and the proposed amendment, it's open to a vast array of interpretations, one example of which we've just heard.

If the words are considered perhaps from a different point of view, upon reading the words of section 6(l):

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by order, direct that in accordance with the provisions of the order, any dispute between the association and the

[ Page 4930 ]

commission respecting the renewal, amendment or replacement of the agreement be resolved by a single arbitrator or by an arbitration board appointed or constituted as provided in the order."

The suggestions contained in the amendment, and modifications of that, could be incorporated into the order. The flexibility of the section, as it now reads, provides the order the possibility of appointing a single arbitrator by cabinet. It provides the possibility of appointing a three-person arbitration board — five-person, seven-person, whatever number may be chosen.

I believe the amendment contains some restrictions which we do not believe would be of particular interest in trying to resolve this problem. One is that there is no time limit required under the resolution for the appointment of representatives by either side. It says: "The minister, in the event of a failure" — whenever that may occur, I suppose.... As there is no time limit, that could possibly spin on indefinitely.

The government intends to be fair with the medical profession. We intend to resolve this dispute by negotiation — by arbitration if necessary, but we also still leave open the possibility of resolving the dispute by negotiation. The arbitration will be set up in a fair way. I might refer members to earlier sections of the bill, which provide for a resolution of the problem by means other than arbitration. We have indicated in the words of the bill that the dispute could be resolved by negotiation — by arbitration if necessary, but we also still leave open the possibility of resolving the dispute by negotiation.

I wish to re-emphasize a statement that I made yesterday. At the last meeting between representatives of the government and representatives of the BCMA, we were advised that the BCMA representatives had no mandate from their board to discuss resolution of the problem by negotiation or arbitration. That was made very clear to us. There was no mandate from the board to their representatives to discuss a solution to the problem by negotiation or arbitration.

The amendment suggests a precise method of selecting a board. Mr. Chairman, we believe that it's necessary for government to have the opportunity of being flexible as to how the board may be constructed — as I said, whether it be a one-person arbitration or whether it be a panel. The amendment suggests representation on a panel representing the two antagonists in the issue. That suggestion could be contained in the order, as the section says, with the provisions of the order. That is not to say that that proposal will not be given consideration.

I disagree with the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) that there is a need for this to become a bitter dispute. I don't think that's necessary at all. We are in a situation where there is a difference of opinion as to what the level of increase on the fee schedule should be. Our negotiators left the table with a 15.2 percent offer. The BCMA was seeking approximately 41.6 by their figures, 47.8 by ours. Their members said: "We will not accept the 15.2." Their members did not insist that we produce a 47.8 or a 41.6. We believe that there is an area for resolution. We believe that the percentage increase applicable to the fee schedule can be achieved. We had hoped that it could be achieved through negotiation; we still leave that possibility open.

The government does not intend to be left in a situation where the problem will not be resolved in a reasonable period of time. If necessary, we believe we must have the authority to decide how it shall be arbitrated — and, I emphasize, in a fair manner. The provisions of that order will be examined carefully by everyone involved as to their fairness. And we intend it to be fair. I do not believe that a three-member arbitration panel is the only method of establishing arbitration procedures. It may be a fair method, but I don't believe it is the only fair method.

We wish to be able to respond to this dispute quickly. We wish to be able to respond to it in a fair manner. In seeking possible candidates for an arbitration board, whether it be a single arbitrator or a panel, we intend to be very cautious in choosing a person of the highest esteem or a group of people of the highest esteem. We do not intend to develop a confrontational attitude. We certainly do not intend to encourage a bitter dispute.

For those reasons and perhaps for others that will be offered by members of the House, we are not prepared to accept the amendment.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the opposition is shocked beyond imagination. The government has had all night to rethink and reread this bit of obscenity.

Interjection.

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

There's provocation here that I can't believe. It must be politically oriented. Why are you taking on the doctors? Has somebody told you that they are good ground? We agreed with you in the suggestion that there should be no extra billing. But, my good heavens, we do not agree that a one-sided situation — it can't be called arbitration — like this is the way to go. Oh, the minister assures us that there is going to be fair play. The legislation doesn't assure us of that. That's why we put forward an amendment which is exactly in line with the arbitration procedure in the School Act.

If the government feels that there is some other form of arbitration, and can assure us that they'll put forward a reasonable amendment guaranteeing fair play and equality, and guaranteeing what our whole system calls for, what the democratic process demands.... For us to be treated to the minister's reply to our amendment in the way he did, I just can't believe. I believe that this stupid, revenge-seeking government has stepped over the bounds beyond words. The minister says that our amendment could be incorporated in the order — note "could." In other words, if the government decided, it could be incorporated. That's not what you put in law. In law you put something that assures people. This weekend the doctors are going to meet — doctors from Kootenay, Prince George, North Vancouver, Omineca, North Vancouver–Capilano, North Peace River. What are they going to be saying? They've already told you. My phone was ringing off the hook all night; they've been telling me. I've had phone calls from right-wing, left-wing — the three left-wing doctors that there are in the province.

MR. GABELMANN: There are a lot more today.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: The whole act.

[ Page 4931 ]

MR. COCKE: I can assure the member who talks about the whole act that I've had discussions with a very large number of prominent doctors in this province whom I know because of my past experience. They have said very clearly that they can quite understand the government's attitude and the opposition's attitude toward extra billing, but they can no more understand section 6 than they can understand flying to the moon without wings.

What does the minister go on to say? He says the government intends to be fair; they intend, however, to resolve the dispute. "Arbitration will be set up in a fair way." I heard that over and over and over again. The government intended to be fair when they redistributed the boundaries in British Columbia — a one-man commission appointed by this fair government. We saw the results of that fair play. Are the doctors going to be asked to look forward to that kind of fair play?

MR. BARBER: By Dr. Eckardt.

MR. COCKE: Dr. Eckardt? No, Mr. Chairman, doctors don't want this kind of finger. Doctors demand one thing at this point. They demand fair play and they want to see it legislated that way.

For a moment yesterday afternoon, at a quarter to six, I thought that the government were finally coming to their senses. They took a very close look at that amendment; it was circulated among the lawyers — I saw that as I was standing here — and suddenly there seemed to be a change of attitude. What caused that change of attitude? The tough guys in cabinet. The first tough guy in cabinet jumped up from his chair, slammed his desk and walked out of the door. Who was it? The Premier. He was very displeased with the fact that the opposition had done something constructive about this destructive piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, this is a matter of high principle. This is a matter that must be thought through very clearly by every member of this House. If we are to depart from the democratic process, let's hear about it today, and give us the reasons today for this kind of tyranny.

I ask a very simple question: why are they afraid? What are they afraid of? Who are they afraid of? Of 4,000 doctors, asking for nothing more than the simple fair play that every one of us would ask for were we in their position? I ask them to produce one doctor before the bar of this House who would defend this section of this bill. If they do, then I would suggest that we have him go to one of our noted psychiatrists.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says anybody who doesn't agree with me. I would guarantee this, that if you canvassed the medical profession, 99.9 percent would be 100 percent for the amendment and 100 percent in opposition to this destructive piece of legislation with respect to section 6.

I believe that any fair-minded person who listened to what the minister had to say in the context of the argument would have had to sit in disbelief, because if the minister promised us fair play, why doesn't he give it to us in the law? He said that he believes it is necessary for the government to be in a position to conduct the arbitration process. Yes, that's right; that's what they believe. Now isn't that unfortunate. The government have got themselves into a bind. The way to get themselves out is in the fairest way possible, and that is part of that amendment. It's good enough for the teachers, for the province, for everybody concerned, but somehow it is not good enough for the medical profession, that noble profession.

It is very nice and easy to go around doctor-bashing: "Oh, they make so much money." But they save a hell of a lot of lives, and we'd be in tough shape without them. Mr. Chairman, this kind of provocation is putting every citizen in this province in jeopardy.

Will the government kindly rethink this situation right now? For heaven's sake, those men of law and letters over there, those solicitors and barristers, surely can either change the amendment that we have put forward, if necessary, will give us fair play. All we ask for is a little bit of democracy in this bill. We're not seeing it now, where the cabinet can by order appoint a single arbitrator or an arbitration board and can determine the outcome of the arbitration. That's what people are worrying about. That's not arbitration at all. That's cynicism. We are not in favour of cynicism and we totally support the amendment put forward by our side.

MR. BARBER: The general purposes of Bill 16 are sound. We support and endorse them. We did so when we were in government, we do so now and we will do so again if we have an opportunity to be returned to government after the next election. The general purpose, which is to make illegal any form of double or balance or extra billing is sound and worthwhile and we support it. On that question there is no dispute. The doctors of British Columbia and the general public should be well aware that on that single issue the opposition and the government are unanimous in their opinion. Balance billing, double billing and extra billing have no place whatever in a decent system of medical care in this province. Our record is clear, and the general purpose of this bill is sound.

It's section 6 that offends, provokes and unnecessarily causes trouble, dispute and disagreement, not simply in this House but also in the general community. The title of section 6, 'Arbitration,' is a false one. It's not arbitration at all, and that title and this section parade under false colours. This is no arbitration by any authentic meaning of the word, You won't find any definition for arbitration like it in any other of the labour laws of British Columbia. Arbitration, as it is titled here, appears in this form in no other statute. This section parades under false colours, and the government does a wrong thing when it gives the wrong name to its real intent.

Section 6 is objectionable because it is deeply unfair. At the moment it is deeply unfair to its present and intended victims, who are physicians in British Columbia. It is more profoundly unfair to the entire climate and aspect and to the tradition and discipline of good labour-management relations in this province. If the government can get away with this distortion of an honourable process — which arbitration is — in the instance of the doctors, then it can and will be rationally concluded by other persons in the labour force — professionals, white-collar, blue-collar, whomever — that the government may well try to pull the same stunt against them at some time in the future and once more fly under false colours with the name arbitration, which is in fact no arbitration at all. This government has the authority to name the arbitrator or arbitrators quite regardless of the opinion of the doctors. This is unheard of in any other arbitration process we can find in British Columbia law. The government further gives itself the power to vary the order of its own arbitration panel. This too

[ Page 4932 ]

is deeply unfair and grossly prejudices the ability of this panel — we're now talking about section 8 — such as it may be, to do its work in a fair and honourable way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

What purpose is served by so falsely portraying as arbitration something which is not arbitration at all in any fair, traditional and democratic sense of the word? The government here is asking for power that it has no right to have. It is asking for power that we do not believe it is fit to exercise. It is asking for authority that it has no right to enjoy. The provisions of section 6, as they currently stand, are deeply unfair to the principal constituent group that will be affected by it. That is currently the physicians. Theoretically that could be anyone. Once the government has set this pattern and broken the traditional pattern of arbitrated resolution by giving itself power that it has not earned, merited or deserved in any way, they are then apparently entitled to do the same in any other circumstance.

I got a phone call, like many of us have had, from a doctor. I've had more than one, but this one I'm referring to now came in at about 8 o'clock this morning when I was at home. This particular physician is a general practitioner in the capital city. He happens to be a friend of mine. It could not be alleged that he is a man who for ideological or political purposes is basically against medicare and that this is his way of getting back at the system. He believes in medicare and supports it. He understands and respects the need for it and would do nothing to compromise it, as long as his ability to practice as a physician is not compromised either. What he is concerned about is his ability as a citizen to enjoy the rights and entitlements of all other citizens in these or any other industrial and labour-management disputes.

The general practitioner who phoned me this morning said that he is extremely alarmed about the fact that if section 6 as it currently is written should be passed, he will be indentured to his job. This doctor, who it could not be said has a secret political agenda, a secret ideological argument against medicare — on the contrary, he supports it completely — who could not be said to be using this dispute as a means to discredit medicare, this particular physician, whom I know, respect and like as a man and as a professional, told me this morning that not only he, but every physician with whom he has come into contact in the last 48 hours during his rounds of one of Victoria's two metropolitan hospitals or with whom he practises in an urban facility in Victoria, is sufficiently angered by this that he is prepared to pull out. He is sufficiently angered at being indentured to his job by the wrong and deeply unfair provisions of section 6 as it currently stands that he's prepared to pull out of the whole thing. And he told me that this morning, because he knows full well that I understand his basic commitment to public medicine and to the medicare system that supports it in this province. That's how aggrieved he feels; that's how angered he is at the deeply unfair provisions and the grossly unfair weight the government gives to its own case in this so-called arbitration procedure.

The minister says he intends to be fair. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, we're skeptical; if he intended to be fair, he would be fair, and the law before us would reflect that. We are skeptical and we doubt his sincerity, because if he intended to be fair, the bill we see would reflect fairness in section 6. But it doesn't; it reflects arbitrariness, heavy-handedness and an extremist case, made by a government that appears to be so terrified at the outcome of a fair arbitration hearing that it proposed to prejudice the nature of the arbitration panel itself and give itself all the power to construct it, and further, to prejudice the outcome of such a panel's work by giving itself the power to vary the order of its own panel. They want it both ways, and they give the doctors nothing in return. This is deeply unfair to any group in society, doctors or any others, who may be the victims of such a heavy-handed, one-sided approach to labour- management relations.

The minister says he intends to be fair, and we are skeptical. He says he wants the opportunity to be flexible, and in this instance we don't doubt his word, because the kind of flexibility he wants is contained in the current statute. What is that flexibility? To appoint anyone he wishes, and even then to vary any finding their own appointee may make. Now that's pretty darned flexible, if you're the government; but if you're the doctors, it's not flexible at all. It is state power that this government is not entitled to exercise, and it is the heavy hand of state authority that fundamentally and irrevocably prejudices a potentially fair outcome of this arbitration process. No government is entitled to have that kind of authority. They don't deserve it, they haven't earned it, they don't merit it, and neither does the situation merit it.

The minister said that our proposal "may be a fair method." Well, we argue that it is more than a situation of a possible maybe; it is a proven truth. I think, Mr. Chairman, we can demonstrate that our amendment — which, I believe, is consistent in every aspect with the current arbitration procedure that governs the teaching profession in this province — not only may be fair, but has a tradition and a track record of being fair. It has been demonstrably fair in the instance of teachers — to both the teachers themselves and the school districts of British Columbia. We're not asking the minister to accept a hypothetical proposal that has never been tried nor tested anywhere else; we are offering, in fact, the extension of a successful tradition and technique that works in the public educational system of this province, and that could just as fairly and unarbitrarily work for the doctors and the Medical Services Commission.

Section 6, as it currently stands, indentures the physicians of this province to a so-called arbitration process that should never be labelled as any such thing, because it is no such thing at all. It's not arbitration; it's the government setting all the rules and determining in advance the result of the game. What kind of bargaining is that? If an American basketball team did that sort of thing, they'd be hauled up on criminal charges. That's called "fixing the game." It's no game at all when one side can do that to the other. This government has no right whatever to fix, in the phony and deceitful way this fixes, the outcome of a so-called arbitration process. If they wanted to be fair, they would accept the amendment. If they were worried about the practicality of the amendment, they would realize its consistency with the bargaining process in the public educational system from whence the amendment derives.

We're not asking you to accept something that has never been done before. On the contrary, we are demonstrating clearly that it is done quite frequently in other jurisdictions and has been done from time to time in this province. It's a simple procedure: each side names its representative; the two representatives name a chairman; and there's a fallback position if that doesn't succeed. If that's good enough for the teachers and the public school system, it's likely good

[ Page 4933 ]

enough for the doctors. If it's good enough for British Columbia law as it now stands, it is good enough for the law we are now debating. Section 6 flies under false colours; it is not arbitration at all. It is the government setting the rules, naming the players and fixing the outcome. That is deeply unfair. No wonder doctors resent it as bitterly as they do.

For an arbitration procedure in this bill to be fair, we argue that it must be consistent with the standard, conventional, proven and testedly successful industrial arbitration procedures that have been in force in law in this province for some years now. For it to be demonstrably fair, it must be demonstrably consistent with extant provincial law. But it is not consistent with that law. It is not consistent with fairness and with treating these persons — be they doctors, teachers or anyone — in an honourable way. Once again, section 6 gives the government the power to name the players, fix the rules and predict the outcome of the whole inquiry. What sort of fairness is that? You don't do it to teachers, labourers and carpenters. You shouldn't do it to anyone. You have no right to do it to anyone.

Our amendment is not a radical departure from British Columbia law; it is drawn from British Columbia law and tradition. I believe that we can demonstrate credibly that it works in other professional bargaining environments here in this province. If we've already got a system that works admirably with other professionals, what is the matter with considering its application here with these professionals, the physicians of British Columbia? What's wrong with that intellectually and logically? How does that rationally fall short — to draw an unsuccessful precedent in our own jurisdiction with other professionals and apply it here? What's wrong with that? Apparently what's wrong with it is that it frightens the government; they're worried about the outcome of an honest arbitration process and a fair arbitration procedure. On that basis, they seem to reject our argument at least for the moment.

I want to predict, Mr. Chairman, two certain outcomes if our amendment fails and this bill goes ahead in its current form. First, what will happen to the reputation of the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) if he votes for his government's own bill? The Minister of Labour will be personally discredited in the eyes of every labour and management person in this province who knows what arbitration is all about. I predict that the reputation of the Minister of Labour on this issue will be ruined if he votes for his own government's provision; because within the industrial community of British Columbia, they know what authentic arbitration is, what traditional arbitration means and what the history of fair, mutually and equitably binding procedures within industrial arbitration is all about. They'll know what it's all about if the Minister of Labour himself repudiates his own ministry and the tradition, law and practice of fair industrial relations in this province.

I make that prediction in absolute seriousness, and I call on the Minister of Labour to personally repudiate his own government's unfair posture and unfair proposal in this bill. If he doesn't, I predict his own reputation on this issue will be profoundly damaged by people who must deal with him in other arbitration matters, where the ordinary procedures of arbitration apply, unlike this extraordinary procedure which is no arbitration at all.

The second prediction is perfectly obvious. You will create within the ranks of the physicians of this province more anger, bitterness and hatred than they have suffered in living memory. You will then turn around and tell us that you want to get back to rational bargaining. What a joke! On the one hand you so insult, aggrieve, offend and disentitle physicians by section 6 that they will be in open revolt against your policies across this province. Then you turn around and try to convince us that you want to get back to rational bargaining. How can you do that if you've maddened your opponents by indenturing them to an unfair process which you pretend is arbitration but which in fact is nothing other than game-fixing, than rigging the outcome? The second prediction is perfectly obvious. There will be no harmonious climate of mature bargaining if you force the doctors back to the table under these circumstances.

Let me restate: this opposition yields to no one and no party in its total conviction that double billing and balance billing have no place in the medical system of British Columbia, and no place in medicare either. We yield to no one on that issue. Just as surely, we yield to no one in our conviction that for arbitration to work it must be fair to both sides, and that for collective bargaining to work you must establish a climate in which each side can bargain as equals.

What have you done in this bill? You have ruined the possibility of fair arbitration and you are ruining the climate for mature bargaining when the doctors do get back to the table. For both reasons this provision is wrong. For each reason our amendment should pass, because it has already passed the tests of traditional success, fairness and equitability. Once again, we ask the government, and in particular the Minister of Labour, to repudiate such unfairness, not to ask for powers in law that you should not have and that you do not have in other circumstances, and instead to say yes to fair play and to the possibility of a quick and fair return to honest bargaining on both parts.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The first member for Victoria is very eloquent in his speech and attempts to imply that this government is heavy-handed and is coming down very hard on the doctors of this province. We all know the situation that caused this bill to come before the House. We know that negotiations have been going on for the last number of months. We know that the Minister of Health attempted to get decisions of the vote that was taken by the doctors. He attempted to meet and discuss with the doctors final resolution of the problem regarding the schedule of fees to be charged by the doctors. There was no option for him but to bring this bill before the House, because he was left no option.

I would just like to say that the offer that was made by the commission was, I think, 15.2 percent. I don't think there is one person in this House or in this province — other than the doctors who voted against accepting that amount of increase — who wouldn't feel that that is a fair and just increase in any level of endeavour in this province.

Dr. Mandeville, who happens to be a resident of my community in the city of Penticton and who is a very capable doctor, has taken the position that balance billing, extra billing or double billing — whatever it's called — is the way to go. He has basically said to this province and to this government that it's 90 percent of the increase they require, which I believe is either a global increase of 41.6 percent or an increase, calculated another way, of 47 percent. If we meet 90 percent of that increase they will accept the fee schedule. Mr. Chairman, 90 percent of that type of increase is exorbitant. It's exorbitant for the people of the province of British

[ Page 4934 ]

Columbia. It's not this government that pays these fees to the doctors. It is the people of the province of British Columbia that pay the fees to the doctors through taxation; we all know that. Our minister and the commission attempted to be fair and give a reasonable increase to the doctors of this province. I would suggest to you that many doctors out there are quite prepared to accept it as a reasonable and fair increase.

With regard to the debate the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) comes up with — that we will fix the rules; it isn't fair arbitration; this government has fixed the rules, rigged the outcome and will have power in law we shouldn't have....

MR. HANSON: Spetifore?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Isn't that marvellous! The second member for Victoria says: "What about Spetifore?" Can you believe it? We're debating a bill in this House that is the most important issue in this province and he says: "What about Spetifore?" He should withdraw from this chamber. It's a shame. The level of debate from that side of the House is atrocious.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Strictly relevant — the amendment to section 6.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the committee please come to order. The Minister of Agriculture and Food continues on the amendment to section 6.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your support. I was just responding to an objection that was thrown at me across the floor.

To deal with the amendment, I don't know whether the first member for Victoria has read the section. He aims at the arbitration procedure. He says we have to accept this amendment; we shouldn't have the power in law that we have put into this section of the bill. Has he read the fact that in providing this single arbitrator or an arbitration board...? Let me refer you to the exact words of section 6(2): "In an arbitration under this act the single arbitrator or the arbitration board shall not include in the award a provision contrary to section 7(l) and shall have regard to (a) the interests of the public." That's what this section says. This section doesn't say "let's have an arbitration board set up the way they would like it set up," but it does say that any single arbitrator or any arbitration board will have the interests of the public in mind, and you don't accept that. The first member for Victoria is a very eloquent speaker, but he has no principles at all.

Let us look at the second subsection of section 6 — a very important point. "The desirability of establishing terms...."

Interjection.

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

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

HON. MR. HEWITT: Section 6(2)(b): "The desirability of establishing terms and conditions that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed and the nature of services rendered...." That's the power of the law; it's in there. The first member for Victoria says we should not have the power of the law. I'm just saying that section 6 is fair and just to all the people of this province.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we're not debating the subsections. We're debating subsection (1) and an amendment to subsection (1) only. We're not debating the rest of that; we accept the rest of it. We're debating one very narrow situation — the construction of the arbitration board.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On the same point of order, in his debate on the amendment the first member for Victoria was referring to sections under section 8, and I thought perhaps the Chair was offering more latitude than is normally allowed under an amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All points are well taken. Of course we are aware of standing order 61(2), which states that debate in committee of supply must be "strictly relevant." I will commend that to all members of the House and remind them we are debating an amendment to section 6(1) of Bill 16.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I appreciate those comments, Mr. Chairman. In taking some of the comments of the first member for Victoria — to whom you gave, I think, considerable latitude — in my debate I'm attempting to point out to the people of this province, and to record in Hansard, statements that member made in support of the amendment. I am objecting to the amendment on the basis of my argument, which is that really there are two things this section 6 — including all subsections — addresses itself to. First, the bill is in the interests of the public — section 6. That's one part of the public we serve — all those people who use the doctors. The other part of section 6 which I'm defending is in the interests of the doctors of this province, those people who serve the public. That's why I'm objecting to the statements made by the first member for Victoria regarding: "fixing the rule," "rigging the outcome" and "power in the law," which we shouldn't have in section 6. I'm totally opposed to the amendment. Section 6 treats fairly two parties — the public of this province and the doctors of this province.

MS. SANFORD: Section 6, which we are discussing this morning, is immoral, in my view. It has nothing whatever to do with arbitration. It's called arbitration: section 6 — "Arbitration." But it's an immoral section coming from an immoral government, in my view.

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

[ Page 4935 ]

MS. SANFORD: For them to bring in a section like this under the title of arbitration.... What other word is there? It has no relevance whatsoever to the word "arbitration."

MR. HOWARD: Arbitrary, yes.

MS. SANFORD: Good point. But it is not relevant to arbitration. This is what we're attempting to point out to the government through this amendment. How can the Minister of Labour sit there and be trampled on by the Ministry of Health or whoever else is calling the shots over there? I somehow suspect it's not the Minister of Health in this particular case who's calling the shots on this section. I don't know.

This morning surely the Minister of Labour is very embarrassed by what he reads under section 6 of this bill. Surely the Attorney-General, as the former Minister of Labour, he too.... His face usually gets red when he reads a section like this and realizes that he's going to have to stand up with the rest of those people and support it. He can't support it in all honesty. It's got nothing to do with arbitration, and he knows it. He knows it (a) as a former Minister of Labour, (b) as a lawyer and (c) as the Attorney-General of this province. He must be ashamed.

Here we have this section which allows the government to be judge, jury and prosecutor, and to set all the rules at its whim — executioner; the whole bit — in this particular section entitled "Arbitration." What a joke!

Mr. Chairman, very briefly I would like to outline for you a series of events that took place late yesterday afternoon, just as the Minister of Health introduced the amendment that is still under discussion. I'm sorry — it's the former Minister of Health; he should be the Minister of Health — the MLA for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke); he introduced the amendment. Just prior to that we had discussion by the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) about this section under second reading. Finally when the bells rang to call everybody in to vote on second reading of this bill, I met the Minister of Labour in the hall. I pointed out to him that the former Minister of Labour, Mr. King, MLA for Revelstoke-Shuswap, had made some excellent points in the House in the afternoon, and that I certainly hoped that the Minister of Labour had heard them, Unfortunately, the Minister of Labour said: "Gosh, I've been too busy in my office today. I've just been up to my ears. I haven't heard a word that's been said on this particular section." So at that point I suggested to him that he really read the section that the MLA for Shuswap-Revelstoke was referring to.

Sure enough, the Minister of Labour came into the House and took his place while the division was taken. He quickly turned to Bill 16 and to the section we had told him he should read, and read sections 6 and 8. No sooner had he read them than he turned to his colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who is also a lawyer, and the two of them began discussing sections 6 and 8. I think that was the first time that particular section had been under discussion by those two members of this Legislature. I don't think they had had time or interest enough to read the sections before.

Suddenly there was a flurry of activity over on the other side of the floor. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) got involved; he was back and forth. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) came over and consulted; he was in a bit of a flap too, wondering about section 6 because it has nothing whatever to do with arbitration, and anybody who has any understanding of arbitration or arbitration procedures would certainly not call that section arbitration. Then we had the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) involved, and he had some consultation with the Minister of Labour, he talked to the Minister of Education, had a little chat with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Attorney-General — they are all lawyers, you note. I also note that none of those lawyers have been on their feet trying to defend this section, because it is indefensible. Finally I noticed the House Leader run over to the Minister of Health and whisper a few words in his ear, and it wasn't long before we had the Minister of Health standing up and moving that the committee rise and report progress until the next sitting of the House, and so on.

Why did the Minister of Health not accept this amendment at that time? It was clearly understood that this House wanted this legislation to go through yesterday. This side of the House was fully prepared to cooperate in getting that through. We presented the amendment early, we made our points on the amendment, the government benches clearly understood what was being said, but because they are so confused and in such disarray and cannot agree with each other, they were unable yesterday to make a decision with respect to the amendment. They could not make any decision. As a result, we are still discussing this amendment this morning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the amendment, please.

MS. SANFORD: Might I also add, Mr. Chairman, that there is no one on that side of the House who can give us any defence whatsoever about the procedures that are involved in appointing this arbitration board. The procedure itself was not mentioned at all by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). He could not justify that his government could unilaterally appoint a three-person arbitration board in order to make the kind of decisions that are required here. That's not arbitration. I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture and Food consult with the Minister of Labour to find out. He'll tell you that that is not arbitration.

We have tried, proven procedures for arbitration in this province in a number of statutes. We have presented one of them word for word for the consideration of the government. The government has always accepted those particular procedures, but now they want to initiate their own unilateral way of making a decision with respect to the salaries of doctors.

My question is this, Mr. Chairman. Who is next? Are they now going to amend the Labour Code so that it will comply with this arbitration procedure that they are using for the doctors? Are they going to amend the Public Schools Act so that the teachers, too, will have to comply with this particular section 6, which they apparently refuse to accept any amendments on? If that is the position that they are adopting for doctors, then surely the rest of the province can expect that they will be treated the same way. So I am assuming that the next things we will have are amendments to the Labour Code, the School Act and to the Arbitration Act itself so that they all comply with this and the government becomes the totalitarian government that it is proving itself to be day after day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before proceeding with the next speaker, the committee is once again reminded that under standing order 61(2) the debate in Committee of Supply must

[ Page 4936 ]

be strictly relevant to the item before us. The item before us is an amendment to section 6(1) of Bill 16.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I've listened to the debate very carefully so far, and I guess if I have any concern it is that the fierce rhetoric which we're hearing from the opposition is more than likely going to cause the medical profession the kind of distress that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) predicted. I would have thought that in dealing with a bill the principle of which they supported unanimously yesterday, they would have recognized that the other stages must nonetheless take place, and that inflammatory statements by members in this House can be entirely counterproductive insofar as the resolution of this problem is concerned.

There has been a clear indication in the course of debate today that the official opposition is incapable of wresting itself from its reactionary position. It sees these negotiations between the Medical Services Commission — not the government but the Medical Services Commission — and the British Columbia Medical Association, on behalf of the doctors in this province, in the light of a labour negotiation. They cannot seem to withdraw themselves from that rigid position into which they have clearly painted themselves in the course of their remarks in this debate. Let it be abundantly clear that the negotiations which have gone on and the negotiations which will be pursued following the passage of this bill are not labour negotiations. The government does not see the doctors in this province as being members of a trade union, and we do not approach our responsibilities in resolving the existing dispute as a labour negotiation.

It is a clear responsibility on the part of the Medical Services Commission to deal fairly with the doctors in resolving the issue of what their compensation should be for their services, just as it is also the responsibility of the government to ensure that in the process of resolution of that dispute the interests of the public are seen to be supreme. This is not the case in labour negotiations. They are private negotiations between an employer and his or her employees. They're private to those parties and therefore significantly different than the discussions which must take place here.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The opposition has focused its mind on arbitration, and I will deal with that in a moment. Before I do, let us also make one thing clear. It has been suggested that in section 6, if we don't accept this amendment, we are doing something which is heavy-handed, arbitrary, jackboot legislation — those are the words which we've heard from the official opposition. The opposition seems to have a very convenient lapse of memory, and I would ask the members of the House to take the time to consider what the New Democratic Party did, when it was the government, in the resolution of the elevator constructors' dispute. What did they do? They brought in legislation which imposed a collective agreement. How was that collective agreement arrived at? The collective agreement was arrived at following the unanimous decision of an industrial inquiry commission. Who appointed the industrial inquiry commission? The Minister of Labour. Were the parties represented? No, it was his appointment. The industrial inquiry commission produced a decision....

MR. LEA: Did you vote for it?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I voted for it. It was your bill; all we're saying to you is that when we approach a similar process in this legislation, we would ask for you to vote for it as well. But no, this is suddenly an issue of major significance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: A spurious argument.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Maybe it's a spurious argument as far as the NDP is concerned.

MR. NICOLSON: That's spurious.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, if that's a spurious argument, may I ask the members of the committee to consider what they did to the firefighters in this province when there was a dispute which couldn't be resolved. Was there an arbitration? No, there was not. Was there an industrial inquiry commission? No, there was not. How was it resolved? The then Minister of Labour brought in legislation that imposed on those firefighters who had a dispute an existing collective agreement negotiated by others. Was that arbitrary? Was that jackboot legislation? I wonder if the member of the NDP who voted against that action by the NDP will stand up today and clearly indicate the basis upon which he broke with his party over this bill.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's why he supports the amendment, but how about all the rest of you? Are you still supporting it? Mr. Member, I suppose that you're like the lawyer who appeared before the court one day and made an argument and the following week he appeared before the court and made the exact opposite argument. When the judge challenged him he said: "My lord, this time I'm right." [Laughter.] Very convenient.

I would like to make a few remarks with respect to this amendment. First of all, the amendment, if it were accepted in its present form, would effectively destroy the process of arbitration. There are no time limits in the amendment. Therefore it requires the parties to agree to do certain things. There are no requirements. Therefore it's a completely incompetent amendment. I'm surprised that the member would put it forward, knowing the advice that he has available to him.

But there is a much more significant reason for not accepting the kind of amendment that we're considering today. Section 2 of the bill — already approved in committee — makes it clear that there are two means of achieving a resolution of the existing difference between the medical commission and the doctors association. One is by negotiation. It is the sincere intention and wish on the part of this government, as the Minister of Health has pointed out, now that we have the issue of balance billing out of the way, which was the major stumbling block to the processes of negotia-

[ Page 4937 ]

tion, to return to the table with the doctors for the purpose of fruitful negotiations leading to a resolution of this dispute. I believe that the medical profession and its leaders will approach their responsibilities in this regard with the utmost seriousness, as will the government. Through that process I expect that many of the issues — and there is more than one issue unresolved in this dispute — outstanding between the commission and the medical profession will be resolved.

Therefore, if you reach the stage where there are some outstanding issues still remaining to be dealt with, then some other process is required. When you have identified those issues it is absolutely essential that you be able to tailor the mechanism by which those remaining outstanding issues can be settled. This is not at all unusual. Even in the field of labour relations, with respect to which the members of the opposition are so familiar, we've just had one of major significance in this province — the long strike of the telephone workers. When it finally reached its conclusion there were some outstanding issues. There was then a decision taken as to how those issues would be resolved. Were they resolved by the kind of board that is being suggested in this amendment? The answer is no. They were resolved by selecting a person with the skill and experience to deal with those specific issues.

MR. MACDONALD: By agreement.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: By agreement, that's right. Is the member for Vancouver East suggesting that in the course of this process this is not applicable? Of course it is. Out of these negotiations we can tailor the mechanism for resolution that the circumstances demand.

In the proposal that is being put forward by the hon. member for New Westminster, he proposes a technique, which indeed may be destined for failure, in order to resolve the nature of issues which presently exist between the doctors. If indeed all issues had to come before an arbitration process, a serious question is raised as to whether or not a three-man board is the best way of resolving it. It may result in the not unusual result for arbitrations of cutting the baby in half; it may be that in circumstances as significant as this, what the government and the doctors will see is required is a single individual of stature, prestige, experience and skill who can sit down with the parties and work through this very difficult schedule. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the provisions of section 6, which the opposition is attempting to modify by this amendment, incompetent as it is, must be supported, or else we lose the flexibility which both the medical commission and the medical profession itself may identify as being required in the resolution of their dispute, and it also enables the government to ensure that in the establishment of that mechanism the essential factor is taken into consideration: the public interest.

I know that the opposition believes that we are just dealing, with subsection 1— and I suppose in the amendment we are — but they cannot be selective in their reading of the statute in order to make their point, and they cannot in the debate on this particular amendment ignore the constraints that are imposed on this arbitration process by the other provisions of the statute.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I'm entering this debate because I feel that I'm one of the few people who, as a layman, in the last 25 years has either appeared before, participated in, or had my lifestyle affected by arbitration boards of one type or another. I think it's really important that we as legislators and as citizens of the province of British Columbia understand the intent, the principle and the desire of what an arbitration board is going to accomplish. An arbitration board in itself is not the final solution; it is not the simple answer to any problem. By the time you get to an arbitration board, you have negotiated in every step of the way toward an agreement. This is why I think it's so important that we understand what this whole legislation embodies. It not only embodies the step-by-step negotiations toward the agreement, but this legislation can take each of those steps that they have processed through and wipe them out, because you cannot take section 6 into consideration without studying section 8 and the regulations part that deals with arbitration.

When you have negotiated and you have settled on 90 percent of the parts of your agreement, you turn the parts that you cannot come to an agreement on over to a board of arbitration. But under your regulations.... Let's read what the regulations say under section 8(l)(a) about the arbitrator. "Respecting the duties and powers of the arbitrator or of an arbitration board appointed or constituted under this act...."

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On a point of order, which was earlier raised by the member for New Westminster today, the scope of the amendment is apparently restricted to section 6(l). The member is now referring to section 8(l)(a).

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member, no doubt, is just coming to the section that is presently before us on the amendment.

MR. MITCHELL: What I was saying to you, Mr. Chairman, in line with what the Attorney-General did, is that you cannot take one section out of the bill without taking the whole context of the bill. When you have section 6, which deals with arbitration — and I'm supporting the amendment we brought in — you have to take the corresponding section 8 and the part of the regulations that deal with arbitration. This is what I'm saying: the intent of an arbitration board is to take those issues that you cannot come to an agreement on and put them to the single arbitrator or an arbitration board; these are the only issues that he, or a board, has any right to deal with. But when you take the regulations that you're bringing in, he can suspend the very provisions of the agreement.

You've already come to an agreement on 90 percent of your discussion, but there are certain parts of the agreement that you cannot mutually agree on, so you agree to present those sections to an arbitration board, a single arbitrator or whatever he may be called. Then you have a person who is appointed by one side of that agreement. Not only does he have the opportunity to settle that particular issue that you have mutually agreed for him to study, but he can go back into the agreement and amend and change any provisions of it. This is the part that I implore you to consider — not on the emotions, but on the straight logic. I know that at times in this House to be logical is to be out of step with everyone else, but we cannot afford emotions in a case like this, because we're dealing with law; we're dealing with procedures that are going to set a precedent in this province forever. You can bring in one person who can then unwind an agreement that you've already come to and change or alter it in any way he wants.

[ Page 4938 ]

When I said that we are looking at law that is going to affect the province of British Columbia for a long time, you have to take the wording of this piece of legislation and how it affects not only this piece of legislation dealing with the medical services and not only how it may affect legislation dealing with the trade union movement. Let's read section 6. "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may, by order, direct that, in accordance with the provisions of the order, any dispute between the association and the commission respecting the renewal, amendment or replacement of the agreement be resolved by a single arbitrator...." These are the words that are in the laws of British Columbia. This is part of our legislation.

I ask if this same bill or the same wording were brought in by the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) in trying to negotiate with a private person to purchase or arbitrate the price of a piece of land for a park, and instead of having the words "association" and "commission" they had "landlord" and "minister," can you imagine what type of rights that particular person, the landlord, who was negotiating with a government who had tried in all fairness to negotiate an agreement and — using the same wording that is in this legislation — had brought that type of legislation in to deal with the confiscation of land for a park...? This is what I'm saying: it's not only the wording and how it affects this particular item, but it's the legislation which is becoming part and parcel of the laws of British Columbia.

We have to take three steps back; we have to be logical. If you're going to have legislation, it has to be legislation that is going to affect every one of us in all walks of life. That this same legislation can be interpreted for landlords, or if my good friend the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) was building a highway and he brought in a piece of legislation and instead of "association" you had "landlord" and instead of "commission" you had "Minister of Highways...." What type of negotiations would that landlord feel when he was trying to deal with a heavy-handed government, knowing that if he didn't come to a settlement he was going to be faced with a piece of legislation that would say the person he had just finished negotiating with, the person he couldn't come to an agreement with, was going to appoint a single arbitrator or an arbitration board? If he knew that was going to be the final result, he would go into that negotiation knowing that he was defeated, knowing that any other part of the agreement that he had made with the Minister of Highways could be altered by the regulations in section 8.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important that we, as MLAs in the province of British Columbia, not look at this piece of legislation for the single issue of medical negotiations re double billing. I think we should look at the wording and the intent of the legislation. The wording gives immense power that is not needed in this particular case. It is not needed in taking over land for parks or for highways. There must be legislation that gives fairness, honesty and a sense of well-being to both the negotiator and the person who is being negotiated with.

I've gone into negotiations — granted they were in labour matters, but they were also binding-type arbitration.... When you went in with a board who you knew were going to negotiate in a fair manner — they were prepared to give and take — the whole tenor of the negotiations went along very well. But if you knew that because of their favoured connections a board had the opportunity to appoint a single arbitrator — as we had under the Social Credit government when we had the mediation act — you knew as soon as you went into negotiations that they were loaded. There was no intent to have a fair negotiation, because you knew that the final step was going to be an appointed person whom you had no control over. It is not only the intent of appointing a single arbitrator. You have with the regulations dealing with that arbitrator the provision that he can change any negotiations that have been settled on, take out of context the procedures you've gone through and suspend or vary provisions of the agreement. All this is going to be appointed by the one party, and that section is binding.

In all fairness to everyone in the House — the minister and the government — I think that at this point they should really take those three steps backward and look at the legislation for what it is — look at the wording of the law and the precedents they are setting that may be used five or ten years down the line by another government. They can take the intent of this piece of legislation and write what they want into this to cover another situation by using the same words that are here today. I say that the amendment the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brought in is an amendment that has good solid sense behind it. It has sincerity. It has faith that both parties can accept. Because when you start negotiating it's not how you end up but knowing the way that you are going down the line to the end of the negotiations that counts. When you know that at the end someone else has a club bigger than yours, you cannot negotiate in good faith. I think it's important that all parties — doctors, trade union movements, members of the public who are selling land to the Highways ministry — must know and have faith in the province of British Columbia. With this type of wording and with this type of regulation dealing with the arbitration we do not have that. I ask the government to take the intent of the amendment. If it needs some dates, bring in the amendment with the dates. Bring it in so that it's workable and logical, so that every one of us can support it unanimously.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we could have a clear ruling as to whether or not we're going to deal with this amendment to section 6(l) or whether we're going to be able to stray into section 8. I don't want to engage in the debate on section 8, except to say that the comments of the last speaker indicate that he has not read the legislation,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the point raised by the Attorney-General certainly is a valid one. I would ask all members to contain their remarks to the amendment on section 6 presently before us.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I made some comments yesterday regarding the amendment that is before the committee. I had some comments regarding the nature of the arbitration process which the government has designed in this bill. I really did not intend to say too much more about it, but after hearing the Attorney-General, I agonized and hurt for him. The Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia is an eloquent, intelligent person. I don't think I have ever in my life seen anyone in this Legislature have to get up and defend something which he patently did not believe in, and which in effect prostituted his whole point of view and professional background, as the Attorney-General has done on this section, with all of its inequity and all of its arbitrari-

[ Page 4939 ]

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

The Attorney-General tried to bring in a couple of red herrings. He said: "What did the previous government do with respect to the elevator constructors' strike?" Well, in the first place, the government was not one of the parties in dispute with respect to the elevator dispute. The government did not have a direct interest as one of the proponents at the bargaining table, which is the case in the bill before the House at the moment. The government has a direct stake at the bargaining table with the doctors of this province. To try to liken this dispute to that which confronted the government in the elevator constructors' dispute is totally irrational and really beneath the dignity and intelligence of that minister.

One of the reasons for the elevator constructors' dispute was that under the old Social Credit government they allowed people in Toronto and in the eastern United States to bargain and to obstruct collective agreements in the province of British Columbia in the elevator construction industry. And our government said: "No, we will not tolerate that. We will not tolerate obstruction either in the industrial relations field or anywhere else by influences flowing from another part of the country altogether." So we brought in legislation to bring the elevator constructors in conformity with the rest of the industrial relations in the province of British Columbia, so that bargaining would take place, so that collective agreements must be consummated here. And, yes, there was a settlement imposed on the basis of a third party — a third party which, I might add, was agreed to by both parties.

That is not the case before the House now. The doctors have no opportunity to agree with respect to who the third party or parties will be. It's an arbitrary imposition by the government, and the Attorney-General knows it. He brought in the fire fighters' dispute. The fire fighters' dispute was a different matter again. It was a fragmentation of unions serving in one particular field. It would be the same thing as if the Medical Association of British Columbia had a bargaining association for the Okanagan, one for the lower mainland and another one for Vancouver Island, and attempted to whipsaw the industry or the government. I think that's poor industrial relations. I think that there should be commonality in the interest disputes. That's what the legislation was designed for in the firefighters' dispute. It was based on a collective agreement which had been freely negotiated by the largest element of that industry — namely, the city of Vancouver firefighters. If the Attorney-General finds that repugnant, then I would ask him why he voted for it — which he did. But he was a Liberal at that time, and if he could make the transition from Liberal benches to Social Credit benches, I guess he had no problem with his principles with respect to voting for that bill.

They are red herrings and extremely pallid ones which the Attorney-General seeks to inject into this dispute. I say shame on him. He knows better. He's more intelligent.

What we have here is a bill that could enjoy quick and unanimous passage through this House if the government were not so heavy-handed and intransigent. The Attorney-General said the public interest must be served, of course. That's why the legislation is before the House, and that's why there is unanimous agreement indicated from this House for serving the public interest by eliminating extra billing in law. That's aside. We all agree on that. That's not at issue. What is at issue is: once having said that in law we will not allow extra billing, then surely it is incumbent upon the government to provide a fair, reasonable and logical mechanism for resolving the dispute — a mechanism that has precedent in many other areas of the public interest in the province.

We drew to the government's attention a resolution method similar to that which resides under the School Act. What's wrong with that? If they don't like the proposition of an arbitration board, that's fine. We'll accept an amendment to the amendment providing the opportunity for a single arbitrator or a board. There is a difference, you know. When the government has imposed arbitration on the doctors and then has taken unto itself the right to name that arbitrator, I can see cause for concern, distrust and cynicism on the part of the doctors. They've already expressed that themselves. I think it might be more acceptable to the Medical Association if they had the opportunity, which is usually available under most forms of arbitration, to come together to make or participate in the decision as to whether it should be a board or a single person — in any event, to have input as to who that choice should be. At least they would be represented with three-person arbitration by one of their choices on that board. Under these circumstances I think that might be a more palatable choice to the doctors. I'm inclined to agree with the Attorney-General on that one point: give them the option of a single-person arbitrator or a three-person board — fair enough. If the government will remove themselves from the position they've dug themselves into and show some flexibility here, the matter could be quickly resolved.

Mr. Chairman, the public interest is not at issue here in the sense that the Attorney-General tries to inject it. What is at stake is whether or not, now that we've taken certain rights away from the doctors, we are going to kick, punish and brutalize them when they're down — which I submit this bill before us does — or whether we are going to treat them fairly, like any other sector of society, be it the trade union movement or someone in dispute over a land transaction, where the arbitration process is as we suggest. That's the issue, and it's a simple one. No amount of mental or verbal gymnastics by the Attorney-General is going to obscure that point either to the doctors of this province, to the opposition or to the public. They understand the issue. It's quite clear and simple.

I'm intrigued by my friend the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman), a distinguished member of the legal fraternity, as is my friend the Minister of Labour. They know without question that the provisions of this bill which give the government the arbitrary and heavy-handed right to impose not only the structure of arbitration but the person who will sit as judge, and then give that person the right to amend or change an existing contract, are totally unprecedented. They offend natural justice. That's why I have difficulty understanding why lawyers in this Legislature can abandon their training — abandon common sense and logic and any sense of fair play — and for strictly political support to a coalition of convenience, get up and vote for the kind of provision that they've put before the House. I say shame on them. They must support the amendment.

The Minister of Labour faces a dilemma, as my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford) has pointed out. He presides over a system of fair, time-tested, well-conceived arbitration, remedies that are available under many circumstances in the industrial relations world. That process does not shut out one of the parties to dispute from the process. It does not load the dice entirely on one side of the bargaining table, and he knows that. I ask him: how is it that one could fail to support the amendment, which the opposition has put forward as a

[ Page 4940 ]

reasonable, fair and even-handed way of extending the same measure of justice to the doctors in this province that we as a matter of course provide to every other sector of society? What kind of person could do that?

I thought it ironic that the Attorney-General said: "Well, some of your members voted against your labour bills." Yes, that's true. I was Minister of Labour at the time and we had some very difficult crises to confront. But I was always rather proud of those people on our side who voted against those bills. I disagreed with them — we still disagree on certain issues — but at least they had the fortitude and the principle to stand up in this House and vote the way their principles dictated. They had the fortitude, commitment and principle to vote as their intelligence and character directed. I'll be interested to see whether anyone in that coalition of convenience can put character and fair play above political expediency and holding together a very tenuous coalition at this time.

I wonder what happened last night. I observed from across the House as the Premier of the province all at once exploded in rage, slammed his desk and stalked out of the House with red face, obviously hostile because of some dispute that was going on on the executive benches. I suspect the dispute arose because some of the people in that cabinet were saying: "Look, this legislation is wrong, it's unfair, it's indefensible and I can't support it." I further speculate that what really happened from that point on was the Premier — who is notoriously stubborn, who is used to having his own way from the days of being a spoiled young boy....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: I withdraw that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. KING: He's stubborn; he's petulant; he's used to having things his own way. I think he said to his colleagues: "Look, you put your principles aside. You defend the government position on this, or I'll call an election; I'll dissolve the House." That's his threat over them with their narrow majority, and in the face of that threat, when so many of them are in shaky circumstances, they capitulated. That's what happened. I certainly know, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) particularly — and I believe the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) too.... Because, while we disagree tremendously in philosophical terms, I think he's a fair and intelligent man, and on that basis nobody could possibly support the government's position. Why be so intransigent? Why inflame a situation that is already inflamed and hostile enough? Why not make a gesture to bring some sanity and reasonableness back into this dispute as a basic criterion and prerequisite to getting some intelligent and good-faith bargaining going again with the medical profession?

But, for goodness' sake, Mr. Chairman, if the government intends to put somebody up to try to justify this mess, this travesty, get somebody who has stronger commitment than the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), because he did them more harm than good.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to respond to the invitation of my good friend, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, to add some comment to this debate — adding my support to the section as it stands and outlining the reasons why we, on this side, reject the amendment.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The reason for the section, Mr. Chairman, is very simple. The Minister of Health of this province was given less than 12 hours to respond to an ultimatum from the negotiating committee of the BCMA. And I think if the negotiating committee of the BCMA, by way of ultimatum to the Minister of Health late Monday night, chose to give him a very short time-frame within which to act, the Minister of Health is entitled to what section 6(l) provides, which is the fullest and the most flexible capacity, after listening, to suggest a form of arbitration with the greatest chance of success.

Looking at the amendment — that's the reason for the section — this, Mr. Chairman, is what we, on this side, find wrong with it: the amendment is rigid, narrow, arbitrary, inflexible, premature, short-sighted and hasty. I'm amazed, for all that has been said by members opposite about fair play and the interest of the doctors, that through their amendment they would presume to dictate a narrow, prescribed form of arbitration before the BCMA negotiating committee or the board has had an opportunity to comment or to suggest to the Minister of Health its thoughts on a form or process of arbitration that might be optimum.

It may indeed be that, in the event the Minister of Health determines that continued negotiation or discussion will not produce results and that a form of arbitration is necessary, the form of arbitration recommended from the range of choices available is that reflected in the amendment. Surely members opposite would agree that in 1981 industrial relations collective bargaining and arbitration is a very sophisticated practice, with a wide variety of choices and styles — and in a very sensitive area in this case. In our view it would be premature, short-sighted and hasty to suggest that this be cemented into legislation as the only mechanism that could be used as an arbitration process to settle the matter.

The Attorney-General has pointed out, as has the Minister of Health, after discussions with representatives of the doctors and after listening to public comment, that a prestigious, unanimously supported, single arbitrator might be the preferred route of all concerned. Certainly the Mr. Justice Ivan Rands of Canadian history give us cause to believe that there can be very successful single arbitrators.

What we're talking about is full flexibility for the Minister of Health to be able to act. The amendment comes within 48 hours of the legislation, and the public itself has hardly had an opportunity to comment on potential methods it feels appropriate for resolving the dispute. We on this side think it is rigid, narrow, arbitrary, inflexible, premature, hasty and short-sighted to select this in advance and early in the discussion as the only potential way of arbitrating the settlement and then to set it into legislation. The Minister of Health obviously wants the opportunity to listen to all points of view about potential methods of arbitration. As I say, I think we should hear from the doctors on this one.

MR. COCKE: We have been all night.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Member, I'm sure the doctors in the fullness of time will have suggestions to make to the Minister of Health on the question of their view. Certainly so far in this debate the negotiating committee of

[ Page 4941 ]

the BCMA has not had the opportunity to announce to the public its preferred point of view in terms of an arbitration procedure. It's interesting that what we have is a suggestion through the amendment that the only method of arbitration could be a three-person board — the two respective parties nominate a member and then hopefully they choose a third-party chairman.

Members opposite had some things to say in 1975 about labour relations and about the question of third-party arbitration. The former Minister of Labour, for example, had this to say in 1975 when he was Minister of Labour and brought in some fairly dramatic and drastic labour relations legislation. In the fall of 1975 the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) brought in some very far-reaching and unusual labour legislation. In his remarks on bringing in that legislation he talked about how it can be in some circumstances that bringing in a third-party kind of chairman or arbitrator may not always be wise. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, then the Minister of Labour, said this. I'm quoting from Hansard, October 7, 1975, page 2.

Nothing was acceptable to the parties in terms of a third-party mechanism to provide a recommendation that would be accepted as binding or indeed to accept a third-party intervention that would be welcomed and cooperated with by all of the parties involved. As I have stated in this House on many occasions, to simply impose a third party into a dispute when the goodwill and the cooperation of both the parties is not available would be a futile and a useless gesture.

Let us hope that that circumstance does not obtain down the road with this issue. But in 1975 the member for Shuswap- Revelstoke, as Minister of Labour, was wise enough to counsel flexibility and to want to reserve under the government a flexible and full capacity to follow a situation and respond flexibly.

We've had suggestions this morning — comparisons with the teachers, for example — that what we have here is a rather traditional economic difference of view that should be arbitrated, as is traditionally done in some areas in this province. The point that's missed, I think, is that there is far more at stake with this issue than just fees. What is at stake is the whole question of the health-care system in British Columbia, indeed in Canada. If we have that level of importance attaching to this issue, which, as I say, in our view goes far beyond the question of a fee schedule, once again we don't accept the suggestion that what you must do immediately is require by statute a traditional and narrow method of arbitration.

There's been a lot of discussion from the other side about fair play, and about the reasons why section 6(l) as written does not provide for fair play and why the amendment does. In terms of fair play I do think it's a little hasty for the opposition to be providing — 48 hours after the legislation — its one and only, take it or leave it approach to how the arbitration has to be. If you want to talk about fair play, I'd ask members to think again about the position with which the Minister of Health of this province was faced on Monday night of this week at 11 o'clock, when he was delivered a one-page letter from the negotiating committee of the BCMA which very briefly stated a position and, in my respectful view, left the Minister of Health with no option but to proceed with the legislation at hand. It was, after all, the choice of the BCMA negotiating committee to give the Minister of Health a very short time-frame within which to prepare his reaction, and if, faced with that, his choice is to provide, if necessary, for arbitration, but to leave the form and content as full and flexible as possible, I think that's fair.

There is absolutely no suggestion — there has not been a hint from the Minister of Health — that he is not prepared to further discuss, negotiate, talk and listen. There has been no suggestion by the Minister of Health that he is not prepared to listen to the suggestions of the negotiating committee of the BCMA as to its recommendations as to the best form of arbitration, if that becomes necessary. As I say, Mr. Chairman, what if the BCMA negotiating committee's suggestion is different from the amendment? Do we want to be in that strait-jacket" I would think not.

The amendment is not only premature, it's incomplete. We have, in perhaps 12 lines, an effort by the opposition to stipulate a particular form of arbitration. Heaven forbid, the Arbitration Act takes five pages and 20 sections in an effort to provide a fairly simple set of rules as to how, in a complete sense, you provide for an arbitration.

If what's at stake with these negotiations is not just a fee schedule but the health-care system and the fair and effective functioning of it, we on this side think the Minister of Health is entitled to an approach to an arbitration formula that is as full and flexible as possible. When that formula is announced it will speak for itself, and the government will most certainly be accountable for the content of that formula. There have been suggestions from across the aisle as to what might result from the use of the formula. Those are obviously worst-case scenarios formed in the imaginations of members opposite. The section, as written, provides the Minister of Health with the fullest, most comprehensive, most flexible possible range of arbitration choices and mechanisms. It provides him the opportunity to listen to and consider suggestions from all quarters as to perhaps some very novel kinds of arbitration techniques that should be employed in this case. The section — by not being hasty, narrow, premature and rigid — does not put the Minister of Health in the position in which he might have to be saying to the BCMA: "Well, your suggestion makes very good sense to me, and I wish we could do it, but my hands are tied by a particularly narrow formula." There has been no suggestion from the Minister of Health that there will not be the opportunity for more negotiation and discussion before section 6(l) is even reached.

In concluding, I think it is again instructive to go back to perhaps the most recent time in the history of this chamber when a very serious matter of labour relations at the highest level was the subject of debate, and that, of course, was October 1975, when members opposite who were in government brought forward a bill which, among other things, provided a compulsory return to work and a compulsory end to lockouts. At that time the former Minister of Labour, in winding up debate — now the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), then Minister of Labour — and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who I know is going to speak today, had some things to say about involving third parties in disputes. While there are various kinds of third-party involvements, I think his words are interesting if read in the light of today's debate. On page 22 of Hansard from October 7, 1975, the member for North Island spoke as follows:

I've talked many times in the Legislature about third-party intervention in labour management disputes, and it is well known that I'm not particularly keen on third-party intervention. In fact, if I had my way and I were involved in day-to-day trade union bargaining, I would be very hesitant to accept mediation officers in the thing until the very last moment, because I suspect that parties who don't have to rely on their own devices and who don't have to sit down and hammer it out and hammer each other

[ Page 4942 ]

over the head together don't reach conclusions as quickly as they do when they have some third party to kind of shift the responsibility to.

That was the fall of 1975. The member for North Island is far more an expert than I in labour relations. But if I read him, what he's saying is: you can't apply a simple formula to every dispute, particularly when you think of bringing in a third party, such as a third-party chairman here. It may not be the magic answer. The amendment provides a particular response that we're stuck with. Surely the comments of the member for North Island on that day really are an argument for greater flexibility.

Mr. Chairman, the former Minister of Labour discussed in the same debate some provisions in the legislation which he introduced in October 1975 which left to him some authority to exercise in a general way that was unpredictable. There was some uncertainty to some of the provisions that the then Minister of Labour brought in. Here's what he had to say at page 52 of Hansard for October 7, in defence of his approach then which provided for flexibility and, indeed, did pose some uncertainty: "I have explained what the approach is and what the policy and the philosophy of it is. I do not think it is unrealistic. I think that the uncertainty of it, in terms of whether or not it is applied, is not a bad thing. That's why it's left somewhat flexible." In the fall of 1975, to the then Minister of Labour, it was important to have some flexibility. That seems to have changed today.

Further in that debate the then Minister of Labour had this to say about people who would hastily rush to an absolute and specific formula for settling a serious industrial relations matter. On page 45 of Hansard he said this: "There are no absolutes in industrial relations — no absolutes. It's a changing society and a changing world of industrial relations. Those who offer gimmicks or those who offer absolutes in terms of providing the answer are deluding themselves." The amendment, Mr. Chairman, would appear to be an attempt to offer an absolute in providing an answer. Our view on this side is that at this stage of this sensitive matter it is folly to attempt to provide the single, absolute required method of arbitration. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke argued in those days that to attempt to provide a specific answer was to delude yourself.

Mr. Chairman, may I just once again summarize the basic reason why the government sees as necessary the wording of section 6(l). It is to give the Minister of Health the fullest and most flexible capacity to determine — after listening — the form of arbitration which is best in this very serious matter, assuming that it must go to arbitration. What is wrong with the amendment is that it is rigid, narrow, arbitrary, inflexible, premature, short-sighted and hasty.

The section does not provide that the Minister of Health will do any of the terrible things alluded to by members opposite this morning; it gives him a full and flexible capacity. I would hope on reflection, Mr. Chairman, that members opposite would agree that on an issue this serious — which is far more than fees; it is the issue of the health-care system, not just in British Columbia, but indeed in Canada — that kind of fullness and flexibility would be allowed to the government. If the Minister of Health must invoke the section, the particulars he provides will speak for themselves, and the government most certainly will be accountable for them.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:20 p.m.