[ Page 4943 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions

Victoria RCMP headquarters.

Mr. Hanson –– 4943

Amax Mine in Kitsault.

Mr. Passarell –– 4943

Oral Questions

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

Mr. King –– 4944

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

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

Value of BCRIC shares. Mr. Barber –– 4945

Dismissal of Bruce Donald. Mr. Macdonald –– 4945

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

Resolutions –– 4946

Introduction and first reading –– 4947

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

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4947

Mr. Stupich –– 4947

Mr. Hall –– 4947

Ms. Brown –– 4948

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 4949

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

On section 1 –– 4949

Mr. Howard

Mr. Nicolson

Ms. Brown

Mr. Stupich

Third reading –– 4952

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

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4952

Hon. Mr. Gardom

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

On the amendment to section 6 –– 4952

Hon. Mr. Hyndman

Mr. Gabelmann

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Lea

Supply Act, No –– 1, 1981 (Bill 15)

Royal assent –– 4956

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

On the amendment to section 6 –– 4956

Mr. Lea

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Ms. Brown

Mr. Brummet

Mr. Howard

Mr. Barrett

THURSDAY, APRIL 2, 1981

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, above you in the gallery today, and above the press, is a group of students visiting from Trinity Western College in Langley, Because they come from a number of different parts of North America and the world I would like, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to introduce them individually. We have: Inga Chapman from Langley, Ruth Nickel from Surrey, a staff member, Scott and Robert Wuflestad from California, Steve Thompson from Langley, Sheryl Lundberg from California, Sharon Harms from Surrey, Graham Hatt from Toronto, Carole Mastin from Fort St. John, Tim Cleary from Minneapolis, Minnesota, Ken Bartsch from Clearbrook, David Reeves from Red Deer, Wayne Bremner from Langley and Ken Cherogony from Kenya, whose father is the head of a provincial commission in one of the provinces of Kenya and is in a comparable position to the Premier of British Columbia. I would like to ask the House to make them welcome.

If I may continue, accompanying the students today is a man who for 15 years during and after World War II served the Emperor of Ethiopia in helping to rebuild the political, social and educational structures of that country that were destroyed by the ravages of the war. He entered politics in Canada in 1962, and served for ten years as a Member of Parliament. He was national leader of the Social Credit Party, and since that time has dedicated himself to advancing higher education in this country. He is a distinguished Canadian who has devoted his life to the service of others. I would like you to make welcome Mr. Robert ("Bob") Thompson.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today there are three people I would like to introduce: Arlene Snare, Jean Frame and Maryanne Bradley. These people are executive officers of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, Local 20012 of the union of Solicitor-General's employees, E division of the RCMP, Victoria. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. RITCHIE: I feel compelled, Mr. Speaker, to also take this opportunity and join my colleague, the member for Langley (Hon. Mr. McClelland), in welcoming our students from the Trinity Western College. I'm very proud of that college indeed. My own business has benefited greatly from students who were educated at Trinity Western. I'm sure that particularly the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) will be joining me with a full and hearty welcome to them.

I would also like to mention, Mr. Speaker, that on a recent trip to New Zealand I had a number of people ask me if I knew Dr. Robert Thompson from British Columbia, and they asked me that with a great deal of pride in their eyes. So I would again like to welcome these folks to our chamber here.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, along with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the member for Central Fraser Valley I'd like to participate in extending a welcome to the students from Trinity College and also Bob Thompson. I had the pleasure to serve with Bob in the House of Commons of Canada; I enjoyed his company then and enjoyed meeting him again today.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, we have in the galleries today Mr. and Mrs. Cameron Moore from Edgewater. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them to the assembly.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to introduce to the House some constituents, Mr. and Mrs. William Craig of Maple Ridge, and their daughter, Mrs. Elizabeth Towner of England, who is a registered nurse trained both in British Columbia and in England. She remarked on the excellent decorum in this chamber, after having visited the British House, and I was pleased that she was in here at the correct time.

Presenting Petitions

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

Leave granted.

MR. HANSON: It reads:

"The petition of the undersigned, Local 20012, Union of the Solicitor-General Employees, Public Service Alliance of Canada, and citizens of the city of Victoria, humbly showeth that moving the RCMP headquarters from Victoria to Vancouver would result in loss of revenue to the city of Victoria, increase in policing costs to the British Columbia taxpayers and personal hardship to employees of the RCMP in Victoria.

"Wherefore your petitioner humbly prays that your honourable House may be pleased to act to retain the British Columbia headquarters of the RCMP in Victoria, the capital city of British Columbia.

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

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

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

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL: It reads:

"The petition of the undersigned project north of Victoria area humbly showeth that pollution control permit PE4335, province of B.C., dated January 12, 1979, be withdrawn, and further that a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act be held before commencement of operation of the Amax Mine in Kitsault.

"Wherefore your petitioner, Mr. Speaker, humbly prays that your honourable House may be pleased to pass this for the purpose above-mentioned. In duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray."

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

Oral Questions

POLICY ON SIZE OF FOREST COMPANIES

MR. BARBER: I have a question to the Premier. A short while ago the Premier indicated that the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation would be limited to some 20 percent of the allowable cut in the forest industry, or roughly to some 20 percent of the forest enterprise of British Columbia. In this morning's edition of theVancouver Province, the Premier is quoted as saying that this policy wasn't dreamed up recently, but was established when the Social Credit administration created BCRIC from a group of Crown corporations in 1978.

[ Page 4944 ]

My first question to the Premier is: can he inform the House approximately when in 1978 the policy was determined by government that BCRIC would be restricted to shall we say 20 percent of the forest enterprise of the province of British Columbia? Approximately when in 1978 was that decision made?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sometime in that year, but probably — if my memory serves me well — during the period during which we were planning or involved in distribution.

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

Could the Premier indicate in what form that policy, limiting BCRIC to 20 percent, was communicated to the board of directors of BCRIC and approximately at what time?

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

MR. BARBER: I wonder then if the Premier could confirm if he's indicating that there is no written policy or advice from the government of British Columbia to the board of directors of BCRIC. As the House may know by way of this question, Mr. Howe this morning evidently knew very little about the policy and apparently can find no record of it in the board of directors' minutes. Nor, apparently, did Mr. Helliwell tell him, nor is there any letter on the file. If in fact Mr. Howe is being honest — and I'm sure he is — when he says he can find no evidence of such a policy, I wonder if the Premier could tell us what evidence there is that we had such a policy in 1978.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it was government policy, and how different firms communicated it within their own executive or to their own employees was up to them. It has been the government policy, it is the government policy, and it will be the government policy in the future.

MR. KING: I take it from the Premier's response that he verbally communicated this information to the chairman of BCRIC's board. Could the Premier advise the House on what dates and under what circumstances he verbally communicated this information to the other forest companies in the province — MacMillan Bloedel, Can-For, Crown Zellerbach, Weyerhaeuser? Was this done individually in a verbal way also?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not take it upon myself to visit every forest company in the province. But the policy was certainly in effect and was the basis for the government's opposition to the CP bid for control of MacMillan Bloedel. Combining the assets of CP and MacMillan Bloedel would have given them a forest industry concentration of corporate ownership or control that, was against the policy of the government. That received wide publicity at the time, as I'm sure all members of this House are aware.

MR. KING: The only criteria I heard publicly for the turning down of CP Rail's bid was that they were an arrogant company. I wonder if the Premier instructed his Minister ofForests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) to notify the rest of industry in the forest business in the province of British Columbia that there was an unstated, unpublicized policy restricting the size of investment in this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the preamble to the question from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who stated that the reason being given was that the company was arrogant. That was not stated at the time, and the member is incorrect; that was not the reason. The reason was that it went against the policy of the government of British Columbia. That policy continues, and it is very easily understood that this government is concerned about the concentration of corporate power in an industry in which the forests have been totally allocated. We do not want to see the forest industry fall into just a few hands. The alternative is to accept the policy the NDP had as government and carries now — that of government ownership — or we can try to provide some guidelines of policy that would maintain true competition under the principles of free enterprise.

MR. KING: A supplementary question to the Premier, who seems to be reaching. Can the Premier explain to the House why this policy of the government, which he seems highly defensive of, was not communicated publicly to all companies operating in the forest industry in 1978 when he claims it was developed? No one knew about it then. Even the current president of BCRIC indicates he didn't know about it. Certainly it was never announced in this House, nor is there any record of a press release to this effect.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I guess one of the areas this government has been identified as having a problem with is communications, and we're working to correct that.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary.

MR. KING: Can we conclude from the Premier's admission that they're guilty of poor communications that Mr. Heal is going to be assigned to deal with this misunderstanding in the forest industry?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Forests has continuing contact, and I think this government is very clearly going to be able to communicate information of major government policy to the people of the province. I thank the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke for supporting the fact that the government needs assistance in the type of information program that can clearly identify the public policy and the programs for the people in this province, not only in the area of forestry but also in the areas of services to people — the tremendous health-care programs, the tremendous new dental-care program, the increase in the GAIN program announced by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy), to help the people of this province. Certainly all those areas will be clearly communicated to the people.

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

AMAX MINE TAILINGS IN ALICE ARM

HON. MR. ROGERS: Two days ago I was asked a question by the member for Atlin (Mr. Passarell), and I took the question as notice. I would like now briefly to read the replies. The question was: "Pursuant to section 4(4) of the Pollution Control Act, did the director of pollution control forward a copy of the application to the Ministers of Health and Agriculture?" The answer to that question is yes.

[ Page 4945 ]

The next question was: "In view of the fact that the federal government did issue the permit on April 10, 1979 — it's been public for a year and a half — can the minister confirm that our Pollution Control Board issued its permit on January 12, 1979, three months ahead of the federal government?" The Pollution Control Board did not issue any permits. The permits were issued by the pollution control branch on January 12, 1979. The Pollution Control Board had no involvement in either the application or the issuance of a permit.

POLICY ON SIZE OF FOREST COMPANIES

MR. KING: Can the Minister of Forests advise the House when he first learned of the restrictions on the size of firms in the forest industry in the province of British Columbia? As I recall, in 1978 a new Forest Act was brought in, and it was not revealed during debate at that time. When did the minister learn of the policy?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It's been said a number of times since 1968 that we feel MacMillan Bloedel is as large as a company should get in terms of its control of allowable cut in British Columbia. I myself have said it a number of times. We have also said since that time that we think BCRIC, because of its British Columbia and Canadian ownership, should be allowed to get considerably larger. It's no secret. It has been said a number of times by me, the Premier and my colleagues.

The member asked if we have told this to each and every company in British Columbia. Well, I haven't, nor has the Premier, gone directly to each and every company. There are very few companies in British Columbia that would have the capability of becoming that large. The policy is certainly not a secret except, perhaps, to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke, who is the forestry critic and who seems to lack a lot of knowledge of the things 'that are happening in forestry in British Columbia.

MR. KING: I have a supplementary question to the minister. I think the House will continue to lack a lot of information until the minister starts levelling with the House, Mr. Speaker. What I am asking the minister is simply this: when senior executives of both MacMillan Bloedel and BCRIC — your government's corporation in the province — are unaware of the policy, certainly the minister should be able to give us something more specific than his point of view. Is there a policy statement? Is there any directive which would assure all corporations in the province that they will have even-handed policy applied to them, rather than the political whim of the Premier? That's the question.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have told the member that it has been a stated policy of the government for a number of years now, and I cannot accept the fact that senior executives of BCRIC or MacMillan Bloedel were not aware of the policy.

MR. KING: Would the minister please table this policy statement with the House so that all members may acquaint themselves with its contents?

MR. SPEAKER: The request can be made.

VALUE OF BCRIC SHARES

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Premier. In 1978 the Premier described BCRIC as "a great investment opportunity for our people," and personally wrote to every British Columbian encouraging their participation as shareholders in this corporation. He then reduced the value of BCRIC shares from $11.75 to $6, and the shares have never recovered from his political decision. Has the Premier taken any steps to protect the value of the shareholders' investment in the corporation he invented?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, first of all I disagree partly with the member's conclusion contained at the front of the question — that giving people an opportunity not only to receive individual ownership as opposed to big government ownership, and the opportunity for them to harness a part of their savings, devalued the shares of BCRIC during that distribution. I disagree with that preamble which became part of the question.

BCRIC operates clearly in the private sector under private-sector rules. They have an exceptional opportunity in the forest industry. That's the one exception they have, and that was part of the opportunity they had, which they could either utilize or neglect. But no, the government of British Columbia does not take part in the corporate decisions of BCRIC, nor do we take part with those who would destroy the corporation and the value of the shareholders' confidence by attacking it publicly when, in fact, other corporations aren't subject to that type of political abuse,

DISMISSAL OF BRUCE DONALD

MR. MACDONALD: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Yesterday in a public statement, Bruce Donald, the recently dismissed senior Crown counsel, stated that a public inquiry should be held not only into his dismissal, but also into "other matters in the Attorney-General's department which should be looked into." I ask the Attorney-General: has he decided on a public inquiry?

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

MR. MACDONALD: In view of the shaking of public confidence in the administration of justice in British Columbia, and in particular, in view of the Rigg case, the Moran case, the Wendy King case, the Judge Govan case, the Ritchie case and the chief coroner case — all arising from actions within the department of the Attorney-General — has the Attorney-General decided to refer these matters to a legislative all-party committee?

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

MR. MACDONALD: Then there will be no public inquiry. Do I understand the Attorney-General correctly? He likes to give himself secret absolutions. That's what's happening.

Orders of the Day

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

[ Page 4946 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Supply on April 2, 1981, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

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

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

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

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

Motion approved.

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I move that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of resolution from the Committee of Ways and Means on April 2, 1981, be now taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is that from and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied in such manner and at such times as the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may determine a sum not exceeding in the whole $1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, not otherwise provided for and being substantially one-sixth of the total amount of the votes of the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, as laid before the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia at the present session.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

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

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1981

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

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

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

Motion approved.

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

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

[ Page 4947 ]

Motion approved,

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Motion approved.

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

Motion approved.

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

It would be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, to make a few remarks with regard to interim supply, which is not unknown in this Legislature, having been a part of our activities annually for a good number of years. Interim supply today represents approximately one-sixth of the total of all votes to be considered as outlined in the estimates. This total is adjusted, as in the past, to provide spending authority for numerous ten-dollar votes, which members will know of, where revenue is netted against expenditure. This provides for expenditure during the next two months in all aspects of government activity, and with respect to the ten-dollar votes such as the British Columbia Lotteries branch and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing enterprises, which is vote 153 — including the UEL — during a period where we may not be able to assume that there will be matching revenues in this particular interim period.

I would observe again, Mr. Speaker, that it is a relatively complex procedure that we follow in requesting approval of interim supply. Members are aware, sir, that each year provision must be made to allow the administration of government to carry on. This is the second day of a new fiscal year, the year 1981-82. I am seeking approval of this interim supply, which represents one-sixth of the gross expenditure of the government of the province of British Columbia.

Previously, Mr. Speaker, we have seen varying amounts or percentages used. Occasionally it is one-quarter; I think it has been one-third. It is not unknown in this House for a second interim supply bill to be presented should that be necessary. It was felt in this particular case that one-sixth would be a prudent amount. It was presented in response to some concern, which has been expressed before, that one quarter, or particularly one-third, is a rather large amount to advance under these terms.

Hon. members will know that the total of all votes presented in the estimates now before us — or, in fact, before the Committee of Supply — is $6,671,495,000. To this must be added recoveries of $431,313,652. Earlier in these remarks I spoke about $10 votes. There are approximately 38 such nominal votes — $10 votes — for which I seek this authorization as well. As in previous years, these expenditures will be offset by recoveries from areas in the revenue sources. These recoveries have been added to the total main estimates. The timing of these recoveries does not, however, necessarily coincide with expenditures, as was observed. The gross expenditure totals $7,102,808,652, of which the one-sixth before us in this bill equals $1,184,000,000.

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

I move second reading of Bill 15.

MR. STUPICH: I appreciate the advice from the government House Leader as to just when to take part in this debate. It is a very complicated procedure. I can recall that the first time W.A.C. Bennett ever used it in the House it was the first time I ever saw him use crib sheets for anything — other than the budget speech itself. But he had to follow the same sort of crib sheet — perhaps even the same copy — as the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) and the House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) are following. Even then, the first time he did it he did get on the wrong line once and had to try and recover himself. So it is complicated, and certainly people watching it must wonder what's going on, and perhaps think that some of us know what's going on when in fact none of us really do.

I realize also that the scope for debate with respect to this particular legislation is very limited. The Minister of Finance, in speaking on second reading, took some pains to tell us that this is one-sixth of the total budget, and this is just about as far as you can go in debating this particular bill. It isn't an opportunity to get into the budget debate all over again and tell the Minister of Finance we don't believe his figures about revenue and his forecasts about expenditures, or to tell him that we think he is indeed budgeting for a surplus that he intends to use for other purposes. This isn't the opportunity to remind him of those things, as much as we would like to do so. Even if we did have the opportunity at this time to tell him we think he's wrong and he's not telling us what he really believes. we wouldn't want to make use of that opportunity at this time. We wouldn't want to hold up interim supply unduly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: However!

MR. STUPICH: No however, Mr. Speaker. No, there's other business before the House that we have abandoned temporarily in order to proceed with this legislation, and the opposition is very anxious to get back to the business that was before us this morning and that will be before us again, we hope, early this afternoon. So we don't intend to hold up interim supply.

We would have liked the opportunity to have told the minister some of the things I have already mentioned and which we can’t tell him at this particular time — to remind him of these things. There was opportunity during the budget debate, and there will be opportunity in the various ministerial estimates for us to point out opportunities where we need not have voted as much money as we're voting right now. There will be further opportunity when we're discussing the estimates for the Minister of Finance, and we bide our time. When those opportunities afford themselves to us, we're prepared to take full advantage of them to point out where the government is wasting money, where it could have cut back, where it could have increased revenue and where it should have decreased revenue. We certainly will be bringing up those arguments over and over again.

But as I said, interim supply is almost totally administrative in nature. We do not intend to hold it up unduly. The opposition will support the interim supply bill.

MR. HALL: I want to take the opportunity in second reading of this interim supply bill to assure the Minister of Finance of its speedy passage from this side of the House, but

[ Page 4948 ]

to offer him an opportunity to straighten out the record a little from a previous occasion just a year ago. When we passed interim supply a year ago, I took the opportunity during second reading to inquire about a number of matters that were troubling me as a member of the opposition trying to deal with inquiries coming into my office, both in the constituency and here in Victoria, and also to do with my responsibilities as chairman of the public accounts committee.

I will now ask the minister if he would care to comment on whether or not this money is going to be sufficient to deal with the day-to-day activities of all the departments of government, and in particular, whether or not there will be any replies given by departments of government, ministries, ministers, executive assistants and senior civil servants in response to inquiries about money, as to whether or not this opposition is holding up money because of the length of time it's taking us to go through a $6 billion budget. In short, I want to be assured by the Minister of Finance that what we're doing today is adequate, because I don't want to pass a bill that doesn't have enough money in it, that will, in effect, enable ministers, executive assistants, deputy ministers or public servants to tell the public of British Columbia that they can't get what they're entitled to because the New Democratic Party opposition is somehow holding up the money.

Now we've heard of that, Mr. Speaker. You may find that strange and hard to believe, the minister may find it strange and hard to believe, but I want to tell him that while I find it strange, I don't find it hard to believe. In fact, during the debates last year I heard a minister of the Crown say the very same thing. I'm talking about the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who said in the House, yes, there wasn't money for his projects because the official opposition was holding up estimates.

We didn't call the House together on March 9, Mr. Speaker; you did. If you didn't call us together soon enough, you have to consult with somebody — I don't know who — to get us here a little earlier so the money can go through a little faster. I wasn't in Hawaii; I wasn't jet-setting around the world; I was ready to do the people's business; and I think the minister was too, if I can possibly pass him a back-handed compliment. I want him, when he's summing up what small debate there'll be in second reading, to state what the position of the government is going to be in terms of those inquiries.

I'm not threatening or promising or doing anything, but if this opposition hears again that the true scrutiny of dollar-by-dollar estimates is being used by that government — and I'm including all agencies of government — as some excuse for not getting on with their work, we'll be on our hind legs every day of the week. I think I've known that minister sufficiently long enough to know that he would agree with me.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) asked me if I was going to make a speech today. My answer was yes. You've heard the speech. I'd like the answers, because, while we all know what the game of politics is all about, this is hardball, and I want to get it finished right now.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, further to my colleague's comments, I want to deal specifically with one of the worst culprits in this area, and that's the Ministry of Human Resources. I'm sure you remember the debates from last year, when there were not only statements made but even messages and memos going out of that ministry, informing people that they could not receive their funding because the opposition was holding up interim supply.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. We are now digressing into specific debate of specific votes in the House. The debate on this particular motion is extremely narrow and must restrict itself to the voting of interim supply itself. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Right. That was just a preamble, Mr. Speaker. Now to the very narrow limitations of this bill. I just wanted to let the House know that I have already received a number of phone calls in my Burnaby-Edmonds office and in my office here at Victoria from group-home operators and foster homes and other people contracted to the Ministry of Human Resources, informing me that their cheques for March 31 and April 1 have not been received because this House has not passed interim supply. No statement has been made that the bill has not been introduced into the House until this moment. Instead, the statement has been made that the cheques are ready, that in fact they're being held in the accounting office because this House has not passed this bill. That is another Socred dirty trick — that's precisely what that is. Mr. Speaker, I just want the record to show that although the bill states specifically that it's a bill to deal with financing until March 31 of this year, today is April 2, and this is the first time we've had an opportunity to see and debate the bill or pass the bill. So what we're dealing with is not just incompetence and ineptitude on the part of that government over there, but another indication that they have not learned their lesson and that their dirty tricks continue.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I'm very pleased to respond to the charges against the Ministry of Human Resources, because I think that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds, who has just taken her place, is suggesting that she has received calls in her office. It's interesting that I've received quite a few calls in my office too, Mr. Speaker, and we have responded in a different way than the member has suggested.

It's interesting that we had calls on the very first day of April. If a cheque did not arrive in the mail to most people in this province, I think that they would immediately blame the mail service. But somehow for some reason those who have reached our office know the terms: "When are you going to pass the supply bill? When are you going to pass the Supply Act?" They know all the terminology of the House, which I'd say is a great credit to the people of British Columbia. I would say it shows that the information is very well sent out, even contrary to what is said in this House many times about communications.

Over the years in this House the supply bill has come in at different times. There has never been any hardship in the month of April in my ministry because of this House not passing a supply bill, In the past 24 hours when we've had these calls, we have said that yes, there is a supply bill that has to come before the House, and it is an order of urgent business that will be dealt with urgently. I simply respond to that because I think that the commentary just heard by the House is entirely different than the commentary given over the telephone by the people in my ministry, who are very cognizant that the cheques must get out. In fact, I'm sure that they were very concerned during the years of the New Democratic Party, when the supply bill was as late as April 9 in getting passed in this House and getting to the people of the Ministry of Human Resources. This will not happen at this point in time, because this is now the second day of April, and I'm sure that this House has a great concern to pass it in a great hurry.

[ Page 4949 ]

HON. MR. CURTIS: My remarks will be brief. I thank the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) for dealing with the general aspects of interim supply. The member for Nanaimo, the finance critic for the official opposition, indicated that there will be other opportunities to debate specifies, and indeed the Committee of Supply is seized with that right now. I take that as a very fair comment. That is why we are here to debate.

The second member for Surrey, who is in the House but not in his seat, asked: "Is this money sufficient?" Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is sufficient for the purposes which have been identified: that is, one-sixth of the estimated annual expenditure for the 1981-82 year. The member will know, as a minister in a former government, that it is necessary for officials in various ministries, for ministers themselves and for staff throughout government to say occasionally that there are not sufficient funds for that particular purpose which is being discussed. That's the whole question of government not being able to supply every last dollar that everyone would like for every last program. But the fact that we have estimates to continue for quite some time — however long that may take — should not interfere with the flow of funds as authorized by interim supply to carry on the programs which have been outlined by this government, as well as statutory programs which are an inherent part of governmental process in British Columbia.

Should the second member for Surrey have any specifies at any time where it is indicated by a government employee or some other person associated with government that there are insufficient funds because of the supply and estimates process, then I trust he will draw those to my immediate attention, privately or in the House. I would like him to undertake to do that. We see no problem in terms of the general situation which he outlined.

There was reference by the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds and a response by my colleague the Minister of Human Resources with respect to phone calls. Well, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite may be interested to know that I have been in direct personal conversation with several people in the Vancouver area on the point which she raised, and the point which I think was more than adequately answered by my colleague the Minister of Human Resources. I took the time today to speak to these individuals who are dependent upon government assistance of one kind or another. In two cases they did not seem to understand that the fiscal year has just ended, that interim supply isn't something which has been introduced by this government or by the last government, but that there is, as of March 31, 1981, the end of a fiscal year and that with the exception of emergency funds — and I make that point realizing that it is, perhaps, in violation of the legislative process — no moneys can be expended unless they are voted.

I took particular pains this year, Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is aware, to ensure that in this interval, if for some reason or other the House could not have met, emergency funds would be provided. The problem exists, to the best of my knowledge, only in the greater Vancouver area, because another progressive step taken in recent months by this government, and by that ministry in conjunction with the Ministry of Finance, is to put Ministry of Human Resources payments on a 13-month schedule to avoid the very problem which has existed in the past.

We are on a 13-month payment cycle. We intend to move to the same cycle in the greater Vancouver area, but it is a far more complex question there than in some other parts of the province. At the same time, it is difficult if a cheque is one or two days late, and again my colleague the Deputy Premier and Minister of Human Resources indicated that this is about the average time for interim supply to be presented to the Legislative Assembly. I've looked back over the last 11 years: April 2; April 1; March 30; April 4; March 26 — that was because there was an Easter break immediately following that date, during the opposition's time in government; March 30; March 30; April 10; April 2 last year; April 2 this year.

Without violating the authority of this House and its committees, we want to make sure that we can cover this very short period, Mr. Speaker. between the end of the fiscal year and the voting of interim supply.

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

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

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

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

Motion approved.

Bill 15, Supply Act. No. 1, 1981, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

SUPPLY ACT, NO. 1, 1981

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

On section 1.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could pose a question on section 1 to the Minister of Finance. The question is founded upon some information that was given to the Committee of Supply by the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) — I only use that as a prelude, not to expand beyond the ambit of the bill. The Minister of Forests said that he had been required or asked or instructed by the Minister of Finance to reduce the allocation of funds to his ministry by 2 1/3 percent. Inasmuch as we are now dealing with one-sixth of the estimates of expenditure for all ministries involved, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance could provide the committee with some information as to just what that 2 1/3 percent meant, what it applied to and what the result has been in reducing expenditures by that amount of money. How does it show up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, before proceeding I must indicate that the Chair is having some difficulty under the "strictly relevant" section. I would note the bill says "substantially one-sixth of the total amount." Therefore, hon. member, "substantially one-sixth" is the amount under debate. I must indicate at this time that debate on the line of questioning put forward by the member for Skeena would hardly be in order under this particular section.

[ Page 4950 ]

MR. HOWARD: I don't want to challenge that decision. We're not in that ambit of the thing, but to me it seems to be a highly irregular type of ruling. At one stage the Committee of Supply is given information by a minister that a 2 1/3 percent reduction is necessitated. We're just seeking to find out from the minister to what extent that 2 1/3 percent reduction applies to this one-sixth, or this "substantially one-sixth," or the $1,184,000,000 that is there. I submit a perfectly legitimate question, Mr. Chairman, without wading back into the history of Great Britain to find out what they may do there.

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

"The principle of relevancy is also strictly applied to debate and amendments in the committee on the appropriation bill. No grant of supply is affected by the bill. Its provisions are solely administrative; the sole object of the bill is to ensure the application of the grants made by Parliament to the objects defined by the resolutions of the Committee of Supply. Accordingly, debate or amendment must be restricted to the matter of appropriation; and the conduct of the officials or of the departments who receive the supply grants cannot be challenged in the committee on the bill. Nor can amendments be moved to its clauses, or to the schedule, to effect the omission or reduction of the amount of a grant, or of the appropriations in aid of it, or an alteration in the designation of a grant."

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

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

MR. HOWARD: Perhaps we can try another attack at it on the basis of the word you emphasized, namely "appropriation." We're trying to appropriate a certain amount of money here. The Minister of Forests has said that the allocation of funds to him was sought to be reduced. Is this a valid figure we're faced with, or is 2 1/3 percent to be cut from it? In other words, we're asking about the validity of the amount to be appropriated. If we are running afoul of a very fine interpretation of the rules in that regard, inasmuch as the minister was rising in his place to respond to it when I posed the question before, perhaps we could by consent give to the minister permission to reply to it so that the committee here will have an understanding of whether or not that $1,184,000,000 is an accurate figure. Is it to be reduced or is it too much or what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, notwithstanding the comments by the member, it would be a very unprecedented precedent to set to enter into the dialogue that the member is referring to. Therefore I regret that if we are not discussing "substantially one-sixth of the total amount" — that is the limit of our scope of debate in this section — to stray from that would be to set a precedent that the Chair is not prepared to set.

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

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the practice in Westminster is substantially different from ours. I think that your comments would be quite valid if we were in Committee of Ways and Means, which we've already been in some minutes ago, but we are now in committee on the second reading of an interim supply bill. I think that the analogy between appropriation would be more appropriate to Committee of Ways and Means.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your observations, hon. member. Nevertheless, the Chair is bound to uphold the standing traditions, and to digress at this point to what the member is suggesting would be a precedent the Chair is not prepared to accept.

On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: One of the other provisions of May — a very time-honoured one — is that it is the function of the Chair, in addition to what the Chair has just outlined, to look at current situations, which are not always and exclusively historic situations, and to try by that process and procedure to recognize that perhaps what we are doing today necessitates a departure from what took place in England. We are faced with the need for that departure, I submit, because for the first time that anybody knows of the Minister of Forests told the Committee of Supply that, beyond the estimates, he has been asked by the Minister of Finance to cut his allocation of funds by 2 1/3 percent. That was the new factor in it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has the point made. Again, the point would have added validity were it not for the fact that we still have full opportunity before us to canvass the matter both in other ministries and before the Minister of Finance other than in this specific bill. As it was put so aptly, now we are specifically looking at section 1 of this bill, and the only thing that we can really discuss is the "substantially one-sixth of the total amount."

The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: I think we all understand what you're saying. You're saying that because in England 500 years ago, or approximately 500 years ago, they had a rule about something, even though today common sense would tell the Chairman that we should be doing what the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) said, we can't do it. I think I'd like to follow up what the hon. member for Skeena said. There is some latitude in the Chair, and if it makes common sense to the Chairman that the people's business be done and that it be done in a way that everyone is satisfied that the money that the taxpayers are going to pay is going to be spent properly, the question should be asked. I make an appeal to you to deal with this with common sense as opposed to 500-year old precedents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would hope that the members of this committee would appreciate that the Chair is trying to do its utmost in providing commonsense background and traditions. Hon. members, if we were to stray from the traditions that bind us in this House, I would hate to think where we would be because of a change that we simply couldn't accept. We must carry through with the traditions that bind the practice of this House.

Hon. members, I must confess at this time that we have entertained some sizeable debate on the issue, and if it's a ruling that the members are looking for, I'm prepared to give that ruling. I would hope, however, that common sense would prevail and that we would proceed with this bill.

[ Page 4951 ]

MR. LEA: On the same point of order, to give the Chairman some food for thought, you know those little things that the sailors wear on the back of their uniforms? They're decorative, but they're there to keep the tar from the pigtails off the uniform of the sailors. They're still there although they no longer wear pigtails, and I believe that we're in that kind of a situation today. The rule of the precedent makes no sense, but we're afraid to change it, and I can't understand it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On that note, hon. members, I would point out that some of those very same individuals take great pride in that same piece of material that is worn on the back of those uniforms.

MS. BROWN: I would like to ask the minister a couple of questions dealing with this section. First of all, I'm wondering why it was not possible to bring this bill in on Monday, March 30, when we were all here, or even on Tuesday, March 31, when we were all here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. That question would have been appropriate in second reading, but now.... Hon. members, I'm sure that if we were to more carefully understand the strict relevance of this section, that might guide us all. On that, I must rule, hon. member, that the question....

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, if I had been given an opportunity to complete my train of thought the connection would have become clearer as I proceeded.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proceed, hon. member.

MS. BROWN: Right. In fact, it has to do with the spending of sums of money which, for all intents and purposes, came due — some of them — on March 31. When I raised — not reflecting on the vote, but earlier — the fact that there was considerable inconvenience as a result of the money in this section being appropriated on April 2 rather than on March 30 or March 31 the minister said there was no hardship. I want to say that in the Vancouver area there is one particular group home which is going to have to close. The group home has received an eviction notice as a result of this particular section of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Hon. members, I hate to try and keep bringing this forward, but hon. members should be in a position to understand that we are dealing with the strict relevance of section 1. There will be adequate opportunity for the member to discuss the point she's raised, but not here and not in this section. The Chair would greatly appreciate the understanding of members on this. The Supply Act is a very straightforward and restrictive bill, and the dialogue that the member is now engaging in is certainly much more adequately coverable — if I may use that word — in another ministry in another section.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman — except that I'm specifically dealing with section 1 and the appropriation of these sums of money today, which should have been appropriated and passed by this House two or three days ago. I cannot debate this particular section under any other minister, and the only opportunity I've had to deal with this section is here and now, because this is the first time it's come up.

The other point I wanted to ask the minister was whether in this appropriation the minister included the possibility of printing cheques in braille for those people who have limited vision. This idea was put forward by a number of blind people. I notice that the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) is very amused by the concept of blind people not being able to read their cheques.

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

MS. BROWN: He's finding it very funny and laughing at it, and the only blessing about having that member in this House is that at least he's out of the school system and our children are protected from him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The issue of whether or not the cheques should be printed as outlined by the member may be, and doubtless is, a most worthwhile question, but, again. not under section 1 of Bill 15. I'm trying to be as clear as possible and as understanding as possible, but I will have to rule, hon. member, if you persist in this line of questioning. I think one only has to reflect on the remarks of the critic for the opposition when he outlined in his own reply the very strict limitations. I would ask all hon. members to give the remarks of that member and the instructions of the Chair some real consideration.

MS. BROWN: May I ask whether I'm quoting directly from section 1 — this sum of "$1,184,000,000 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province...." Surely the printing of cheques in braille comes under the defraying of charges and expenses, and the Minister of Finance is the only minister who can authorize this expenditure. If it's not under this section, would it then be under another section, and if so which other section would it be under? Would you like it to be saved for your estimates? Okay, that's fine. The minister has agreed to respond under his estimate.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, being very specific, section 1, line 3, in the second half of it....

MR. LEA: The fourteenth word.

MR. STUPICH: Well, there are four words involved — "$1,184,000,000" are the four words to which I wish to address just a few remarks. During discussion of the estimates as far as they've gone so far, the opposition has presented several arguments and amendments which would have resulted in substantial reductions in expenditures. We propose further adjustments to expenditures. and it is our argument that the government has deliberately padded these accounts — specifically advertising, building occupancy, computer services and travel — in order to create surpluses that will be fortuitously avail able at the end of the year, and it is with that in mind that the opposition moves an amendment. I realize that we are treading on rather shaky ground in moving an amendment at this point. It is a reduction. Had this amendment been moved by the minister, it certainly would have been accepted. Had he accepted the arguments we raised earlier, then he would have moved a lower figure. We give him this opportunity at this point in time to recognize that savings could have been made in expenditures. With that in mind I move that we strike the words I've mentioned,

[ Page 4952 ]

"$1, 184,000,000," and replace them with the words "$1,125,000,000" — a reduction, Mr. Chairman, of $59 million with respect to two months of the year.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I must say initially that the amendment is out of order. I will cite the reference which, I think, outlines this specific instance most clearly. The 11th edition of Sir Erskine May says at page 595: "Nor can amendments be moved to its clauses, or to the schedule, to effect the omission or reduction of the amount of a grant...." Hon. members, I must rule that the proposed amendment is therefore out of order.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I'm amazed that you had to reach as far back as the 11th edition of May to find in our dim history some reason to deny the Committee of Supply a chance to save the taxpayers money. I challenge your ruling.

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

The Chair has been challenged.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

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

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 22

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

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: When shall the committee sit again?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Today. Mr. Speaker, for the information of the House, His Honour will be attending sometime this afternoon. At that time we'll ask for a short recess. With leave I move we proceed to adjourned debate in committee on Bill 16, Medical Services Plan Act, 1981,

Leave granted.

Motion approved.

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

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

(continued)

On the amendment to section 6.

HON. MR. HYNDMAN: By way of concluding my remarks on the amendment to section 6(l), may I just summarize that the reason for the wording as proposed by the government in the section is very simple and clear. It is to provide the Minister of Health the fullest and most flexible capacity to provide a form of arbitration which, after the minister has had an opportunity to assess the available types and techniques and have some input from the affected parties, will give him the opportunity to have flexibility.

[ Page 4953 ]

The reasons why the amendment cannot be accepted by the government are that the amendment is premature, hasty, inflexible, narrow, rigid, arbitrary and short-sighted. We do not think that this early in the debate or at this stage — and indeed before the BCMA negotiating committee has had a chance to consider its views as to a form of arbitration it prefers, if that is necessary — this Legislature should cast in stone the one and only choice for the form of arbitration. We believe that in a sophisticated age of arbitrations the Minister of Health should have some reasonable opportunity to consider the various techniques that may be available. We believe the Minister of Health should have the time and opportunity to consider the views of not just the BCMA but of the public as to appropriate forms of arbitration. We think it would be premature and short-sighted at this early stage to dictate once and for all what the only choice could be.

In concluding, I am again drawn to the remarks of the former Minister of Labour, my good friend the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), on October 7, 1975, in this House when he introduced the Collective Bargaining Continuation Act — some very profound labour legislation. In the course of his remarks — in particular at page 52 of Hansard — he pointed out the need for flexibility in these matters, even if that flexibility meant some uncertainty. I am confident that if we give our Minister of Health some reasonable time and opportunity to listen to the various points of view about the form of arbitration, when his suggestion comes forward — if there is to be arbitration — it will speak for itself in a very fair and positive manner.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. GABELMANN: If I were in court facing a trial and I knew I was guilty, I know absolutely that I would retain neither the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) nor the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) as my defence lawyer.

The pathetic defence put forth by the Attorney-General for this ill-considered so-called arbitration procedure gave me an opportunity to watch what I think is the very worst performance that minister has ever given in this House. Watching the dynamics on the floor of this House last night, it was clear that the Attorney-General and some of his other colleagues were concerned about this section, but overnight were told by the Premier to get on board or else. I don't know what the "or else" may have been. There are a variety of alternatives for that. Nevertheless, it was clear that the Attorney-General, the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and most particularly the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) were appalled by what they had just learned was contained in this legislation. They were told last night and presumably again this morning that they had better get on board, and they were told by the Premier.

I'm talking about the amendment, because it is very important to this House that we understand how we arrived at this situation and how we are now unable to extricate ourselves from one of the most disastrous pieces of legislation ever introduced in this Legislature. For the Attorney-General and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to stand in their places and argue that the section of this bill as presented is to allow some flexibility — to use the words of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs — is sheer, unmitigated nonsense. How they have the gall to say it is beyond me.

In his comments this morning the Minister of Consumer and Corporate affairs said: "I'm not an expert on labour relations." That was made very obvious by all his comments. He's not an expert on arbitration either, nor is he an expert on how to devise a system to make sure we preserve medicare in this province. The government is determined, sure as shooting, to get rid of medicare. They are setting up a situation where there will be confrontation in this province. In making his argument, weak as it was, the Attorney-General attempted to argue that this was not a labour relations matter it was not connected to a wage settlement between workers and employers; the doctors were not in that category. Therefore arbitration procedures which may exist in other statutes such as the School Act were not applicable. He said that they are not workers. We argue that this is much more akin to collective bargaining than to anything else; there may be some differences, but it's more akin to that.

For the moment, let's just accept that the Attorney-General is right, that this is not a collective-bargaining matter, and that an arbitration procedure aside from labour relations procedures should be adopted. The first one that occurred to me was in the Highway Act. So I had a look at the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to see how they resolve disputes between the government, or an agency of the government, and a citizen who owns property which is slated to be expropriated. The arbitration section of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act allows both parties to be involved in choosing arbitrators.

In every situation in this province where there are disputes to be resolved that cannot be resolved by discussion or collective bargaining or by any other civilized method of reaching agreement, we have another civilized method of reaching agreement, when both parties agree. That procedure is called arbitration. The basic principle of arbitration allows for both sides to be involved in the process.

The section of this bill which we are attempting to amend says that one side in the dispute can make all the judgments about who is to be involved in the arbitration, who the judge is going to be, and what the rules concerning that judgment are coming to be. Every single aspect of the arbitration is to be determined by one side or the other. If we accepted that same principle in the Highway Act, but reversed it, just to be even handed, should we say to the property owner that he gets to choose the arbitrator and the issues under arbitration, and if the person he chooses to make that judgment doesn't make a judgment he likes, then he can amend it later, as this bill says?

This bit of legislation is the most undemocratic thing I in my brief experience have ever seen in this province. I have not seen a piece of legislation.... Even going back to the mediation commission, as bad and as rotten as that was, this is worse.

We thought it had been well recognized by all political philosophies and factions in this province that the experimenting done with the kind of compulsory arbitration contained in the Mediation Commission Act proved conclusively and forever that compulsion does not work. It didn't work them it hasn't worked since. We're now seeing the beginning of a return to that kind of attitude.

I would like to point out that it was that kind of attitude that played a major role in the defeat of the government in 1972. And today it's the intransigence of the Premier on this precise issue that will lead to his and your downfall.

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

[ Page 4954 ]

tion on both sides. When one side is told they have no right whatsoever to be a participant in the decisions about their own future, fate, livelihood, lives, profession and family for the year to come, and have got no say whatsoever in determining how that life is going to be lived for the following year, do you think they're going to be cooperative? Do you think they'll be able to come to a satisfactory resolution outside the arbitration process, whether it's as you design it or as it should properly be designed — as we would have it designed?

What the government is doing — and it's not the entire government; it's probably a minority of cabinet, but it happens to be that a vote of one in there wins — what the Premier is doing is setting up a confrontation and pushing the doctors into a position that makes them angry, as it would make any group of workers or any other people angry, hoping against hope that the doctors will do something rash. Then the government can come down heavy-handed in dealing with some rash act that might come from this kind of legislation and say to the people of B.C.: "Maybe we'd better have an election, because the doctors aren't playing ball with us." I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the principles of natural justice are violated by this act and it would not stand up in court were it tested.

The last time I spoke at some length and with some passion on a labour issue in this House — and I see this as a labour issue — I spoke with emotion, concern and some nervousness. That was in the fall of 1975. I speak today with the same kinds of emotions with one more added, and today's extra emotion is one of absolute anger at the method and approach the government has taken. No matter what I may have said in this House, as quoted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) and others, the one thing I never said about our Minister of Labour in those days was that he acted in an unjust or uneven-handed manner. At all times he made sure all parties were involved in the discussions and decisions, and those were issues, may I remind the House, that were not questions of the government as employer and to the union: "We are going to make the rules and we're going to tell you what the wages are." Those days have gone. This section violates every principle enunciated by the United Nations in its various conventions on labour relations and on practice between groups affected by government. It violates every convention of the ILO. It violates every concept accepted by governments and the population in this country for the last 20 or 30 years. It happens in B.C. that it took us until the last ten years to recognize fully those concepts when it came to dealing with public servants.

The doctors in our province are not quite public servants. They're in a slightly different category in terms of the direct relationship with government, but nevertheless they are public servants and are paid for by the public wealth. That wealth is represented by the government. You are saying to those people that you will act like the old industrialists of the 1900s would to their workers by saying: "Here are the working conditions, here are the wages. You take it or leave it. If you don't like it you get out." That's what you're saying to them.

I'll conclude with this brief comment. I would agree with those members, including the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Attorney-General, who argue that our amendment may not be complete in itself. I would agree with that. It's not the full section out of the School Act, but what we were signalling to the government yesterday with the introduction of that amendment was that here you've got a problem, here is the principle upon which we would base such legislation, get your drafts people ready, alert them and bring in an amendment that does tie up some of the loose ends — and I agree there are some loose ends, those loose ends relating to the timing if the process breaks down. The School Act serves as a model for this. So, Mr. Chairman, in agreeing with that criticism by the government, I'm quite prepared — and I'm certain our side is — to say: okay, we'll withdraw our amendment when you bring in yours that does it properly.

Mr. Chairman, there is a lot more that can be said, and I know other members on our side are going to say it. I'm hoping that we won't have to take the time of this House to do that; I'm hoping that what we're seeing in the absence of all those members is a discussion out there somewhere about the wording of the amendment that you're going to bring in. Because it's very difficult to know exactly what is going on when none of the government members are here, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 27

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to be very brief. I didn't really plan to get into the debate, but because of the trend it has taken, I feet compelled to say just a few words.

First of all, I'm one who has had a great deal of experience with doctors. Only about a year ago my family would have been happy to pay any price to see me back on the job. I feel very sad indeed that there couldn't have been a satisfactory settlement, but there wasn't, and our minister was in no position but to take the action that was taken.

Mr. Chairman, the point I'd like to make is this — the political play that is going on by the other side on this very important issue. I get very disturbed, as the amendment is debated, that such expressions or statements would be made as were made here yesterday by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) when he interjected a new slogan, double billing. I can only suspect that the reason that that was done was to throw a little more scare into the people out there,

[ Page 4955 ]

but it certainly didn't do the doctors of this province any good. Mr. Chairman, I also get very disturbed when I hear those members being critical of the attendance on the government side. In the debate on the amendment the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) just recently made reference to this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. We are on a very specific amendment to a specific section of a bill. I wonder if the committee would remember that and make the remarks strictly relevant to the amendment that is before us.

MR. RITCHIE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll do that. I will just follow the course of the previous speaker who spoke on the amendment and state here in the House that the Leader of the Opposition didn't have the guts to stand up and vote on the initial....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, you are reflecting on a vote that's been previously taken, and I would please ask the hon. member to be strictly relevant. Standing order 61(2) states that all discussion must be strictly relevant, and all members of the committee are reminded of that. We are specifically dealing with an amendment to a section of a bill. Will the member for Central Fraser Valley please relate his remarks to the amendment before us.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I will refrain from stating that that member of the opposition did not stay in the House for that vote. But I would say that with the trend this debate has taken now, it wouldn't have mattered whether the bill was entirely satisfactory to the opposition or not; they were going to find some way to get some political hay out of it. Even if it were left to the title itself, I'm sure that they were going to find some way of getting on the other side of the fence — and they seem to be famous for that.

Mr. Chairman, that's all I wanted to say, and I'm going to end now by stating that I'm very much opposed to this amendment.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce George Hobson, who is here from Courtenay today and who is heading up the Summer Games, which are going to be held in Courtenay in August. As all members know, I've already extended an invitation to attend the Summer Games, but George Hobson is doing an outstanding job of organizing the committee in preparation for those games, and I'd like everyone to make him welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the amendment. One of the things that is said about this Legislature by teachers and school children who come here to watch us do our duties is that we're unruly and that we don't seem to act in a mature manner. I was first elected in 1972; there are others here who were elected after that time. I know that since 1972 we seem to have inherited the historical behaviour in this House — and I'm not talking about decorum so much as entrenched attitudes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as I mentioned to the previous speaker, we should make our comments directly relevant to the amendment before us. Those are our standing orders.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, if you had heard the end of the paragraph, you may have grasped it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can the member relate the remarks to the amendment.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it is the historical tradition of this Legislature that if the government were to bring in the Lord's Prayer, the opposition would amend it. It's also historically tradition in this House that if the opposition brings in a well-thought out, meaningful, well-intended, commonsense amendment, government will turn it down, no matter what it is. That seems to be our history.

Our leader says that when we were in government we accepted some amendments, and that's true, but in my opinion, not nearly enough. I think we had an opportunity, over this dispute that is basically non-partisan, to show the people of this province that once and for all this Legislature could mature and act in a manner that other Legislatures throughout the Commonwealth have adopted. I believe that there are members sitting over there — both in cabinet and on the back benches — who really in their heart of hearts know that this amendment is worthy of being accepted by government and that through the stubbornness of the Premier, that is not going to happen, because he adheres to the old fights of the days of yesteryear. The Premier can't seem to let them alone, the bitter politics that have gone on in this province, and he's whipped his troops into line saying: "Regardless of the amendment and whether it's worthy, we will oppose it, because that's what we do with amendments."

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), formerly the Minister of Labour, has admitted in this House today that his government and this House would not dare bring this kind of arbitrary pseudo-arbitration legislation in against any trade union.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, he didn't say that? In other words he would. Maybe we're seeing the forerunner of the kind of legislation that we're going to see in this House dealing with the trade union movement. The Attorney-General can't make up his mind where he's at, for the simple reason that when he stands up to vote with government against this amendment, lie will be voting against all the principles that he said he has held over the years. That's what he will be doing.

I think the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), when he pointed out the kind of arbitration that's available within the Highway Act, has pointed out where we are in the crux of this problem. There are two sides to the dispute: the Medical Services Commission. which in effect is government, and the British Columbia Medical Association, which in effect are the employees. What the government is doing — being on one side of the dispute as management — is giving itself unprecedented powers. Would they give the other side of the dispute the same kind of powers that they're giving to themselves? The answer is no. You've got to be kidding. That isn't the way it would be.

[ Page 4956 ]

Mr. Speaker, what has happened to this once proud party of turncoats? What has happened to them? History tends to repeat itself if you don't learn from history. In the early 1930s, we saw almost an identical situation in the parliament of Germany. When the Nazi party brought in their first totalitarian piece of legislation, what happened? There were 94 Social Democrats who voted against it. The two centre parties, which we could loosely call Liberal and Conservative, voted for it and then voluntarily disbanded. The only difference we see here is that the two centre parties are going to join with the party that brought in the legislation and stand up and vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I understand that His Honour is in the precinct. I move that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I am informed that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is now in the precincts and is awaiting our readiness for him in this chamber. In just a few moments he will be here, and I would suggest all members retain their seats until such time as he arrives.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Supply Act, No. 1, 1981.

CLERK OF THE HOUSE: In Her Majesty's name, His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth thank Her Majesty's loyal subjects, accept their benevolence and assent to this bill.

His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor retired from the chamber.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Adjourned debate in committee on Bill 16, Mr. Speaker.

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

(continued)

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

On the amendment to section 6.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, in supporting this amendment that the official opposition thinks would bring some sanity and a rational approach to the arbitration procedures set out in the bill, it is disconcerting and indeed frightening to hear some of the speeches from some of the cabinet ministers.

The Attorney-General, who at one time was the Minister of Labour, I thought had said in his morning speech that the government wouldn't bring in this kind of arbitration system for the trade union movement. He has now informed me that it would not be beyond the principles of this government to bring in this same kind of arbitration procedure to deal with problems in the trade union movement. Indeed, that is a frightening prospect.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says that he believes that the kind of arbitration that is in the amendment put forward by the opposition is narrow, confining and won't work. Yet it is the exact same kind of arbitration that is used when dealing with the school teachers of this province. Does the government then intend to bring in this kind of arbitration procedure to deal with teachers' disputes in this province? It just isn't good enough that this government has chosen that the doctors will be the persons affected by what we consider to be an unfair and inequitable form of arbitration procedure — if it can indeed be called "by arbitration," because we don't believe there is any arbitration procedure that resembles the section we're trying to amend.

If there is one member of this Legislative Assembly who should take his place in this debate it's the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich), the member for Prince George North. He can no longer hide his head in the sand and hope the problems will go away as he has done since his appointment. This piece of legislation and the section we're amending goes against everything historically and presently in the department that he presides over. He cannot sit there flipping through his papers and hope to get out of taking part in this debate. We would be interested to hear what the Minister of Labour has to say about this section. Surely he cannot defend it. Surely the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) cannot defend it. How can he defend it?

I suppose we could have taken the time to go back through Hansard and dig up the remarks made by that minister and the other Liberals when they sat on this side of this House. I'm sure we could have found specifics that they spoke about over the years dealing with this kind of principle which they were opposed to. How then do they intend to sit there and, when the time comes, stand in their place and vote against what they said they were against for so many years?

In a partisan way I would like to say the government knew what they were doing when they brought this bill in. I'd like to be able to say that, because from a partisan point of view it would look good in print. Maybe we could make a couple of political brownies by saying this government intended to do this. I don't think they did. During the hurly-burly — and as an ex-cabinet minister I understand — of legislative sessions and the need for quick legislation, oftentimes legislation hits the floor of the House without full scrutiny of cabinet, and with no scrutiny at all by the back bench. It happens. I believe that's what happened with this piece of legislation. I don't think the members opposite, the government backbenchers or the cabinet, intended to do this. I don't think they're that silly. But they seem to think that politically they have themselves in a bind, that once they've brought it in they can't back off. They seem to think it would be a sign of weakness, a sign of not being in control of the House. Now that they've had a chance in a quieter moment to examine this bill, which by necessity came in in haste, they can't back off; they have to pretend it's what they intended all along. In some ways that's worse. It would be one thing if they had designed this piece of legislation, which in my opinion is undemocratic. I don't think they did. I think if they can be faulted it's for not having the ability or the flexibility to admit that a piece of legislation

[ Page 4957 ]

hit the House without full scrutiny. They don't seem to have the intestinal fortitude or common sense to stand up and say: "In our haste we made a mistake."

I think there were a number on the government side yesterday who fully intended to do that. I know the Minister of Labour did not read this bill until after it was in the House. I saw him madly going through it and reading it after he'd been informed about the bill. He doesn't agree with it. I don't believe any of the lawyers over there could agree with it, because, as others said, it goes against natural justice. So what's the problem? When I believe the majority of members over there don't agree with this section and do agree with the amendment, why can't they find it within their hearts to support it? It's because of a stupid, arrogant, false pride. And I don't believe it's the members; I believe it's their leader.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we must remember that parliamentary language is always a good feature of the House. If the member could be reminded of that and pay close attention to the amendment, the committee can continue,

MR. LEA: Okay, he's not their leader.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think my language was intemperate. I believe that the members — a great many of them on that side, if not all of them — don't agree with this section of the act and agree with the amendment. Yet here we are, fighting the battles of yesteryear, acting now as we've acted historically — in my opinion, foolishly — all of us in this House. The Premier can't bring himself to stand up in this House and say that we made a mistake, that it was done in haste; but rather he compounds what was done mistakenly in haste by being stubborn. I don't think that is unparliamentary. I think the Premier is stubborn. I think he's a stubborn man, not a bad man. He finds it very difficult to stand up and apologize and to say he was wrong. I think he has demanded that his cabinet benches and his backbenchers stay with him in his stubbornness and not admit to this mistake.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, again I will remind the committee that we are debating a specific amendment to a bill. Also, I'll remind the member who's speaking now that personal allusions are not allowed in debate. You cannot make personal allusions to another member in the House.

MR. LEA: I can't make personal allusions. What about delusions?

Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's important that the NDP win this debate. I don't think it's important whether we win or lose it. I don't think it's important whether the Social Credit win or lose it. I do think it's important for the people of British Columbia that neither one of us come out winners or losers but rather the people of this province come out the winners and that they have a fair, equitable piece of legislation to deal with the doctors of this province. We all agree that doctors should not be allowed to extra-bill. No one in this House that I know of disagrees with that. I think the vote proved that. We agree in principle on that very item. We don't think the government should allow the doctors to extra-bill.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

But why in heaven's name must we proceed with what I can only describe as a farce? What we are going to do if we don't accept this amendment is drive the doctors into the corner and leave them no other way to come out but to come out fighting against society, against the members of this House, and we all lose. Mr. Chairman, as a society can we afford that kind of loss, to have a highly respected group of professionals in our province feel that they have been unjustly and unfairly treated by the government and the Legislature of the province of British Columbia? I don't think we can. We can treat them fairly. What we've offered before is that if it goes against the grain of the Premier to accept an amendment from this side, we will gladly give up our amendment and allow the government to 2o out and bring in their own amendment.

I think I could also make this promise on behalf of my colleagues: we won't even go around the province tooting our horn about it. Accept the amendment or bring in your own amendment, and let's call it a day. As political parties we don't win or lose on this issue; only the doctors aid only society generally lose. I think that we are acting childishly. I think the Premier particularly is acting childishly on this issue. You know something else, Mr. Chairman? I think the Premier thinks he is too. I can't see why the Premier, knowing full well that the legislation is incorrect, inequitable, unfair and undemocratic can't bring himself to be the man we hope he is, to be the kind of leader we hope he is, and to be the kind of Premier we all hope he is, not as partisans, but as citizens of this province. I think we have a right to expect that the Premier is a big enough person to admit that it was done in haste — made a mistake — and to get up and accept this amendment or to tell us: "Let's move on."

In conclusion, I would like to stress that the people of this province have the right to hear from the Minister of Labour on this dispute. This is a very, very undemocratic thing we're doing. The Minister of Labour has the obligation to stand up in this House and tell us how he, as the person who presides over arbitrations, feels about this section and the amendment. If he does not, then he has forsaken the very principles he swore to uphold when he accepted the office. He has forsaken them. He has forsaken the people who have to live under his jurisdiction.

It's a bit ironic that the Minister of Labour has the human rights branch also under his jurisdiction. If the Minister of Labour doesn't take his place during this debate, it will be a sad, sad day for that portfolio. He will be through as a credible Minister of Labour, and if he is through as a credible Minister of Labour, then this Legislature is through as a credible means of dealing with disputes that arise between institutions and people in this province. We're all through.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the first minister of this province to straighten it out. Only the first minister can straighten out this mess and get us back on the track. Leave stubbornness aside, and leave false pride aside. More important, leave history aside. Let's hear a statement from the Premier; if he won't make it, let's hear at least from the Minister of Labour, who, if he does not speak, has forsaken the oath he took.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I certainly cannot support this amendment. It is poorly prepared, it's totally unworkable, and it doesn't even provide for time limits. But worse still, one must see it for what it is. It's an attempt to stimulate anger and fear among the doctors in this province. By drawing attention to this section they are attempting to divert attention from the unanimous vote in this Legislature on

[ Page 4958 ]

second reading of the bill. It was unanimous except for the attendance of the Leader of the Opposition, who conveniently skipped out and was nowhere to be found in the hallway, although just moments before he was seen nearby. He didn't want to stay to vote on that. Otherwise, it was unanimous.

MR. BARRETT: That's a lie!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Under the parliamentary rules that bind us, I must ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the remark that he cast. Would the member do so?

MR. BARRETT: The minister said that I was seen in the precinct and skipped the vote. Now that is a falsehood. I ask the minister to withdraw. I will withdraw the statement that it's a lie, but I ask the minister to withdraw the statement that I was seen in the precinct and I ducked the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, firstly, each member has an opportunity to take his place in debate in this particular section as often as he or she so desires, but I must ask for an unqualified withdrawal — which I appreciate the member has given.

On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: I've given a complete withdrawal. On a point of order, I ask the minister to withdraw the accusation that I was in the precinct and ducked the vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition has made a parliamentary request of the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I would ask him to so withdraw any imputation or otherwise to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Would the member do so?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly don't want to leave the impression that I told an untruth. I was certainly aware, as I'm sure all members were aware, that he was here during question period, he was here after question period, he knew the vote was coming on, but when the vote occurred he wasn't there. So what could I conclude from that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if the minister was that concerned he would have known that I spent the evening with the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe). He could have checked. I ask him to withdraw that statement unequivocally without any preamble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is the impression of the Chair that a complete withdrawal was given.

MR. HOWARD: He hasn't got the integrity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I ask the member for Skeena to come to order, please.

Hon. members, what happens, obviously, when we digress from the strictly relevant aspect of the motion before us and start to engage in any kind of personalities, which are totally out of order on the bill, is that we see the kind of discourse that has developed. I would ask all hon. members to bear in mind the strictly relevant section of the act.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, only one member can speak at a time.

MS. BROWN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you could assist the House with a dilemma which we increasingly find ourselves in. Because it is not allowed under the parliamentary rules of the House to accuse an hon. member of lying, the members on the government benches stand up over and over again and lie through their teeth about everything that goes on in this House — they know that they are protected by the rules of this House.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, how you can possibly seek the floor on a point of order respecting parliamentary language and at the same time use the kind of language you used is beyond the comprehension of the Chair. I would insist that the member withdraw the remark without qualification. Will the member so withdraw the remark?

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MS. BROWN: Sure, I withdraw the remark. I recognize that it's an unparliamentary remark. That's why I'm concerned about the abuses under that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. It is very difficult to keep any semblance of order in the House when the members themselves seem determined not to follow the rules, regulations, traditions and honour that bind us together in this chamber. I would ask that all members bear that in mind.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I will continue on the amendment to section 6. If it helps the Leader of the Opposition, I will accept his explanation.

MR. BARRETT: There's no question of accepting my explanation. Who the heck do you think you are, you arrogant....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MS. BROWN: That's the kind of abuse, Mr. Chairman, that I was bringing to your attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to recognizing the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the term that he used, in the interests of parliamentary tradition. It is increasingly difficult for the Chair to carry out the duties that have been imposed upon it by all members of this House if members cannot abide by the very basic rules that bind us in this chamber.

MR. BARRETT: I unequivocally withdraw the statement "arrogant twit." Now, Mr. Chairman, I expect in respect to you and the Chair that no comment be made on withdrawals,

[ Page 4959 ]

and I expect the same courtesy from other members as I extend to them when it's asked from the Chair. I want an unqualified withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition has asked the Minister of Municipal Affairs for an unqualified withdrawal. Would the member make a withdrawal of any improper imputation or otherwise that the member may have made. A simple affirmative response would settle the matter and it would be appreciated by the Chair.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, but, be it on a point of order or my place here in the Legislature, I have said nothing except that the Leader of the Opposition was not here to vote on second reading of the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. Would the minister withdraw the term that the member "ducked a vote." I think that is what is at the crux of the issue. The Leader of the Opposition finds that remark to be of an unparliamentary nature, and I would ask the member to assist the Chair in withdrawing.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I will withdraw that he ducked the vote.

Mr. Chairman, I must point out again that I think all must see this amendment for what it is: a cheap, political opposition trick. While perhaps we've become accustomed to that, it certainly isn't worthy of this House that they should carry on spreading fear among the doctors by making it appear as if, perhaps, there isn't the unanimity that existed on second reading. It's not section 6 they're opposed to, nor do they really believe their own amendment, because if that were true, they at least might have done a reasonable job of drafting that amendment.

But they won't fool the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. The people remember that in 1974 they imposed an agreement on the firemen. Certainly they were faced with a difficult situation, but they didn't give the choice of arbitration in any form at all. They imposed an agreement at that time on those particular people. The people of British Columbia will remember that only a few weeks ago the Leader of the Opposition was out there in the community saying: "But it was I who proposed a formula that brought about the settlement of the B.C. Tel dispute." I'm sure no one believed him, but he was attempting to take credit for the single arbitrator approach in the B.C. Tel dispute.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're sick.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

The hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, repeatedly throughout four or five days of debate during that minister's estimates and today, the minister has made comments which individual members on this side have indicated to the Chair have been untrue, either by points of order or by rising in their place subsequently. Again, I would ask the Chairman to draw the minister to order, because in committee and on amendments to sections, the debate should be strictly relevant to the amendment before the House. The minister is now canvassing areas going as far back — he states in his own speech — as 1974. They are not relevant to the amendment to this section. I suggest to the chairman that in order to bring this speaker to order, a good way would be to draw him to the relevancy of the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Hon. members, again we are discussing the amendment before us to vote 6. and while the minister may have points that he considers to be valid, I would ask that he consider the very strict relevant section that dictates the discretion we have in canvassing such areas. The Chair would be grateful for any assistance that all members could give in helping to curtail the debate and to make it to this section that we are now discussing.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the Leader of the Opposition would mind withdrawing the remarks: "He's sick. sick, sick." I feel perfectly well. I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: I will not submit his diagnosis to binding arbitration. I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. MACDONALD: What he said was "slick"!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, again, let us have just one member speaking at a time. The Chair has recognized the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm very pleased to see the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) is in the House. I would remind the House that he was here when the vote was taken yesterday on second reading of the bill.

MR. GABELMANN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, parliament is too important for that kind of behaviour to be tolerated. You should kick that guy out of here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, my remarks will be addressed primarily to the member who is currently speaking. When the Chair rules or requests a withdrawal of a particular phrase or word that another member finds offensive, or an imputation, it is most unparliamentary for any member to then re-refer to it. It is a characteristic that is developing on both sides of the House. I am referring to the one that is presently before us, and I would ask that the member currently addressing the committee please contain his remarks to the amendment and let us get on with the business for which we are being charged by the people of this province.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, when I refer back to 1974 and the type of arbitration that took place then, or when I make reference to some statements made by the Leader of the Opposition during the B.C. Tel dispute, certainly that is relevant to the section we're discussing here; it's arbitration of sorts. Somehow the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), who stands up angrily, wants to remember some things, but he conveniently wants to forget all things that don't particularly suit his approach to this debate. I would like to remind the House, including the hon.

[ Page 4960 ]

members of the opposition, of what took place in 1974; and I want to remind the House of what the Leader of the Opposition said he was doing with respect to making proposals when we were faced with the B.C. Tel dispute. In that particular situation we had a single arbitrator. Fortunately it was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. But again, as I said, the leader then foolishly tried to take some credit for that approach.

Mr. Chairman, the bill provides the opportunity for negotiations. And now with the extra-billing matter settled, these negotiations can seriously proceed, If arbitration is needed, the doctors will be fairly considered, but so will all the citizens of British Columbia. I'm sure that every one of us here, regardless of where we sit in this House, has a tremendously high regard for the doctors, for their profession, for all of them, but we similarly can't stand here day after day speaking on an amendment or speaking on the bill and completely ignoring mention of the people of British Columbia, except when you get out there on a different platform at a different time. Let's talk about the people of British Columbia as well; they are after all the ones who pay the taxes and provide all the tools and facilities for the doctors for all people to enjoy and have the benefit of. But somehow, Mr. Chairman, there has been no mention of the people of British Columbia as I listen to the other side. As I listen to the debate on this amendment, there is no mention of the people and the effect on the people and the fact that for them we must also arrive at a fair settlement. No, because what they're doing is attempting to establish some sort of a strategy here that they might conveniently circulate to a particular group of people and not for all of the citizens of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, the arbitration approach gives us a number of options, options or a method that may be of real benefit not only to the doctors but — again I repeat and I'll continue to repeat — also to the people of British Columbia, all the people of British Columbia.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, well, it's really been pathetic listening to the members on the government benches trying to find something good to say about section 6 of this bill. We've heard some pretty pathetic speeches today, but certainly the most novel one we've heard was by the Minister of Municipal Affairs who, finding absolutely nothing to criticize in the amendment, spent his entire time questioning the movements of the Leader of the Opposition during that period and accusing him of trying to duck a vote.

Mr. Chairman, in the interests of being in order I am not going to digress and remind the House that that minister who just took his seat was a minister who supported the separation of Quebec so that he wouldn't have to have French on his cornflake boxes in this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now on the amendment.

MS. BROWN: That's the same minister. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of staying in order, I'm not going to digress and remind this House that during his tenure as Minister of Human Resources he was so cruel and vicious that he was depicted by a cartoonist in this province as picking the wings off a fly.

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

MS. BROWN: I don't want us to remember that about that member. And having the nerve to stand up on the floor of this House and talking about the people of this province! The people of this province are never going to forget that Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the hon. member about to canvass the amendment to vote 6?

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, in speaking in support of this amendment, I would like to suggest to you that if, in fact, we had asked anybody anywhere in this province two days ago, two weeks ago, two months ago, who the villain in the piece was in this confrontation which is taking place, they would have said the doctors. Nobody will deny that. Yet somehow, with one section in one act, this government has managed to turn that completely around and make martyrs out of the doctors of this province. That's the kind of miracle workers those inept and incompetent people over there are.

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), when he was speaking this morning, said that we were too sterile in our approach to things, that we see everything in terms of labour and management. He suggested that we be more flexible; that in fact we were not dealing with a labour-management confrontation here, because the doctors were dealing not with the private sector but with the public sector. I decided to take his recommendation and not look at the doctors as workers, because indeed we can look at doctors as anything. They themselves aren't quite sure what they are; half the time they tell you they're independent entrepreneurs, and half the time they admit that as long as they're part of medicare they are in fact workers. I decided to take the Attorney-General's suggestion and to look at the doctors not as workers but as welfare recipients. I went to the GAIN legislation which covers welfare recipients in this province.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: The GAIN act: the same act under which the minister advocated that Indians should be sent back to the reserves and poor people should be moved out of the centre of the city.

I don't think anyone will question that there isn't anybody in this province with fewer rights than welfare recipients. There isn't any group, any part of this community, with fewer rights.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has been listening....

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I'm talking about the arbitration provisions in the GAIN act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the member could relate that, then the Chair would have some ability to at least be sympathetic to the comments made by the member.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, one of the accusations levelled at us by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was that this amendment was hurried. Therefore I'm taking his advice and moving at a very slow and even pace. So it behooves the Chairman to listen carefully as I move at

[ Page 4961 ]

my slow and even pace to make the connection between the arbitration section of the GAIN act and the amendment which I'm speaking in support of.

I am suggesting to you that welfare recipients in this province also deal with the public sector. The legislation outlines the maximum that a welfare recipient can receive. A welfare recipient, every time she or he goes in to apply, has to negotiate whether he or she gets the maximum, a little bit below the maximum or a lot below the maximum, as the case may be. Despite that, and the fact that they really have no organization to fight for them except the opposition and thoughtful people in the community, we find that they do have the right of appeal. In effect, in their own legislation it says that if they are not satisfied with a decision made on their behalf.... I notice that the ex-minister is listening carefully, so I will suggest that it is section 25 of the act that deals with this arbitration procedure.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, there's no relation whatsoever between section 25 of the GAIN legislation and section 6 of Bill 16.

MR. BARRETT: There is so!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: There is not, and I wish we could leave that for the estimates of the Ministry of Human Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the Chair has allowed some latitude on the amendment that is presently before us, and we have canvassed in a passing manner other comparable acts that members wish to allude to, but I would ask the member, now that she has the Chair's full attention, if we could dramatically indicate how this reflects the amendment.

MS. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your patience, and would remind you that I'm discussing the amendment, not section 6. The minister is under a misconception. We're dealing with the amendment, and that probably explains why his entire speech was out of order. He was not dealing with the amendment but with the Leader of the Opposition.

However, exactly like the amendment, the appeal procedures as outlined in section 25 of the GAIN legislation say that where an individual is dissatisfied with a decision made under this act or the regulations respecting it — and it talks about either the refusal, discontinuance, reduction or whatever of income assistance to him — that individual has the right to appeal to a tribunal, not to an individual.

Listen to how the tribunal is put together. It's all going to become really clear at this point. The tribunal consists of one individual chosen by the appellant — the aggrieved. It says that you cannot choose a relative but you can choose a friend. The second person on the tribunal is chosen by a member of the Ministry of Human Resources, but cannot be an employee of the ministry. Those two people choose the chairman of the tribunal. Isn't that what the Highway Act says? Isn't that what the teachers...?

Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, what we are debating here is that we do not believe there should be a law for the poor that's different from the law for the rich. We'd like the rich to have the same kind of protection under our arbitration legislation that the poor have. It seems to me that the minister, who was on his feet a few minutes ago speaking on behalf of people, should be able to recognize that. In fact, I am surprised that the doctors have not availed themselves of the services of the Human Rights Commission or of the ombudsperson, as was suggested by the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea). In fact. maybe that is what they will have to decide to do in order to get any justice whatsoever out of this government.

In closing, I just want to extend my sincerest sympathy to the Minister of Health, who was prepared to accept this amendment at a quarter to six last night. He moved adjournment so that he could study the amendment more carefully and redraft it, probably, with the time limits and all the other prerequisites. He was forced into the position of having to come back here and dig his heels in because his leader decided that this amendment was not going to be accepted.

That Minister of Health has been sitting here all day, mostly by himself. Once or twice the Premier has cracked the whip and had one or another person stand up and speak in his defence. I just have one word to say to that Minister of Health: there comes a time when everyone has to decide whether silence is golden or if it's just plain yellow.

MR. BRUMMET: Mr. Chairman. I too would like to be very brief. I've listened for several days now to this debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was not debated several days ago.

MR. BRUMMET: Let me tell you, it seems like several weeks, As a relative newcomer to the House I really am not interested in what went on eight years ago, ten years ago, five years ago and so on. We have had the usual opposition stunt on this amendment. When the principle of the bill was debated they were all with the public of British Columbia in that they were supporting the government on the principle of preventing this double billing or extra billing or whatever you want to call it. They've come out very strongly on the side of the public of British Columbia and on the side of the government for this move. Then on the amendment we've had the switch.

I guess some guru mentioned to them that here is an opportunity to make some political hay. Since then we've had virtually nothing but attacks on the government attributing motives to the government which the government would not do, does not intend to do, and does not state in this section. We have them come out now on the side of the doctors so that they can be on the side of the public through this tactic. We've heard these inflammatory remarks — emotion-laden terms to divert the attention from the facts. I would suggest that it's really for nothing else but partisan politics. I guess that's what this House is all about. I know I have had difficulty just staying in here to hear the accusations, to hear the spirit and the intent of this House abused in the way it has been with this sort of wonderful way they have of getting around points of order, and accusations. I'm personally disgusted with those tactics.

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it's been some time since that member took his place, and to date he has not discussed the amendment to section 6(l).

HON. MR. NIELSEN: On the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have a very strong belief that the member who

[ Page 4962 ]

was speaking is approaching the amendment in the same manner that the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) approached it by way of introducing GAIN legislation. I think it's only a matter of time before the member makes that very clear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a fair assessment, hon. members. Again, if all members were as quick to jump to their feet on both sides of the House when their own side of the House was in order, I think the proceedings might move along much more quickly. But again, the member for North Peace River on the amendment.

MR. BRUMMET: I guess the point that I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that we should get on with this legislation. The opposition will have plenty of opportunity to attack this government in estimates or in any other way they want. We've got a valid purpose here: to get this legislation in place. I would like to see it happen. I would like to see the amendment defeated, and then get on with the job that we're supposed to do. I recognize that somebody will get up and will be able to attack every word that I've said, will be able to make disparaging remarks. Perhaps the elected members of the opposition feel that this is good politics. I'm not convinced that the people of British Columbia are going to be fooled by the stunt of trying to come down on both sides of this issue as though they care about anything but partisan politics.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think I could commence by referring briefly to the remarks of the member for North Peace River. I suggest to him through you, sir, that we are not here on this particular issue as having an item to attack the government. We're here to try to advance some sensible, logical and reasonable ideas that are going to preserve democracy and freedom. That's the purpose, and that's what we're dealing with. It's evident that the other side of the House is referring from memory to the remarks of the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), who, in his particular remarks, also took a similar course of trying to lay on the opposition something which it is not intent on following. We're trying to approach this in a very serious way, because it's a serious question.

Yesterday I heard the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) start off his remarks by saying something to the effect that he perceived the flow of debate in this House would cause distress among the medical profession. I didn't know what he was alluding to or getting at, but that foresight on the part of the Attorney-General yesterday certainly came into focus today when I listened to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm). The sole purpose of the speech of the Minister of Municipal Affairs was to inflame the debate in this House, create animosity, drag a red herring into the debate and run all over the country about something completely extraneous to the amendment. The Minister of Municipal Affairs knows full well in his heart that he can't reasonably attack the amendment, because it's logical. So he goes off in another way and typically twists and distorts the situation. I know he's been called a liar for doing that. I don't do that, but the minister has been called a liar for the approach he takes to debate — or anything else. I'm not calling him that, but he's a pathological distorter of facts to serve his own interests.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: On a point of order, if the Leader of the Opposition or the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) called me a liar, they withdrew. That's a matter of record, and I would ask the member for Skeena to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: If he thinks I called him a liar, which I didn't, I'll gladly withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member withdraws any such imputation.

MR. HOWARD: Direct or indirect. And incidentally, when I made that earlier remark, I was referring to neither the Leader of the Opposition nor the first member for Vancouver Centre, but to some of the Minister of Municipal Affairs' own colleagues, who have so classified him in my hearing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

MR. HOWARD: If that offends the rules, I'll withdraw that as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure it does somewhere, hon. member.

Hon. members, if we're going to persist in this course of action, the chances of our ever getting to debate any of the issues that face us become increasingly limited.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Chairman, for the record, it's a real political cheap shot, and I would ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe the member did withdraw the imputation.

MR. HOWARD: If anything I say in this regard offends the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for heaven's sake, I will.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: And I would ask you to sit down.

MR. HOWARD: I have no intention of doing that, I want to try to get to the fundamental principle involved here, and not to be dragged off in that path of dealing with something so vague and extraneous that the minister wants us to deal with. I'll deal with something clear and precise, and that's the amendment before us.

The comments of the Attorney-General are worth referring to. They've been referred to most eloquently by my colleague the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who has put them in their clear context. Basically, what the Attorney-General did yesterday was to seek to give the House a lecture, and it was a type of lecture obviously written by somebody else — in this case by the Premier — because the tone of voice of the Attorney-General showed clearly that he really didn't believe in his argument, that he really didn't feel strongly about the case he was trying to make. It was a very poor performance. I discounted it just by listening to the tone and the force of it, but he did make a couple of points. One was that we are trying, in our argument about the essence of the amendment before us, to ally the relationship between the medical profession and the medical commission with labour management negotiations. He's quite correct; they're not

[ Page 4963 ]

similar. It's true there is an employee-employer relationship, and in here there is a different kind of relationship.

But that's not what we're talking about. What we are talking about is a process of settling some differences of opinion, and it doesn't matter whether those differences arise as a result of collective bargaining or whether they arise, as my colleague from North Island put it, as a result of the Ministry of Highways trying to take somebody's land for a highway. It doesn't matter whether it's a difference of opinion, as the member for Burnaby-Edmonds pointed out, under the GAIN legislation about the level of income assistance that a person should receive. The fundamental thing we're talking about is the process of settling the difference, and that's where I think the Attorney-General missed the point completely or deliberately.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) talked about the fact that this bill was drafted with less than 12 hours' notice. Perhaps that's the reason why it's so poorly drafted. What we are seeking to do is, as some of my colleagues have said.... Because we're not dealing with politics or partisan attitudes here, we're dealing with trying to bring justice to play for the general public and the medical profession of this province. Now that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has skipped out — is that the word one uses, or is that unparliamentary? — now that he has gone out from the chamber, perhaps he won't be able to listen to what I was going to say. But I say to him, through you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Attorney-General and to anybody else on that side, that if you only had from midnight on one night until the House met the next day to draft a piece of legislation, no wonder it's poorly drafted.

We are seeking to draft it in a better form to serve the interests of this province. If, as the Attorney-General says, the amendment we put forward is deficient, then what we are arguing about here is compatibility of interest. Why haven't we done it up to now? I don't know. We can do it overnight, if necessary. Let's sit down with somebody from the opposition and somebody from the government and try to draft an amendment that is satisfactory and which will be unanimously accepted. That's all we're trying to do. My colleagues have probably put it in a more imaginative or generous way. They said that if you are not satisfied with the precise wording of the amendment put forward by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), then we'll withdraw it, and you come in with one of your own that does something similar, so long as justice prevails. That's all we're seeking to do. We're not seeking to denigrate anybody's position in this House or to attack the government. Nobody on this side has sought to do that.

We've listened to inflammatory speeches from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) and the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet), who were seeking to create animosity here. All we're trying to do is operate in that cooperative spirit that we need occasionally, and that we should have, when we all have the same interests of the general public at heart. Regretfully it appears that there's only one opinion that is going to prevail in this Legislature on this particular issue — the opinion of the Premier. Nobody else's opinion counts.

The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) thoroughly opposes the section of the bill that we are seeking to amend. I know that the Minister of Labour supports the amendment, but he doesn't dare get up and say anything or do anything about it, because the only person's opinion that counts in this House is the Premier's. It's his manner and his style of doing things. It's one-man rule, and anybody from his own ranks who brooks any comment about that is tramped on. That's regrettable. It's not a decent way to try to conduct legislative business in this House. We're trying to approach it in a very honourable way, but we get nothing but abuse in return.

It's unfortunate that Hansard cannot record grimaces and mouthings to show the sort of obscenity that just came forward in a visual way from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). It's unfortunate that Hansard can't record that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. please. Before I recognize the minister, the Chair brings to the attention of members that the term "visual obscenity," referring to a minister, must be deemed to be unparliamentary. I would ask the member to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD: No question at all.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, that's not good enough. The use of the words "visual obscenity" suggests in Hansard something far worse than what actually happened. I nodded in derisive agreement with what the member was saying. That was all that occurred, as the member knows full well. To use the words "visual obscenity" I find completely unacceptable; but, alas, typical of that man.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the analysis by the Minister of Finance is a most accurate one. We must remember that these words that we speak are recorded in Hansard. While we may use terms that may be unparliamentary, references of that nature are certainly conducive to much more interpretation by those reading them than others. I would ask all members to particularly guard against that with caution.

MR. HOWARD: I did that immediately, Mr. Chairman. As you correctly say, the words are recorded in Hansard but the gestures are not. I don't know what "derisive agreement" means, but that sounds like an unparliamentary reference to me. I'm gentleman enough not to ask the minister to demean himself by withdrawing it.

What we are talking about here — as I said in my last remarks — is a matter of fundamental principle of trying to make a poorly drafted section of a bill better. We're trying to make a piece of legislation serve the interests of the public. We're trying to make a piece of legislation better able to serve the differences of opinion that might arise between the medical profession and the medical commission. We're trying to advance, whether hon. members opposite may approach it with some derision or not. We are trying to deal here with a question of freedoms. Regrettably, it looks like the government wants to deal with it from the point of view of fascism.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the debate has been wide-ranging on an amendment proposed by the opposition, dealing with the formula to find a solution to the impasse that exists in negotiations between the doctors on the one hand and the government on the other hand, as the managers of a service delivered by the medical profession. I find it interesting that not one of the government speakers I have heard on the amendment has addressed himself to the principle of the amendment. There has been an expression of opinions concerning motivations for the amendment. There's been an exchange of heated opinions about the character and motiva-

[ Page 4964 ]

tion of various members of this assembly. But there has been an almost total absence from the government side of any appreciation of the nature of the amendment or what this section as amended by the opposition would lead to.

We're dealing here in this section with a method of solving a problem that exists between two parties in a free society. On the one hand is the government that has a responsibility, as the government of the day, to ensure the continuation of the delivery of health services known as medicare — originally known as socialized medicine. On the other hand, we've got the practitioners who deliver the service and who are in disagreement with the fee for the service, and as a result there has been a breakdown of negotiations, leading to this bill and this particular section and then to the amendment. There's nothing in dispute in this section about the principle of the bill, i.e. the extra billing. As a matter of fact, in my absence yesterday, the House unanimously supported the principle that there should not be any extra billing. In an agreement that is rare in this assembly — perhaps because of my absence, but nonetheless it was there — everybody agreed and said: "No extra billing by the doctors." Good. Now it's taken an act of the Legislature to enter into a dispute between two parties. This is always the most delicate of directions or responsibilities of this chamber, because there is awesome power here. This is the court of last resort, the final assembly that draws up the laws, the chamber where the people delegate to their representatives the right, the responsibility and the privilege to deal fairly, openly, honestly and evenly with all citizens who have a dispute with the government.

This amendment deals with the method of arriving at a fair solution between two parties. That's what we're debating. We're not debating the merits of socialized medicine, the merits of who fought for it and who won it, the merits of the quality of the service, the merits of how the service was paid for up to this point and the merits of the fact that this chamber, as elected representatives of all the citizens of this province, have said that we want one medical care system with no extra billing, but we must now deal with a method of solving a dispute around finance between the doctors and the government.

In our time here how many other people have had their disputes ultimately come to this chamber for a method of resolution? I don't recall too many instances where the awesome power of this chamber was called upon directly to intervene into the nature of the solution. I have been part, however, of a number of debates on amendments like this that deal with the method of arriving at that solution, not the solution itself. We are now establishing a different principle unless this amendment is accepted. We are establishing the principle in this chamber, with the awesome power of this chamber, that the chamber itself will not lay down the conditions only, but will also ensure that the method is completely in the control of one side in the negotiations.

I have to address myself to those who have commented that it has become a matter of political debate. No one in this chamber should be shocked that politics are here. As a matter of fact, we wouldn't be here unless we were expected to act politically on behalf of all of the citizens of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, I find it ironic that members — not so much the newer members of the assembly, but members who have sat in this chamber for years participating in this kind of amendment debate about guaranteeing both sides access in a free and equal way to the solution of problems — are now supporting the principle that one side must hold all the cards.

I'd like to speak in particular to previous debates in similar situations with participation by the minister who is now the Attorney-General. When he sat on opposition benches, faced with the heavy hand of government, he made outrageous but well-founded and well-researched speeches against government heavy-handedness. The member for North Peace River, who is the new one, should consult with his colleague from the other Peace River seat and ask him how he used to respond in the House to charges of the heavy hand of the state interfering or not being fair. I can remember, Mr. Chairman, that when they were in the opposition benches they fought for truth, justice and purity — justice is blind; the scales must be balanced equally for both sides.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment says clearly that both sides must have the right to participate in naming the persons who are going to decide on compulsory arbitration. Now I have not heard one government member stand up and explain to the people of British Columbia why this government feels that doctors do not have the right to name their share of a three-man arbitration and agree on their behalf on who the single arbitrator should be. Mr. Chairman, who's next in British Columbia, if this principle is violated now here today in this Legislature? There is not a question of sympathy for the doctors; it's not a question of our record on socialized medicine, Mr. Chairman. It is simply a matter of natural justice. Throughout every section of all laws passed in this House — almost in every area — where there is a matter of dispute, the method of solving the dispute is the same as in the Highway Act or in Labour, or in this case the amendment we bring from the School Act or the Arbitration Act. Now, Mr. Chairman, I put it to you: if this method is all right with highways, arbitration, labour and welfare problems, why is this method not all right for a confrontation solution with the doctors?

The question of politics has been raised by the government, not by the opposition. I now come to the point that I must make. Yes, there are politics going on in this chamber, but it is a calculated risk by this government to believe that by denying the same natural justice to the doctors of British Columbia that is available to teachers, workers, people with highway problems or welfare recipients, they intend to paint the doctors as the villains in this dispute and use them for political purposes. I believe that.

The irony that occurs to me about my taking this position in this debate in defence of the rights of doctors has not gone unnoticed by my own memory of sitting back in that corner during a previous debate in this House when B.C. Electric was seized and expropriated by a Social Credit government and the rights of the shareholders were denied. In those days you couldn't even sue the government, because Social Credit wouldn't allow it. You've got a history of heavy-handed government. When was the right allowed for a citizen to sue the government? The NDP said a citizen could sue the government. When was it a right for a person to negotiate his way out of a union membership because of religious beliefs in a free society? It was never allowed by Social Credit. It was the NDP who said that if you had religious objections to belonging to a union, you could opt out. We said that; we did that. We fought for people who have religious convictions. We fought for people who had private shares in the B.C. Electric dispute. And now we're fighting for the rights of citizens who happen to be doctors to have the right to name one part of the commission and agree on who the arbitrator is. The government has not yet addressed itself to giving the people of

[ Page 4965 ]

British Columbia one single reason why the doctors can't have the same rights that every other citizen enjoys. Why?

We must then come to another conclusion. It has been decided, once embarked on this route — and I believe by error, not by intention.... The Premier and the government are too proud, too immature and too lacking in sensitivity to establish something that has always been common practice in this House, and that is to take a second look. When mistakes were made by W.A.C. Bennett, he started the famous business of taking a second look. When we were in government and the opposition prevailed upon us that it was a matter of great importance, of social or economic justice, we took a second look. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion there is only one person in this chamber who is really blocking taking a second look and giving the doctors what is natural justice: the Premier of British Columbia, who has proven again that he's stubborn and unwilling to move.

Mr. Chairman, I point out that not one government member has dealt with the concept of the amendment. I've said: "Who's next?" If this amendment or some form of it is not accepted, this government is saying: "We will do what we want come hell or high water, and we don't give a fig for people's rights. If it's good politics and reading polls, then that's the route we're going to go." What purpose could the New Democratic Party gain by going out there and being presented as the group that's fighting for the doctors? Considering our history and the struggle in Saskatchewan, there's not much turf for us to gain.

But I'll tell you this, Mr. Chairman. If you want to look at politics, it goes against the grain of our party, regardless of difference of philosophy or difference of approach to service, to deny anyone — friend or foe — because of race, creed or colour, any natural justice that is due them as citizens of the province of British Columbia.

The substance is natural justice. Just as there was a time in this province when people were not permitted to vote because of creed or race, just as there was a time in this province when property was taken from people because of race — the disgraceful record with the Japanese — just as there was a time when a religious minority such as the Jehovah's Witnesses were denied equal access to law under the padlock laws in Quebec.... My party, the CCF and its successor the New Democratic Party, never wavered on the principle of defending natural justice.

Not one cabinet minister, not one government member has given an explanation to the citizens of British Columbia why the provisions of arbitration that are available to teachers, workers, people in dispute with Highways, welfare or any other legislation — the method of selecting arbitrators is to include the aggrieved parties equally — why those same rights and methods and the same natural justice are being denied the doctors of British Columbia.

I submit, and I repeat, that it's for two reasons. One is that the government had set out on a course, as manifest through the statements of the head of the BCMA, to lead the doctors to believe that something was going to take place that didn't take place, which led to the accusation of double-cross. I think there's more to the abrupt resignation of the former Minister of Health than meets the eye. The second reason is that once embarked on this course, the inflexibility, the rigidity and, frankly, the immaturity of the leadership of trial government blocked common sense from having its way here in the House.

I've heard members say: "How much time do we have to waste on this?" I don't think it should be very long. But I'll tell you this. We'll take as much time as is necessary to ensure that in good conscience we are able to stand up and say: "When someone's social and natural rights were being abrogated by a government, we didn't shirk our duty, we stood up and fought for the rights of every citizen here in British Columbia." Does it take a little time? Is there a little inconvenience?

The bill is retroactive. I appeal to the government to come to its senses, to still recoup political kudos out of this debate, to appear to present itself without thousands of dollars' worth of PR advice, to do something so simple, so open and so full of common sense that they would begin to look as if they're pulling themselves together for once. That is for the Premier to get up in this House and announce that the doctors will not be treated differently than any other citizens' groups, that they will have their rights in arbitration by the same method as any other citizen who's in dispute with the government, whether it's with Highways in labour matters or in welfare matters.

Through all of the talk it just boils down to one question. Why are the doctors being singled out for unique, separate and different treatment from any other citizen in British Columbia? Why? The government has got to answer that question. Why have the doctors been singled out? If there is no explanation to that question then I think a quiet reassessment of the position would be worthwhile. We will withdraw our amendment if the government signifies it will give the same treatment to the doctors that any other citizen gets — their participation in arbitration as free citizens, which includes natural justice — so we can get on to other business, But if you stop citizens from having natural justice it won’t be over us rolling over, being quiet and playing dead simply because you think it's taking up too much time. Time is not the price of democracy. Vigilance is the price of democracy, and we intend to fight for that democracy here in British Columbia.

The House resumed: Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Williams moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.