[ Page 4967 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

On vote 156: minister's office –– 4967

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

On the amendment to section 6 –– 4967

Mr. Stupich

Mr. Lockstead

Mr. Hall

Mr. Ritchie

Mr. Cocke

Hon. Mr. Waterland

Mr. King

Mr. Ree

Mrs. Dailly

Hon. Mr. McGeer

Mr. Cocke

Ministerial Statement

Patriation of Canadian Constitution.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4985

Appendix –– 4986

FRIDAY, APRIL 3, 1981

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, when I received my Wednesday's edition of the Bridge River-Lillooet News I was very shocked to learn that the village had been sold to Arabian interests. I intend to take this matter up with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) very shortly.

Today I'm very glad to have in the gallery the editor of the Bridge River-Lillooet News and his wife, Jeff and Willy Den Biesen. Would the House please welcome them.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: We are very fortunate in our province to have outstanding people who have contributed to the standard of living in this province. Today one of those people is seated in our gallery. I would like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Clark Bentall. Mr. Bentall and his family have had an outstanding record of building British Columbia in partnership with very many good people who have worked with them. They have provided much employment and a standard of living that has been an outstanding record.

With them in the gallery today are Mr. and Mrs. Charles Woodhouse, who are visiting from London, England. I would ask the House to welcome them.

We also have in our gallery Betsy McDonald and eight teachers from the Vocational Institute and King Edward College. I would just like to share with the House the fact that Betsy Macdonald has had a tremendous record of bringing together new vocational directions, particularly for single parents in this province. I would like the House to welcome her and her colleagues to the House today.

MR. RITCHIE: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming to the precincts of the building the intermediate student choir from the Tem-Broeck Elementary School in Clearbrook, together with their principal Mr. Truscott and Mr. Ken Funk. They're here to put on a little demonstration, but it's a pleasant one. They're going to be singing on the front steps of the building, in appreciation, at approximately 11 o'clock this morning.

MR. REE: It's always with pride that I have the opportunity to introduce to my colleagues my son Scott, who is a student at the University of Victoria. He is in the gallery opposite. With him is a young lady, Teresa Bohrechier. Teresa is a third-year political science student at Simon Fraser University and hails from the town of Rossland, British Columbia. I ask the House to welcome them.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in celebrating an anniversary. On April 3, 1920, legislation was passed in Parliament allowing women, for the first time, to seek federal office in this country. Since that date, although only 35 women have been elected to Parliament. I'm sure you and all the members of the House will agree that the contribution they have made to the quality of Canadian law has indeed enriched it, starting in 1921 with Agnes MacPhail and going through the ages until this year when we presently have the Speaker of the House, Mme. Sauve, and four other members serving in the federal House. I would appreciate it if my colleagues would join me in paying tribute to those women.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

(continued)

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

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

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

MEDICAL SERVICE PLAN ACT, 1981

(continued)

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

On the amendment to section 6.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman. may I say for a start that the opposition has made it very clear that to the extent that this legislation is opposed to double billing, extra billing, balance billing or whatever you want to call it, we support the legislation; to the extent that this legislation supports medicare as we now have it operating in the province of British Columbia, we support this legislation. However, when we're dealing with the amendment before us right now, we believe that this amendment must be passed to improve the legislation, to make it palatable not only to the doctors but to the people of British Columbia,

As I've listened to those few remarks from the other side of the House in opposition to the amendment, I wonder what happened to those freedom fighters of 1973. I can recall legislation that I introduced in the House in 1973, and I can recall those freedom fighters standing up in opposition to that legislation in support of the people of the province of British Columbia. Where are they now. Mr. Chairman? I've got a couple of volumes of Hansard here and could take the time out to read the remarks. but I won't to any great extent.

In particular, I think it was yesterday that the hon. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) spoke. I'd like to quote back to him some of his remarks when he was fighting for freedom in the days when he was not one of this.... I think it was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) who called them "a proud party of turncoats." Before he became one of them he was a freedom fighter. But what price opportunism, Mr. Chairman? He's no longer a freedom fighter; he no longer supports what he said in 1973, when he listed those people who fought against attempts of the government to take away freedoms, and he named them. I won't name all of them, because they're not all in the House right now, but he did include the names McGeer, Williams and Gardom as

[ Page 4968 ]

people who fought against attempts by governments to take powers into the cabinet room. That's exactly what we're trying to do in this amendment: to deny the cabinet the opportunity to take all this power inside the cabinet room.

He's not with us now, though; now he's one of that bunch of turncoats. Now he has a different point of view; he thinks it's quite proper that this power should be taken into the hands of the cabinet in the cabinet room. It's possibly not even that, Mr. Chairman: in all likelihood the decision is made in the Premier's office, transmitted to cabinet and from cabinet to the House. He's one of the group that supports that way of doing business.

He suggested to us that we should be careful about our statements, that inflammatory statements can be counterproductive. That's great advice now in 1981. Where was that advice in 1973 from that same person? Mr. Chairman, you were not in the House then, but there was a Chairman and certainly the Chairman of that day would be very well aware of the inflammatory statements that came from the opposition side of the House when we brought in legislation that they said they supported in principle but opposed in detail. There was very little support in their inflammatory statements.

He referred to a couple of steps the government took to resolve disputes. The hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) dealt with those as well, in particular the elevator constructors' strike and the firefighters' strike. What is the difference? Apart from the history which the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke gave to us the other day, there is this other difference: when we took steps to resolve those two disputes, in the interests of the people of British Columbia, we took those steps in the Legislature, in full, open, public debate. There was every opportunity for everyone in the House to take part in those debates. In some cases even some members of the government voted against the government. There was that opportunity to discuss it, to ask questions and to raise all the arguments they wanted to, and the decisions were made in open debate. According to this legislation, the decisions here are all going to be made either in the cabinet room or in the Premier's office. To my mind, that is a very essential difference. It's one of the reasons for the amendment before us right now.

He told us the amusing story about the lawyer who argued one side of the case on one day and then on another day he argued exactly the opposite. When he was questioned by the judge, he said: "My lord, this time I'm right." Well, I suppose the Attorney-General would say the same thing. He would say that it was reprehensible for the government of the day to take powers into the cabinet room, and that it was wrong — that in those days he was wrong. Today when he said that cabinet should have all power to do everything that it wants — of course, in the interests of the public; we accept that.... He said that it would be in the interests of the public; he didn't say as he sees it, but he meant it. Of course, it's okay to do it now, because he's a member of that government, but in those days it was all wrong. Here is one quotation from Hansard from those days: "I suggest, first of all, that the commission" — and here he's speaking about the Land Commission — "to be established should be independent from cabinet control." That's quite the opposite of what he's proposing right now.

A further quotation: "The legislation is a clear indication that this government is prepared to act with dictatorial powers, and that's contrary to natural justice." Where is the natural justice in this wording before us? The amendment does provide for some sort of justice and for some sort of input from the people being affected by the legislation, but the unamended legislation does not provide for any justice at all.

Again quoting from Mr. Williams: "It places it solely, completely, absolutely and irrevocably under the control of the cabinet committee," which is exactly what section 6, unamended, does. In the words of the present Attorney-General, "It places this arbitration member or committee solely, completely, absolutely and irrevocably under the control of the cabinet committee; the terms of reference, the name of the person — everything." That's a quote from the now Attorney-General, then a member of that glorious band of freedom fighters of those days — and as I say he identified three of them who are presently members of the House: McGeer, Gardom and Williams. He didn't say it in words, but he did say: "Trust me. We'll act in the interest of the public."

The hon. member for North Okanagan, the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan), didn't use the words "trust me." But, Mr. Chairman, she certainly did in 1973, when she went around this province, particularly in the Okanagan Valley, and sneeringly say: "The government of the day is saying 'trust me.'" Now at that time we had given them no reason not to trust us. There had been no incident or case in which we had broken faith with the electorate, with the public or with the Legislature. Nevertheless, she used that phrase over and over. She had the temerity to stand in the Legislature a day or two ago and, although not using those words, said: "Trust me. We'll act in the interest of the people of British Columbia in applying this particular section of the legislation." Trust them, Mr. Chairman? This party and this government which very soon after it was re-elected in 1975 got rid of almost every one of the regional colleges in the province? Trust a group like that?

Mr. Chairman, this is on the amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that it will not be left entirely to the Premier in his office or to the cabinet in the cabinet's office. They're arguing that it's okay to leave it to them because they are to be trusted. I am arguing that they are not to be trusted. They have indicated by their deed that they are not to be trusted.

They're going to pick the arbitration committee. These are the people who, when they were re-elected, took the Land Commission, got rid of the good people who were on it, and appointed people who had been most active in the fight against the Land Commission. Trust people like that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I must remind all hon. members that we currently are on the amendment before us. I would ask the member for Nanaimo to bear that in mind as he continues in this debate.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I accept your remarks, and I believe I am doing that. I am saying that it's not in our hands to trust this particular administration with the operation of this section in the interests of the public. Certainly, there are at least two speakers — and I think more — the Minister of Tourism and the Attorney-General, who have both said that they can be trusted in applying this legislation. My argument is that they can't be trusted. My argument also would be to throw some of the Attorney-General's words back at him and say that no cabinet committee should be trusted with this kind of responsibility. Certainly this group in

[ Page 4969 ]

particular has shown that they are not to be trusted in exercising this kind of authority in the interests of the public of the province — the interests as they see them, maybe, but not necessarily in the interests of the people of the province as everyone else would see them.

The Eckardt commission has been mentioned already. Would you trust a group that would appoint one of their own as a sole commissioner? The doctors are afraid that that may very well happen in this instance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Both sides of the fence. The dirty tricks group.

MR. STUPICH: Both sides of the fence.

Mr. Chairman, I'm sure you would call me to task on this too, when I say that this group opposite believes that everything they have done is in the interests of the public, as they see it. I'm satisfied that during the period between 1972 and 1975, when they went around this province telling the lies they did, they did it because they thought it was in the interests of the public. That's what they said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must again ask that accusations against members, whether inside or outside the chamber....

AN HON. MEMBER: They weren't members then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Some were.

I would ask the member to withdraw the word that was just used.

MR. STUPICH: I'll withdraw the word, Mr. Chairman. I suppose if I said that when the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) was president of the Social Credit Party, and not a member at the time, she went around the province telling deliberate lies about guns and ammunition, that would be out of order. Even though she did it in the interests of the public as she saw them, it would still be out of order, would it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the accusation of either lying directly or indirectly is a matter that I'm sure all members are fully aware cannot be used in the Legislature. Also, hon. member, the Chair is having some difficulty in relating those remarks to the amendment which is currently before us, and I would again ask the member to return to the specifics of the amendment, bearing in mind the "strictly relevant" aspect which guides us in committee.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, consistent with what you have just been discussing, I was going to ask if it was the intent of the Chair to ask speakers to refer, at least in some manner, to the amendment — if that is what we're speaking on. If not, if we are to be permitted to discuss anything that may come to mind, including any elections or campaigns or actions of any minister now in the House or previously in the House, we'd simply like to understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point is well taken and certainly reflects what the Chair has been trying to get across to members on both sides of the House for the last two days. I would again ask all members to bear in mind the "strictly relevant" section that guides us in this debate in this committee.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I'll certainly accept your advice that I should direct my remarks more directly to the section and the amendment before us. The section does read: "Any dispute between the association and the commission respecting the renewal...."

HON. MR. WATERLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear that member withdraw those accusations of lying that were directed towards a member of this House. There is only one member of this Legislature who has ever been proven in court to have lied to the Legislature, and he sits on that side of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, a possible guideline that we could all give consideration to would be to strictly forget the use of that word in this chamber, reflecting in any way upon any hon. member of this chamber. If members were to use that particular guideline they would greatly enhance the decorum and the level of debate in this chamber — on both sides of the House.

To satisfy the point that has been raised, would the member for Nanaimo withdraw any such imputation or the use of the word as it was referred to by the member?

MR. STUPICH: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. STUPICH: I do have to say, though, that the section before us, unamended and as supported by the bon. Attorney-General, the Minister of Tourism and others who have spoken, says that it depends upon trust. Certainly in my mind, and I think in the minds of other members of the public, there has to be some question as to whether any cabinet committee should be given that authority, whether any cabinet committee can always be trusted to act in the interests of everyone concerned — any cabinet committee at all. That question has to be raised.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Find another way to say liar.

MR. STUPICH: There have been several cabinets in the history of the province of British Columbia. I'm saying any cabinet committee should not have this kind of authority.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I draw your attention to standing order 40(2). I find the member's statements. quoting me as saying "trust me," offensive. I have never made that statement in my life.

Interjections.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I might ask the opposition to at least give another member the courtesy of making a point of order. I find it offensive in terms of that member's positioning of the word and the inferences he's making. I have never, ever had the audacity to say to anyone: "Trust me." I find it particularly offensive coming from that member, who at this time is the only member of this House who's been accused in the court of British Columbia of having what the judge called "convenient amnesia," which I believe is a judicial way of expressing another term.

[ Page 4970 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dealing with the matters as they arrived in reverse, firstly, I must ask the member to withdraw the comment made at the latter part of her point of order. It is not a parliamentary term to be used. Secondly, if the member for Nanaimo feels that he made any improper imputation, as was suggested by the minister, would he so withdraw. I must confess the Chair did not hear the remark, but in the interests of proceeding with what, hopefully, will become a debate, could we proceed in that way.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, my term "convenient amnesia" is on record in the annals of the courts of this province, and it is a fact. What I'm concerned about is this member twisting and making inferences which are not based on fact.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nevertheless, hon. member, an imputation, indirectly or directly, is one on which the Chair must ask for a withdrawal. Again, the member would greatly help maintaining some order in the debate if the minister would simply withdraw any imputation of impropriety. In the interests of parliamentary decorum, would the minister so do.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, if my use — and I say this only in the interest of respect for your position — of a term used by a judge in the court of British Columbia about a member and having it repeated in this debate is offensive to the member, it's a fact which can't be changed, but in the interest of respect to you I withdraw. Perhaps it should be withdrawn from the records of the courts of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, on that particular note I think it's worth pointing out that this is the highest court in the land of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, the statement the Minister of Tourism has made does not impugn any member of this House. She's repeating a statement made by a judge against a former member of this House. She didn't name Bob Williams, but Bob Williams is not a member of this House. He gave up his seat for $80,000. He's no longer here, and consequently I don't think there's anything wrong in her having made reference to what a judge, in his decision, said about one Bob Williams.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, the point is taken.

Honestly, hon. member for Nanaimo, I can't recall whether the member withdrew the remark or didn't.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, if I may help, I think I was supposed to withdraw something to the effect that I said she should be trusted. If that will help, I'll withdraw that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe there was a further....

MR. STUPICH: Whatever it was, I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, that greatly helps the Chair.

Now we're back to the amendment on section 6. The member for Nanaimo, has the floor.

MR. STUPICH: When I was last interrupted I had started reading section 6. Picking up where I left off: "...any dispute between the association and the commission respecting the renewal, amendment or replacement of the agreement be resolved by a single arbitrator or by an arbitration board appointed or constituted as provided in the order." The order will be a cabinet order, and that's the part of the legislation that we just can't support. We have offered an amendment. There has been some criticism on the other side of the House that the amendment is not the best way of dealing with the situation. Several of us have offered to withdraw our amendment the moment the government brings in an amendment that will provide some protection for this particular group in the community. I have no particular brief for any group in our community who are asking for an increase in pay in excess of 40 percent — there is some argument as to how much — in one year. I don't have any support for that. I don't know the arguments, I don't know the figures, I don't know upon what it's based, but frankly I just think that's too much to ask in one year. I don't know whether the government's offer of 15.2 percent is a reasonable one. But on the other hand I would not want to say to any group in the committee that this decision should be made by the Premier in his office, passed on to cabinet, and the cabinet will then say to the doctors, "This is exactly what you're going to get," through an arbitrator appointed by them. We've been told that the government needn't appoint a single arbitrator; it may appoint more than one. We have been told that they might even consult, but we've also been told that their prime interest would be to protect the interests of the public as they see fit.

Mr. Chairman, the situation we're in right now is that I believe that this legislation as it is written, and with the arbitration as it is, is provocative. I believe it's saying to the doctors: "You've been offered 15.2 percent and you can have 15.2 percent. If you do not accept that, we'll decide; we'll make the decision in cabinet room as to exactly what you're going to get." It may be less; they run that risk. "We're going to name the guy who is going to arbitrate the dispute. He may offer you nothing at all. You take this 15.2 percent or you might do a lot worse. There is always the possibility that you'll get a little more, but we're going to name the guy who's going to make the decision, and we're going to give them the guidelines," In other words, the decision is going to be made in cabinet.

The decision to give them 15.2 percent has been out for some time; it's a very hard line to take. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but I'm saying it's a very firm line that has been drawn — a line that risks the double billing, extra billing, balance billing or whatever it is, that risks the very future of medicare, that opens the door to opting out. Can you imagine for one moment, Mr. Chairman, that the decision to risk all of that happening was actually made by the commission without advice from cabinet? Can you imagine that the decision was not made, indeed, by the Premier himself, and that he was the one who drew that very hard line? Knowing that that's the attitude of the government, what choice do they have in the face of this kind of legislation before them? They have a choice of trusting the cabinet to appoint someone that they could accept as an arbitrator, the possibility that that might happen. The government has indicated for several months of negotiation that that is not going to happen, that they have decided exactly what the doctors should get in the interests of the public. The decision has been made, and yet the doctors are supposed to believe that the cabinet, in the

[ Page 4971 ]

interests of protecting the interests of the public, would change its position at this late date and would appoint an arbitrator or an arbitration board that could be acceptable and that would bring down a resolution of the dispute that would be acceptable.

Mr. Chairman, the best way to protect the public is to protect the equal rights of each and every group that comprises that public. The moment we take away the rights of any small group, we have opened the door to taking away the rights of another group, and another group, and larger groups, until all the power in the province will finally be in the hands of that cabinet in that cabinet room, as long as they remain in office. Whether it be this cabinet or any other cabinet, that kind of power should not be kept in the secret room of a cabinet meeting. At least the accusations that have been made against the NDP administration were with respect to things that were done in full, open public debate; that's the difference.

Many instances and examples of arbitration committees have been quoted from this side of the House with respect to every other piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, I defy the government spokespersons to produce any other piece of legislation that gives the cabinet the authority to set up this kind of an arbitration commission. There may be one; I certainly don't know of it. There is nothing like it that I know of that gives the cabinet the absolute power, without any input from any of the people being affected, to make the decision that will govern their livelihood.

Mr. Chairman, it is unprecedented; that's why we're opposing it. We are against the extra billing, whatever it's called; we are in favour of medicare; we are unalterably opposed to opting out; but we are also opposed to this particular cabinet asking people to stand up and trust them to name an arbitrator who will be, in the interest of everyone concerned — including this minority group....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: You want to be on both sides, don't you?

MR. STUPICH: It's not a case of being on both sides. The minister is challenging me, saying that I want to be on both sides. What I want to do is be fair to everyone concerned; what I want to do is say that no group should be in this position where that particular group of cabinet members in secret will decide who is going to say what, who is going to make the final decision for the doctors. That's what he wants; that's the kind of authority he wants; that's Social Credit authoritarianism. They used to talk about the socialists and the authority we were trying to take into the cabinet room. We would never have tried anything like this. We wouldn't have wanted to and we would never have dared. But this group thinks that because they're there and because it's them, it's okay to do it; it must be good, because they want to do it. This is the same group that comes from a party of people who, because they knew they were in such disrepute, appointed an ethics committee, and it's never met since. And we're to trust them with this kind of legislation! The minority group of doctors is being asked to trust them to bring down a resolution of this dispute that will be in the interests of the people generally.

The government was offered an opportunity to bring in an amendment of its own; they don't like ours. They said that maybe it needn't necessarily be three. Okay, it needn't be three. They say it isn't the best route to go to have one from each group and a chairman. But certainly there has to be some protection for the minority group affected, so that they know they have some way of getting in on the discussion.

The way this legislation reads now, if unamended, gives the cabinet and the Premier complete authority to name the guy who is going to lay down the rules; and the rules as well will all be laid down in that cabinet meeting. If I were one of the group affected by this, I would assume that the gun was loaded and pointed right at my head, and that I had no choice in the matter other than to opt out. They are not given any choice.

As I say, it's not that I have any particular brief for this particular minority group. You'll recall how the Hitler thing all started — group by group. They didn't protest, because it wasn't happening to them. There's quite a speech about that by Martin Niemöller; we could go into it now, but there's no point in it. Group by group, people lost their freedom and their rights, and because it wasn't affecting the next group in line they didn't fight: they didn't bother.

This is the first group that's being taken on by this administration in this particular way. We have to protect their rights in order to protect the rights of the rest of the people in our province.

Those freedom fighters of 1973 sold their principles for power. It's been said that power corrupts. I can’t accuse any of them of being corrupted, that would be unparliamentary. But I wonder what did happen to the principles that those freedom fighters espoused in 1973, when a little bit of authority was being taken into a cabinet room — nothing like the authority to deal with the minority group that is before us in this. At that time we provided for all kinds of appeals, hearings and everything else. Here the complete authority to nail down the settlement, to lay down all the terms and to change the contract in every way, is taken into the secret room of a cabinet meeting — the authority to deal with this group and from there on the authority to deal with the next group, and who knows what comes next.

Mr. Chairman. we said to the government: "We'll withdraw our amendment. You come up with another one that gives them some protection, so that we'll know that the next group in line will also have some protection." The government has said that they don't agree with the details of our amendment; but they have failed to come forward with an amendment of their own. In talking about this, we're hoping that they will realize that we are unalterably opposed to any kind of double billing, extra billing or balance billing, that we are completely in support of medicare as it is operating in the province of British Columbia, and that we are unalterably opposed to opting out. But we have to continue something we've been doing since 1933 in the history of the NDP and of the CCF: that is, standing up and fighting for any minority group which finds its rights challenged by government. That's what we are doing today, and has what we're going to do in this fight.

MR. RITCHIE: On a point of order, the member for Nanaimo has been all over the ballpark. I've been listening to it in the office. He's been making accusations which are really describing his own actions when he was Minister of Agriculture, when he appointed his own political hacks to the B.C. Marketing Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is most unorthodox to gain the floor for the purpose of making a speech. There

[ Page 4972 ]

are many opportunities available in committee for members to address the particular issue before us.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I ask permission to make a correction in a statement I made this morning. This morning I said there were four women in the House of Commons. I meant that there were four women on the opposition benches and nine women on the government benches, for a total of 13 women.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a few brief remarks. First of all, I wish to go on record as supporting this amendment. I'm sure that won't come as any great surprise to anybody in this House. I'm supporting this amendment just on the grounds of fair play. Because I did not speak in second reading of this bill, I very briefly want to say that I, along with my colleagues and it would appear every other member, am opposed to extra billing, balance billing, double billing or whatever term the people may use.

It might be of interest to this House that, not anticipating this debate today, some three or four weeks ago I sent out a householder questionnaire and one of the questions dealt with extra billing by doctors. I should tell you that of the many hundred replies to that questionnaire, only four respondents answered in favour of extra billing. It surprised me that anybody would. On closer examination I found out that the people who replied that they were in favour of extra or double billing did not give their names or return addresses, for whatever that's worth. In any event, I wonder how many of the people on the government benches have taken the trouble to phone individual doctors or medical associations within their ridings, or how many doctors from their tidings have phoned them. Not very many, I'll bet — in terms of the amendment before us today.

The question I have of the government is: why is the government applying this type of arbitration clause — section 6 and section 8, but we're dealing with section 6 at the moment — to the doctors when they they don't apply this type of clause to any other professional or labour group in the province of British Columbia? Teachers and others, even the Ministry of Highways, as my colleague from North Island pointed out yesterday.... When the Ministry of Highways has an arbitration case, a dispute over land expropriation or whatever with somebody in the province, these people have the right to choose their own arbitrator, believe it or not — even Highways. Yet here we have a government bringing in a heavy-handed arbitration clause that you will find nowhere else in the statutes of British Columbia. It's a denial of natural justice, as was put forward yesterday by our leader and many other people on this side of the House — a straightforward denial of natural j justice to a relatively small group of people.

It's interesting to note that, in my view, most people in this province do have a sense of fair play. I think most people like their doctors — I really do. People think that doctors generally make too much money, but that's not always the case; some make a great deal but some just get by like we do, believe it or not. I think that if there were a fair increase in doctors' salaries, people of this province would accept that. But what people in this province will not accept is unfairness. That's what we have in section 6 that we are debating an amendment to here today: an unfair situation where the government makes the rules; they set the goal posts. They decide before the arbitration case proceeds what the final settlement is going to be. They have that ability under this section and that is unfair, in my view.

I think the doctors in this province, generally speaking, with some exceptions, are pleased with Bill 16 to an extent. As long as they knew that when arbitration proceedings took place there would be a fair settlement and the ruling would be impartial, I think they would accept it. I don't think the doctors of this province want to see medicare scuttled any more than does the general population of this province. To us it's a matter of principle. Not only the question of medicare. It was our party that introduced medicare, first in Saskatchewan and then right across Canada — a principle that has been adhered to and must prevail. All people in this country, in my view, are entitled to decent medical services for a minimum fee. Medicare must not be destroyed. More than that, what we're dealing with here, as I said before, is simply a question of fair play.

I wonder why the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) who is sitting across the way from me right now, reading the Blues or whatever — has not spoken in this debate. That minister was elected and assigned to cabinet as Minister of Labour to uphold the concept of natural justice in labour relations in this province. That minister has been very strangely quiet in this debate. Is he going to get up and speak? Is he going to get up and uphold the principles and the duties he was assigned — and have the trust of the people of this province? I'm not sure about that. In any event, is that minister going to speak? I doubt it; it doesn't look like it.

The real culprit in this whole dispute is the Premier of this province. It occurs to me — and it's quite obvious — that a number of people on the treasury benches are in favour of supporting the amendment that we have proposed or of bringing in their own amendment in the interests of natural justice and fair play. There is no question in my mind that the Premier of this province has laid a heavy hand on those cabinet ministers. I think what he said is: (1) "Look, don't oppose me or I'm going to heave you out of the cabinet"; or (2) "You oppose my will and we'll call an election." Obviously, if they call an election now, they'll lose — no question about it — so he's got them trapped.

At least the Minister of Labour should get up right after I sit down, which will be in about one minute, and make a definitive statement on where he personally stands on this amendment and section 6 of this act. With that, Mr. Chairman, I will give the floor to the minister, who I can see now is prepared to get up and possibly suggest that he will introduce his own amendment to this act and settle this problem once and for all, so we can get on with the business of this province.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the debate which has continued today on this amendment, the various comments that have come from the other side have been very wide-ranging, as you have pointed out. The selective reading of section 6(l) perhaps adds to the confusion in the minds of some. The amendment, which is perhaps in more precise language and, in the opinion of the government, much less flexible, ties the hands of the government to some degree with respect to permitting the flexibility that may be requested by either the BCMA, the Medical Services Commission or other interested parties as how best to resolve the problem if arbitration is necessary. I emphasize: if arbitration is necessary.

[ Page 4973 ]

I might say that arbitration was suggested as a manner of resolving this dispute during the negotiations which took place late last year and early this year. The concept of arbitration was not accepted by the British Columbia Medical Association, and as late as last Monday night they reiterated their stand that they were not in a position to consider arbitration as a method of resolving the dispute.

It is not our intention to have this dispute go on for a long period of time, thereby allowing the citizens of the province to suffer from lack of decision on the matter, to wonder what services will be available to them and under what conditions and what they may be liable for with respect to the costs. We want the situation resolved as quickly as is reasonable. The amendment fails to take that into consideration. It provides either side the opportunity for stalling. In part, the amendment says: "In the event of the failure of either party to appoint a representative, the minister shall make such appointments." But there's no reference to what period of time should be considered prior to their failing to appoint.

Under the section as outlined in the legislation, the cabinet may — not shall — by order direct that, in accordance with the order, any dispute between the two may be resolved by a single arbitrator or by an arbitration board. We believe that is completely flexible. It leaves open the opportunity for all parties to have input should they desire to have input.

It's of significant interest to me that the opposition has taken on the role of speaking for the doctors. I don't know whether it would be possible for the opposition to share with me any official designation they've received from the BCMA. I can tell the House that the BCMA has not been in contact with us officially to say that they oppose this form of arbitration or to offer any suggestion as to what arbitration should be, other than — and I repeat — to say last Monday night that arbitration was not within their consideration because the board had not given them that mandate. Perhaps somebody in the NDP, the opposition, has met with the board of the BCMA, and they have given them the mandate to consider a form of arbitration. I would certainly like to see a copy of that direction, because the BCMA has not advised government or the commission, to my knowledge, that they have changed their position of last Monday night — that is, that they have no mandate to consider arbitration.

The discussion which has taken place in the House with respect to the amendment is of no surprise to members on the government side. We knew that somewhere within this bill there would be a point which would provide the opposition with the opportunity of attempting to show that they're on the side of the citizens of the province by voting against extra billing, but that they're on the side of the doctors by coming up with some point which, in their minds, would show that the government is attempting to be unfair or heavy-handed.

It's not surprising, perhaps, that section 6(l) was chosen to make this point, and so the debate has continued on for a couple of days. A couple of days would provide an opportunity for those who are to take part in a meeting tomorrow at the BCMA to know that the bill has not yet passed, and that the champions of the little people are taking up their case. During that period of time, because of the wording of the amendment and the debate that has taken place, the word has been spread among doctors in British Columbia by unnamed persons that they should have something to fear, that the government is about to develop a kangaroo court, that they should be very concerned — not only concerned, but fearful; not only fearful, but that they should consider where their political allegiance should lie. I believe it is unfortunate if that is going to occur and if the doctors who take their place in that meeting tomorrow will attend the meeting to decide what their next move may be with the thought — as expressed by members opposite — that they are in great jeopardy of having their freedoms removed and are to be faced by a kangaroo court indicating — in the words of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) — that the cabinet will dictate the settlement to be achieved by the arbitrator.

I find that particularly offensive for any arbitrator or members of a board of arbitration who may be named to have been judged already by the member for Nanaimo — that whatever decision they may be asked to bring down will be one that has been previously decided by cabinet. In fact, it may make it very difficult, depending on the sensitivity of any such person we may approach, as to whether they would accept such a position, having already been accused publicly by the member for Nanaimo of being nothing but a parrot of cabinet. There are some very distinguished individuals in British Columbia who could be considered as a single arbiter or members of an arbitration board. I would suggest that these people are of such character and integrity that they would take the role they're asked to carry forward, and they would do so with all the integrity that their background would suggest. They would not take on such a role if they were to be manipulated in any way by any person. I reject completely the accusation or suggestion by the member for Nanaimo that any single arbitrator or any arbitration board would do nothing but follow the dictates of the cabinet as to the resolution of the problem and the amount of the settlement; he suggested that would take place.

We believe that the conditions, as outlined in section 6(l), provide the widest opportunity to develop a formula of establishing arbitration, if arbitration is required. I have indicated to the British Columbia Medical Association at the meeting last Monday that we were prepared to consider any alternatives that they may have in mind. At that time they told us they had no alternatives in mind other than obtaining, on behalf of their members, that which they had previously sought. I in no way wish to interfere with the meeting which the doctors have announced will take place tomorrow. It's not government's intention to attempt to appear inflammatory, although the opposition would have everyone believe that that is so. We do not intend to make a last-minute phone call to the BCMA and say: "Don't have your meeting; don't opt out; don't do what you may wish to do." It's their individual freedom and right to hold their meetings and come up with any resolutions which may come forward.

I certainly hope that the BCMA will advise the commission as to what conclusions may have been reached at their meeting. If they choose not to do that on their own, we will certainly attempt to discover from them what resolutions may have been passed and whether we can respond to them in any way. I wish to make it clear that the members of the government, in meeting with representatives of the BCMA. made it very clear that we were prepared to negotiate and discuss any problems that they may see before them, other than the specific resolution of settlement, which they did offer and which we could not accept with an increase in excess of 40 percent. We believe that the section as outlined will accommodate the situation we have before us.

I and other members of the government have stated that the BCMA could very well be asked to play a major role in the selection of any of the personnel who may be asked to

[ Page 4974 ]

take part in an arbitration procedure, if an arbitration procedure is required. It is not the government's desire to have a procedure stymied in any way by the lack of cooperation of any of the principals who are involved in this dispute. It's our desire to have this dispute resolved quickly, fairly and equitably.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Members of the opposite side selectively choose words from the section. The member for Nanaimo referred to subsection 2(a) which says: "the interests of the public" will be taken into consideration. They will be taken into consideration by the arbitrator in resolving the dispute. But — straying as he did — also to be taken into consideration is "the desirability of establishing terms and conditions that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed and the nature of the services rendered." If an arbitrator were to take on this responsibility, taking into account those terms of reference, it is only reasonable to assume that the arbitrator would take into consideration what is fair compensation for the nature of the work of medical practitioners. We have absolutely no disagreement or argument that doctors should be well paid and fairly paid, and that it should be equitable to professions elsewhere — even within their own profession, and we very often leave it to the doctors to make the decisions as to how money for services will be distributed amongst themselves for services.

I know there are other members who wish to continue spinning on this debate in the hope that it will not possibly be passed before that Saturday meeting of the doctors, because that might interfere with some of the political plans which are underway.

I might, just for public information, advise the Chair that to this point, and to my knowledge, no member of the government has been asked to appear or take part at that Saturday meeting. I have not yet been advised if any member of the House has been asked to take part, or assist in planning as to what could be done from that Saturday meeting. I suppose we'll hear about that information later.

Just recapping very briefly, we feel that the section can stand on its own. It offers every opportunity for fairness and equity, and in no way does it dictate that the cabinet shall appoint a single arbitrator. It provides the cabinet with the capability of appointing a single arbitrator if necessary or a board if necessary. It in no way prevents representatives of the commission or cabinet from approaching BCMA or other associations or organizations and asking them for their input as to the specific personnel or the procedures which could be required to establish an arbitration board.

The amendment which we have before us is one concept of many. It's a concept that could be considered within the terms as outlined in section 6(1). But other than for the political purpose for which it was introduced, I don't see that it improves the situation at all. In, fact, it has probably provided an opportunity for inflammatory statements to be made in the House, which I'm sure are not providing the medical practitioners in the province any particular relief from a problem which I believe we can resolve with relative ease.

MR. HALL: When the minister was taking his place in this debate, I thought we might hear a contribution that would tell us something about how he looked upon the principles of the procedures that are suggested in his legislation and the principles that are contained in the amendment. We didn't get that. We got a rehash. We got an accusation of motivation on this side which is not provable and far from the truth. We've put this amendment forward in the interests of fair play, that's all. The people on the other side can shout as much as they want, but whenever we see injustice being performed in legislation, this side will always be providing amendments. That's been our record for a long time and will continue to be the record.

The minister just finished his remarks by saying that the concept which is in the amendment is one of many. It's interesting to note that it's a concept which is contained in almost every single statute of this province where arbitration occurs, some of which have been put in place by that government opposite. That kind of concept is totally accepted in the statutes of our province. It's one which we've read into the record — the Highway Act, GAIN legislation and all the labour legislation, The right of an affected party to be represented in an arbitration procedure has been taken away. We're trying to put it back with an amendment to this legislation. That's the simple fact of the matter. You can dress it up in as many words as you like and talk about flexibility. We heard that pious speech from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Hyndman) the other day which did no service whatsoever to his own cause by weaving, bobbing and ducking among the facts of the matter that say everybody is entitled to be represented in an arbitration hearing. He dodged that issue. He used a plethora of synonyms. He talked about this particular amendment we're discussing as being narrow and inflexible. Yet the fact of the matter is that it occurs in every one of those statutes.

We pointed this out in second reading when we adopted the principle of making sure that extra billing will never take place in this province. We mentioned it in our speeches on this side of the House, that people are entitled to be represented on arbitration boards. That was the first time it was mentioned. You've heard since then, Mr. Chairman, a number of excellent speeches recording why this amendment has got some history, some genesis — looking, as I say, at the statutes of the province. We can review those, but I don't want to take up all that much time.

I certainly reject the suggestion from the Minister of Health that we're simply standing here delaying matters. The bill is retroactive. What are we delaying? Everybody out there knows there's going to be no more double billing. What's the minister frightened of? He never meets the doctors; he says that himself. Until March 9, 12 seconds is the total amount of time he's spent with the leader of the BCMA. Yet he tries to tell us now that he knows the innermost thinkings of the doctors this weekend. He knows nothing; that's the trouble.

Mr. Chairman, we've seen a couple of attempts in the debate on this amendment to justify the government's arbitrary action, a couple of speeches by lawyers. I can only say that their wits, their brains and their arguments are for hire. That's the best I can say about them. There's still no word from the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich). It's my contention that the majority of the cabinet had not seen section 6 when this bill hit the legislative floor on Wednesday. That's one of the reasons it's taken so long to get through this piece of legislation. If they had seen it — and I doubt that they had — they certainly didn't understand it.

[ Page 4975 ]

Other speakers have described the consternation that overtook the treasury benches on Tuesday when they read section 6, which our amendment seeks to improve, and realized the full import of it. In fact, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health was told on Tuesday to buy time — I believe he was told by one of his colleagues — and to retire for the day on Wednesday evening at 6 o'clock. He was told to buy time, retire for the day, regroup and to come back on Thursday morning. We had given a commitment during debate on section 6 to get it through in that one day. Our critic said that when he opened. We said that in our speeches. That minister adjourned the debate on Tuesday between quarter to six and 6 o'clock upon instructions from one of his colleagues on the treasury bench, all because of the amendment. I can count, and there appear to be 28 over there; there appear to be 26 over here. If you need to adjourn, put it to a vote. But no, they wanted to regroup.

What happened overnight to our amendment, Mr. Chairman? Who was the heavyweight in cabinet who said: "Don't accept that amendment?" Who was the arm-twister in cabinet? My contention is that it was the member for Okanagan South (Hon. Mr. Bennett), the Premier of the province — a veritable Ayatolla Kelowna. He was the one who wanted his own way. He was the one who wanted to push this through — no second look, no fair play; ram it through their own individual Star Chamber court on arbitration.

Mr. Chairman, since debating this amendment, we've had the opportunity of reading the remarks of the Minister of Health. We've also had the benefit of just hearing some. Reading the remarks of the Minister of Health in this morning's newspaper, what did he say? In this morning's Province he's talking about the debate on the amendment and regretting the time that it's taking — remember, he was the one who adjourned the debate. For one thing, he said: "If the bill had been passed Wednesday night...." We were all ready; our 26 members put our hands up or down, as the case may be. He adjourned the proceedings on Wednesday. "...as was originally planned" — and we'd given our commitment — "the government would have been able to tell the doctors the arbitration method planned, and possibly even name the individual arbitrator appointed before the executive meeting." Well, now, Mr. Minister, let's not be so coy. Tell us. Do it now. Stand up now and seize your microphone with both hands and tell us what is the method of arbitration planned. Maybe we'll withdraw the arbitration amendment that we've put through. Don't be coy with the province. Tell us what you've got planned. Tell us the name of this single arbitrator and put an end to the wonderment of the Minister of Consumer Affairs about the flexibility. Where is the flexibility? The minister has got his mind made up: a single arbitrator. He says that in the Province, and in his words just now he talked about a single arbitrator.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Why don't you quote the paper instead of ad-libbing it?

MR. HALL: I'm quoting him: "...and even name the individual arbitrator appointed before the executive meeting." Why doesn't the minister do that to the House? Why does this bunch of Socred cabinet ministers always tell the people outside instead of bringing it in here first? That's what I want to know. Tell the House; tell us of the flexibility; tell us of the method you're going to use. If he's that sure of his ground, share the information now and share the information before the meeting. Then all those worries that you've just expressed in your speech — all the worries that you've just tried to accuse this side of generating — will be put to rest. Name it now. No, don't play the fool here, sir. That's why I'm supporting the amendment. It's the only way that people should be dealt with by a government looking after the public interest. That's why it should be supported: everybody is entitled to be represented in arbitration hearings. This is the first government that I've ever seen that is trying to take that away, and I shall support the amendment.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Chairman, I hope that I can contain myself. I do want to stay on the amendment as it applies to arbitration, but I would like to draw a parallel between the NDP type of arbitration and the arbitration that is being proposed here. To do that I must go back in history just a little bit to their term in office and how they applied arbitration to a producer group in this province. The arbitration at that time was not by an appointed or professional arbitrator, but it was by some of their own appointed political hacks. Mr. Chairman, the group that I speak of included such names as Rusty Freeze and Barbara Wallace, who were appointed to the B.C. Marketing Board as NDP appointees. It was during that great crisis. when the socialist government attempted to take over the poultry industry in this province, that they attempted to lay down rules that growers would have to apply to arbitration as it is talked about here, Mr. Chairman. At that time they had already, of course, acquired control of the major portion of this industry, as is planned in the Waffle Manifesto to socialize the country. They succeeded in acquiring a major portion of the poultry industry and British Columbia processing. I'm glad to see the ex-Minister of Agriculture is here to hear this, because I like to look him in the eye as I talk about this.

Mr. Chairman, once they got into the position of owning and controlling, they then decided that they had to have a better pricing formula and also a better method of quota allocation. This couldn't be settled easily, because the growers said: "No, if you do that to us, we'll go broke and you re going to take our farms as well; arbitration is what we need." So anyway, what they did was this: with their political hacks in this appointed position known as the B.C. Marketing Board, they worked on the chairman of the board and they were going to arbitrate this with the chairman of the board. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that I was that chairman. So what I'm saying here is the truth. It's in the records and I will make sure that I keep it up to date in the records, because in spite of the hypocritical arguments that I hear coming across the floor, particularly from that member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) and the member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), I really have to keep reminding the public at large of their type of arbitration.

Mr. Chairman, many meetings took place with the chairman of the board at that time, and the chairman reached a point of exhaustion, it was so hectic and so demanding. Their final offer was — and I hope all those in the gallery and in this province hear this: "Accept it or we'll kick you out of office." The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) was one of those who said it. As a member of that board at that time, the member for Cowichan-Malahat said: "Accept our offer or we will kick you out of office." I was the chairman at that time. I was the one being threatened. This is a fact. And I refused. In order to try to arbitrate this in a very kindly way.... I'm glad the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) is here now as well; actually there are only seven of

[ Page 4976 ]

them in the House — disgusting. Anyway, we're talking about a very, very important issue here.

Interjections.

MR. RITCHIE: You can't count, obviously. Please protect me, Mr. Chairman. They're getting out of hand over there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if you could return to the discussion before us, the Chair would appreciate it.

MR. RITCHIE: I'm on arbitration, as it is applied in section 6 of the bill. We reached a point where the chairman said: "No, I'm not going to sign away the future of these producers. You're going to have to kick me out of office." During the arbitration process I suggested to them that I call every producer together in a hall, and that they come to that meeting and speak to them. They agreed to that. They agreed then to back up and not kick me out of office, and that we would go to this meeting; and we did. I put the story to the producers. I said: "This is what will happen if I sign this agreement. Do you want it signed? If it's going to be signed, it will effectively put you out of business — arbitration." Well, they voted, and they all said no: "In no way will we allow the NDP government to force anything like that on us." They voted against it.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat stepped to the podium, in this arbitration process of theirs, and said to the people: "We know what is good for you better than you do yourself." And they signed an illegal agreement. So they got the message that night. She signed it. I believe it was the next day that I was in Victoria. I went to the office of the then Minister of Agriculture, the member for Nanaimo, and I said: "Mr. Minister, this is an illegal agreement that those people of yours have signed on these producers. This cannot stand." He had no comment.

I'm going to conclude by saying that it's a real shame, as we debate this question of arbitration, that these people on the other side should say the things they're saying, when in fact the records show that their sort of arbitration is dictatorial: "Take it our way or be kicked out of office." Terrible! Whenever one has lived through that process.... It is something I understand fully, and anyone else who has lived through it fully understands just what it means. But what is most disgusting is to hear the things being said by them as they put forward their amendment. It's absolute nonsense. I say that their whole issue is just political games. With them, it depends on whose ox is being gored. They want to be on both sides. They want to be in bed with the doctors and they want to be in bed with everybody. But it won't work, because the public out there know that this is a political game they're playing; otherwise the Leader of the Opposition would have been here for the main vote — the vote against balance billing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to contain your remarks to the amendment before us.

MR. RITCHIE: I will. I'll get back to arbitration. I find I really very difficult. I'm surprised this has gone on as long as it has. Whenever we hear remarks being made, as have been made in this House today by the ember for Nanaimo particularly, and by the member for Surrey, who himself has little respect for fair arbitration.... We know by the records how he works it.

I'm going to conclude by saying that it is unfortunate. It reminds me of a little farm story: you don't get down into the mud with the hogs, because you'll come up all covered with mud, and only the hogs will have enjoyed it. I hope this thing will clean up and that we'll get on with some fair and honest debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I know now that under this section we have the latitude to talk about everything under the sun. We've just heard a nice homey little story. The former Minister of Agriculture is going to put the record straight in a minute or two.

I think there's a much more important principle that we're talking about right now. First, I want to put the record straight with respect to the reason for this amendment, and secondly, to put the record straight with respect to what the minister said the other day in describing that 11 o'clock meeting. I want us all to remember his words.

I believe he got a wire this morning. If he hasn't got one now.... I understand that there's a very good possibility that somebody out there would like you to put the record straight. If you don't, I will. I noticed you trying to dance around it a minute or two ago. I just want to remind the House what the minister said in terms of whether or not the doctors would accept anything other than their hard-line position. He said that the alternatives authorized by way of a motion of the BCMA board that evening —  for them to give the government — was that basically unless the government or the commission agreed to meet the association's schedule — their fee guide — unless any further agreement.... This Hansard is kind of messed up here. The protective clause — it's broken down.

We were advised that this was their minimum position: if the government or commission were to accept the demands of the association — interpreted to be 90 percent of 47.8, which perhaps the association interprets as 90 percent of 41.6 percent — we guaranteed this so-called protective clause would be Continued in any future agreement and they would not invoke balance billing on April 1.

I asked if there were any other alternatives. I was advised that the board offered them no other mandate than making this demand to prevent balance billing. I asked if there was any room for negotiation or arbitration. I was advised that the only mandate provided to spokesmen was that they previously advised that unless the government or commission agreed to meet the association's schedule on any further agreement or retained the protective clause, then balance billing would occur effective April 1. We were not in a position to make a counter-offer because we were advised by the representatives that they were not in a position to negotiate. So no counter-offer was made.

This morning I checked with Norm Rigby, the executive director of the association, just to be sure. He informed me — as he informed everybody last night on "Pacific Report," but I just wanted to make sure it was clear.... What did Dr. Rigby say? He said they offered to go back to the table. You don't give us that information at all.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Really? Were you there, turkey?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: "Were you there, turkey?" the minister says. Were you there?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I was there.

[ Page 4977 ]

MR. COCKE: All right, one or the other of you is telling a falsehood.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You're making that accusation.

[Mr. Chairman rose.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair heard the remark the Minister of Health attributed to another member. I ask the Minister of Health to withdraw that remark.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Certainly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

[Mr. Chairman resumed his seat.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has withdrawn the unparliamentary expression. The member for New Westminster continues on the amendment.

MR. COCKE: The minister indicated — because I wasn't there — that there was no offer. Mr. Chairman, you see, you don't negotiate with the government. The negotiations are between the commission and the members of the negotiating team for the B.C. Medical Association. That night an offer was made, according to Rigby, to go back to the table, to collective bargaining. The minister has misled us with this statement, stating that there were no alternatives.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will ask the hon. member for New Westminster to withdraw the word "misled".

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word.

Let me remind you, Mr. Chairman, what was said in Hansard in description of that 11 o'clock meeting. "We had been advised by the representatives that they were not in a position to negotiate. No counter-offer was made." Those three cabinet ministers weren't in a position to make a counter-offer that night — that's not the way you negotiate — but the government was in a position to send their team back to the table as requested by the BCMA.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: When was that requested?

MR. COCKE: Eleven o'clock Monday night, or Thursday night, or whenever that dark meeting was.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Do you have a copy of that request?

MR. COCKE: The minister asks: "Do you have a copy of that request?" I got a phone call this morning. I talked on the phone this morning with a person who was there. As a matter of fact, I watched the gallery the day the minister made that statement. It struck me, when I looked up in the gallery, that the executive director of the medical association shook his head when he heard that statement, and I thought: "Well, well. Maybe the minister isn't being quite as candid as he should be with respect to the description of that meeting." The minister is trying to incite something. He's holding his own gang in line by stating that the doctors were hard-line. It's absurd what we've got ourselves into with this piece of gross workmanship. I think it was probably a mistake in the first place.

MR. BARRETT: Is Rigby accusing him of saying a falsehood?

MR. COCKE: Rigby says that they offered to go back to the table. The minister says: "No such thing."

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, one of them's not telling....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Or the interpreter isn't.

MR. COCKE: Or the interpreter.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or the third party.

MR. COCKE: Or the third party

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If we could contain our remarks to the amendment, the committee would much appreciate it.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, we have moved an amendment in line with the School Act. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) said the other day in that great speech that it was quite an incompetent thing we did. All we did was copy the words out of the School Act. So if there was incompetence in legislation, then that probably happened a long time ago. The only incompetence around here is the incompetence of this minister in humbling himself to the Premier who is too proud to take this thing out and make it fair. Beyond that, he charges that the medical association left no alternatives; but at 11 o'clock that night they offered to go back to the table. He said that they had to make up this legislation quickly at 11 o'clock. this has been ready for weeks.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: How many weeks?

MR. COCKE: Oh, you know, this minister is such a....

HON. MR. NIELSEN: You know everything. What's the date of the bill?

MR. BARRETT: You should resign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would once again ask the hon. Minister of Health and the hon. Leader of the Opposition to please not interrupt the member who is taking his place in debate.

MR. COCKE: I think what we have probably seen — the display that we've seen — in defence of this situation.... I'll bet you that they're thinking over there: "I wonder if we made the right appointment, I'm thinking of the Premier now: "Why would I have appointed a totally incompetent minister when we're in a time of crisis with the doctors?"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, can we return to the amendment and forget personal allusions.

MR. COCKE: Illusions, okay. It is an illusion, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 4978 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's spelt with an "a, " and it refers to alluding to another hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Oh, I see — allusions.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to run over these words again. "We were advised that negotiations were acceptable at any time, except the minimum required would be balance billing, and they would have no mandate to offer more than that at that time. It was decided the next day to respond by legislation." Did they make that legislation up overnight? Is that why this gross section is in here? I don't think so. I understand by reading a column in the paper by a usually reliable source that it was piled up at the Queen's Printer for some time, ready to go at the drop of a hat. The only problem with it was this: none of the competent legal minds over there read it before it hit the floor.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which one?

MR. COCKE: Surely there's one, and possibly there are two, because I saw a great deal of surprise and shock when we introduced our amendment. They had it photostated and sent it around to the lawyers. When that occurred the Premier went red in the face, slammed his desk, walked straight out the door and they called adjournment.

Remember, we said we were prepared to go all night without looking at the clock. You know that.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: He knew that. We'd agreed not to look at the clock, and the Minister of Health jumped up and moved adjournment. They're in deep trouble. They've brought in a one-sided piece of legislation. We're not opposed to all of it; we're quite happy with the section dealing with balance billing. We're going to outlaw it and we're glad to do it. But when they bring in a one-sided arbitration process that cannot be described as an arbitration process at all, we have to at least put forward an alternative. We've done it, but we now know there was another alternative offered that night, and that alternative was collective bargaining; that alternative was to go back to the table.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Is that right?

MR. COCKE: Yes.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: Were you eavesdropping or what?

MR. COCKE: Eavesdropping. I got the bug out of our caucus room and I moved it up there into your office.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: That wouldn't be surprising coming from you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all hon. members come to order, please. The member for New Westminster is on the amendment.

MR. COCKE: They came very near. Naturally we didn't expect them to accept our amendment, but we expected to see what used to happen when there was a politician leading that group over there. W.A.C. Bennett would have taken a look at that and said to a couple of his boys: "Hey, go out and draft something that's along that line. Bring it in, and we'll get their vote. We'll get their support, because it should be changed." He would understand, but the new leader understands nothing except that his own way must be had all the time. A while ago he was described by the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) as the Ayatollah Kelowna. I think that is probably as good a description....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will once again ask you not to allude to other members of the House in debate. We have standing order 61(2), which asks us to be relevant when we debate in committee, and I'm sure the hon. member, who has spent much of his debate speaking to the amendment, can continue in that manner.

MR. COCKE: I am delighted to say again that at least we could restore some respect for the law if the government would either accept this amendment or bring in one of their own that provides an even-handed way of dealing with this question. Failing that, what can we do? The minister says something about: did we draw up the doctors' agenda? What a cockeyed insult! What an absolute insult to the doctors, that anybody outside their group....

HON. MR. NEILSEN: You seem to know all the details about their meeting.

MR. COCKE: I know nothing about their meeting.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: You know nothing about anything.

MS. BROWN: You were there and you don't know about it. The way you report it is not the way it happened.

HON. MR. NEILSEN: What was that, Rosemary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I will once again ask all hon. members, including the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) and everyone else who was interrupting, not to interrupt. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won't have it very much longer.

We are determined to press this vital issue, and to press this vital issue does not mean anything more than we're in favour of fair play, period, amen. In the Highway Act it's not too much to ask that you have fair appeal procedure and arbitration, each side being permitted to appoint, and then those people have the right to select a mutually agreeable chairman. It's the same in the school process. If the minister wants to go to the Arbitration Act, let him go. But these are all even-handed ways of dealing with things.

I think the minister has used the doctors for his own political reasons, and I'm ashamed of him. He had our support for this bill and still has it for the principle of the bill, but we cannot accept lightly this total deviation from fair play. We just cannot accept it.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'll only be a few moments. I've been sitting here trying to determine just what it is the opposition is trying to do. The member who just

[ Page 4979 ]

took his seat is accusing the Minister of Health of this government of using the doctors for political reasons. I would say that those members are using the people, especially the elderly people of British Columbia and those in lower income brackets, for political reasons. Those merchants of fear have carried on this same tactic over a number of years in British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I must remind all members of the committee that when the member for New Westminster digressed, the Chair had to ask him to confine his remarks to the amendment before us. I will ask the Minister of Forests to do the same.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, to the amendment, and attempting to determine what the real reason for this amendment is. They are actually assuming that there are no other processes involved and that there will not be a fair method of arbitration set up by the Minister of Health. Of course, that is the popular political thing for them to say. But I would refer to the fear tactics that are commonly used in trying to bring into people's minds that somehow their medical services are in jeopardy and that there will be some who will not be able to afford these services, Yes, they say that they're not in favour of balance billing, and at the same time they're dragging this thing on, knowing that many people in British Columbia are watching with a certain amount of fear in their minds as to their ability to acquire and achieve the medical services that so many of them need, especially the elderly. We saw that type of fear tactic used, just as is being used on this amendment, during the 1979 provincial election when people were told that medical care was not going to be available to them, that they were being booted out of the hospitals. They are using that same tactic today in the debate on this amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please relate his remarks to the amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm discussing the amendment and the reason for it, in no broader terms than has been discussed by members opposite and by the member who just took his seat. This fear tactic, which I'm sure is the reason behind this amendment, was the same tactic used by members of that party in the recent Mount Paul Hospital incident in Kamloops. Even though the Minister of Health had given assurance to residents of that hospital that they need not worry about their hospitalization — they could remain in that hospital — members of that party in Kamloops took upon themselves to try to convince the people there that there was some doubt, that perhaps they would be moved. That's exactly what's happening in this amendment before us now.

MR. LEA: On a point of order. I think it's going to be a rather unusual point of order. I think that it's only fair that the government be allowed to express their political views in this Legislature, and so should we. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that every time one of the members, be it on that side or this side, starts to express a political view — and that's what we're doing here — then the Chair intervenes and says that you can't talk about anything political in this House. I believe that the minister is perfectly within his right to express politics. I think the Chair should start to give a little bit more latitude to both sides.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sure the Minister of Forests appreciates your remarks. However, in spite of what I've just heard, there is much latitude in this House for political debates. Unfortunately, in Committee of Supply we are bound by our standing orders. I will once again recite them to you. It is standing order 61(2) which states: "In Committee of Supply all debate must be strictly relevant to the item or clause before the committee." I would ask all members to contain their remarks to the clause that is before us. I'm sure that all members understand that. We have an amendment.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Good grief, Mr. Chairman, I'm convinced now that I have done something wrong when I get support from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea).

AN HON. MEMBER: It's clearly out of order.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: It must be clearly out of order.

However, Mr. Chairman, the amendment has caused a considerable delay in the ability of the Minister of Health to get on with the job of resolving this very serious issue. We don't want to see the medical-care program in British Columbia in any way jeopardized; we don't want to see fear struck into the hearts of those people who perhaps will I not be able to pay if, in fact, some form of extra billing does proceed. I think it's very unkind to those people, and I cannot possibly accept this amendment. It simply says, Mr. Chairman, that the members opposite refuse to accept the fact that we are the government in British Columbia and that it's our responsibility to see that this matter is resolved. The fear tactics that they have used over the years — actually mean, dirty-tricks tactics — that strike fear into the hearts of the people of British Columbia, I think, are completely uncalled for. I urge that we get on with the passage of this legislation, so that the Minister of Health can get on with the job that he has to do in resolving the dispute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke I'll remind the Minister of Forests and all members that parliamentary language is always a feature and a courtesy in the House.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I think the Minister of Forests is a brave man to refer to "dirty tricks"; he's a brave man indeed. The Minister of Forests has talked a little bit about delay in passage of this bill, and he's afraid that the debate in this House as to whether or not a group in our society is receiving a fair method of resolution of a dispute will inflame this debate. Well, Mr. Chairman, as far as the doctors of the province were concerned, their feelings were inflamed when the bill was introduced. I would quote just very briefly from the Times-Colonist of March 31, where Dr. Alex Mandeville had this to say:

"B.C. Medical Association president Dr. Alex Mandeville immediately branded the legislation introduced shortly after 10 a.m. by Health minister Jim Nielsen a 'double cross.' 'They have double-crossed the doctors of B.C.' But he indicated doctors will obey the law. 'We never never took a hardline,' Mandeville said. 'We tried to be reasonable, but they've taken a club to us; they've conscripted us. They don't even do this sort of thing in Poland.' "

[ Page 4980 ]

Now, Mr. Chairman, that was the view of the leader of the B.C. Medical Association, and as I understood it, it was related mainly to the arbitration process that's contained in the bill. So there was no question that their attitude toward the provision was quite inflamed. They're angry, and I think they have a right to be angry in that respect. I would very much like to get to a debate on the amendment and stay away from recounting the political history of this party, that party or anything else. The member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) has indulged in that.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Really, what's pertinent here is whether or not the government, which has a majority in this House, is prepared to take a second look at one provision of a bill that, I think, should have the unanimous consent of the House, and could easily attain the unanimous consent of the House if the government were prepared to be a bit flexible, a bit reasonable, and say: "Look, the essential part of the bill is that which prohibits extra billing in the province" — we all agreed on that — "therefore, in terms of setting up a mechanism for final dispute resolution, can we not reason together a little bit?"

It's been amply demonstrated that this particular mechanism in this bill is unique in the province of British Columbia; there is no other precedent in law in this province for the particular kind of arbitration process which the government has designed for the doctors. It's one-sided, arbitrary — and from that point of view, as certainly most of the lawyers on the government side must know, it's destined to failure, when one party to the process sees it as unfair. The strength of arbitration, the strength of a final resolution mechanism, is that both parties who are utilizing that system can see it to be fair, even-handed and impartial. The government has prevented that from happening in the section.

Mr. Chairman, unless they accept the amendment to the section which the opposition has put forward, they are simply creating unnecessary trouble for themselves, unnecessary hostility within the Medical Association and unnecessary unrest and concern in the public out there.

To suggest that debate on this section in the House in some way jeopardizes the medicare system in the province is a false argument, because the bill has a retroactive provision. It's going to apply from April 1, I believe. So to suggest that we should remove ourselves from a debate on what is a very important principle in this matter is a bit of a cop-out, and I think it shows a bit of contempt for what the Legislature is all about. There's no reason why we should pass a bad law, a discriminatory law, just to expedite the government's time schedule for getting this bill through the House. That's not what the Legislature is all about. It's retroactive anyway, as my colleague has indicated.

My colleagues — particularly the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann), who made a very eloquent speech yesterday — pointed out to the Attorney-General and others that there are forms of arbitration law available in many statutes in the province of British Columbia — the Highway Act, certainly under the Labour Code of British Columbia, the School Act. There's even an arbitration system under the GAIN legislation. All of it is founded on the principle that both parties in dispute will have some role in selecting the people to sit and serve on that arbitration mechanism. That's fundamental. It seems to me to recognize natural justice in the case. That's why they're designed that way.

Why is it that the government has adopted an altogether different approach with respect to this statute? It's an approach which gives the government — a party to the bargaining process through a branch of government........ Why is it that they have to give themselves the sole right to name the arbitrator or arbitrators, to define the terms of reference, to have control over the issue to be arbitrated — that will be dictated to the doctors arbitrarily — and then to empower that arbitration apparatus to vary and change the terms of a contract? All of those powers are unprecedented in arbitration law. The Attorney-General knows that. He was Minister of Labour in this province for a number of years. The two sections that are really offensive here break precedent with any standard of fair play, in my view, and break faith with the concept of natural justice.

I certainly see no reason on earth why the government wouldn't show some good faith, some give-and-take, some recognition that if this is amended they have the unanimous support of the opposition in dispensing with this bill and getting onto other business. They have that assurance. Why are they so rigid? Why are they so intransigent? My colleague for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has pointed out that under the W.A.C. Bennett leadership there was always a preparedness to take a second look, to show some leadership both in the Legislature and out. There wasn't this rigid, petulant attitude that they have to demonstrate and enforce their majority no matter what the circumstances of the case. There's no compromise, flexibility or spirit of cooperation in terms of dealing with either the Legislature or a group in society. It's really a condemnation of leadership in that party that we're bogged down on an issue that could be resolved so easily with a degree of reasonableness and some give-and-take in the matter.

Everyone is now at the stage where they're imputing that it's all for political reasons that the opposition is delaying this thing. If that were so, the government has a very easy remedy. It doesn't weaken their position a bit to set up a system of arbitration that complies with one of the other statutes of the province — be it the School Act or whatever. If they feel that the opposition is taking a political stance, certainly that would cut the ground out from under the opposition very quickly, and we'd be happy to see that. It's not a political issue at all. It's an issue that this particular provision, which we seek to amend, is patently unfair, unprecedented in law, discriminatory, arbitrary, and smacks of a dictatorial attitude by this government. We cannot accept that. It's our responsibility and duty to seek to improve this legislation in order to maintain some standard of fair play and reasonableness, whether it's the doctors or any other group that's involved. Quite frankly, I'm appalled that the government has become so defensive and petulant about this whole matter that they sit there with their heels dug in, not prepared to discuss or consider improving the legislation before them, which many of them know in their hearts is wanting. I'm appalled by it. I just don't understand a government that takes this rather rigid posture, digs in, and is not prepared to listen to anyone else, to take any advice or to compromise one inch on a matter that could be highly divisive in terms of interests in the community. The best service they could give to preventing that division and to restoring some stability to the health scene in the province of British Columbia would be to show some concern, some sensitivity and some spirit of give and take. It's only outright stubbornness and intransigence that is preventing that from happening in this House today.

[ Page 4981 ]

I urge the government to have a hard look, and if they don't like our amendment, a couple of members of a committee can go out together and sit down and draft an amendment that is acceptable to both sides of the House. That would be an altogether reasonable way of resolving this matter, and I commend that course of action to the government.

MR. REE: It is with extreme regret that I stand here today to debate this issue, and that it has come to the point where we have to have legislation placed before us. This legislation, and in particular section 6, indicates we're concerned about the public interest, and it's the public interest that has brought the legislation to this floor.

I'm sorry the doctors have taken the stand they have. I don't see how it is possible for the people of this province to appreciate, approve or pay for the extent of increase that the medical profession have asked for. I think the government has acted responsibly in bringing this legislation at this time, legislation which provides for many means of resolving the problem. It provides for continuing negotiation — which I encourage the medical profession to take advantage of — and, failing that, an arbitration clause which is quite valid and with tremendous precedent in law in this province and the democratic parliamentary system we've had for hundreds of years in Canada and England. There is precedent in law where we've had single judges, courts of origin, and the appellate courts where we've had respect, fairness and equity administered. I think that is quite possible and will be accomplished whether we have a single arbiter — if it has to come down to that — or an arbitration board of three or five people appointed. I think you'll get the same equity, justice and responsibility we've had in our systems of law through the hundreds of years we've had their benefit.

I cannot possibly accept the amendment that has been placed before us by the opposition. Some people have said it was hastily drawn. I don't think it was hastily drawn; I think it was incompetently drawn. If you turn around and take a look at section 6 they have just amended subsection (1). To do a proper, responsible and competent job of amendment they should have included the other subsections of section 6 where reference is still made to a single arbiter. I think that's an indication of the competence, intelligence and abilities of our opposition.

I can understand why they are concerned with section 6. When they draw up something of this incompetence, this wording....

MR. BARRETT: That's from the School Act. Are you attacking the School Act?

MR. REE: The Leader of the Opposition may have taken one clause out of the School Act, but he hasn't looked at the rest of section 6 of this bill, and neither have the rest of his party. To come in with a proper amendment they would have done a proper amendment on section 6 and deleted all reference to a single arbiter. It's quite obvious they haven't got the competence to look at a whole section to bring in amendments. When they have that lack of competence and lack of ability I can understand their concern, because the way they operate I would be concerned if they were in our position. Fortunately they are not over on our side of the House, and fortunately they are not governing this province. Fortunately for the people of B.C. that's why we were returned in 1979.

I can understand why they've brought in that form of amendment. They bring in amendments where they wish to control everything on a straight and narrow path. That is the method of the opposition party: bring everybody down; tell them what path they should follow. This is the sort of thing. There are no options available for people of enterprise or initiative. No, everybody's got to go down a straight and narrow...lower everything to the same common denominator.

I cannot begin to support any type of amendment indicative of the lack of competence that has come from that side of the floor. I'm going to have to vote against it.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, if I had any doubts about supporting our amendment, the last speaker certainly cleared those doubts from my mind. I'll come back to his points later.

I rise to support the amendment. I hoped the day would never come when I and my colleagues would find that they would not stand in this House to support legislation that protects people in this province and ensures that they have a fair opportunity to settle, and which provides equality for our citizens whether they be doctors or not. That is the essence of our amendment.

I've listened to this debate. I've heard most of the speeches. The most we hear from the other side is an attempt to smokescreen our amendment by suggesting that we are being political. When I hear that over and over again from the Social Credit members, it makes me realize and it reinforces in my own mind that the Social Credit Party members have no understanding of what true commitment is to proper and fair negotiations with people whom the government has to deal with regarding salaries. They have no commitment. As far as I can see, they also have no philosophy when it comes to medicare itself.

Without straying too far from the amendment, I would like to say that the most disappointing thing for me throughout this whole debate has been not to have heard one member on that side of the House say that they believe in the philosophy of medicare — not once! I have yet to hear the Minister of Health state that. As a matter of fact, in his introductory remarks the Minister of Health never once expressed a commitment to the philosophy of medicare. When I think of the history of the former Minister of Health and his history of hotline programs in this province prior to the 1972 election, it doesn't surprise me that that minister would not come out with a solid commitment to medicare. As a matter of fact, in his speech referring to the matter of mediation and to the whole medicare philosophy, the minister stated — this is what I gather — that the only reason the Social Credit government is concerned about keeping balanced budgeting is, and I quote: "The Minister of Health will probably develop very rigid positions with respect to the participation of any province which may permit balance billing, extra billing or similar programs under their medicare program." What comes through is that once again the Social Credit government have no philosophy, no commitment, and they're being very expedient in handling this bill.

I would like to hear one member stand up over there and tell us that they believe in medicare. I think at least that would be something positive to come out of this debate. But they're more concerned about losing the funds from the federal government if they don't continue to keep balance billing.

But back to the amendment. I find it unbelievable that the people over there would stand up and say to us that we're

[ Page 4982 ]

holding up something here, when they know very well the bill is retroactive, and that they would say to us that we haven't drafted our amendment properly — that's another argument. As we have said quite clearly, if there are parts of our amendment that do not satisfy them, why don't they recommend it and bring it forward to the House with corrections? We would be only too pleased to clear that up.

The only thing that I and my colleagues can see that could possibly explain the stubbornness and almost apparent stupidity of the government in not accepting this amendment is that apparently there must be something political going on here. In my humble opinion, they are playing politics with this vital question, and they alone. If they were not looking at this from a strictly partisan point of view, why would they not therefore accept an amendment to what they know at the moment is upsetting the doctors of this province? If they truly want peace with the doctors in this province, why not accept an amendment from the opposition — and clean it up, if you're not happy with it — which will take away some of the sting of this bill which they are presenting to the doctors? They won't do it, so who is really playing politics here? Are they hoping that they can put in such a heavy-handed arbitration procedure that the doctors will have no choice but to return to the negotiating table? Someone may say, "Isn't that great!" but at what price? If the government is willing to do that it shows that this government is willing to do anything for the sake of political expediency. It means that they're ready to throw out fair treatment and equality for the doctors of this province. They want to take away from them the right to fair negotiation and fair settlement which has always been accepted by the people of this province.

I can't really understand why we are still debating this bill, unless for some reason the Social Credit government themselves want to delay this. There is a simple way of expediting this debate right now: accept the amendment of the official opposition.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I rise at the invitation of the Leader of the Opposition. We've had a lengthy debate characteristic, I suppose, of recent years of the New Democratic Party where an issue, no matter how trivial and how small, is quite capable of occupying the House for days and days. The big issues which used to characterize opposition debate disappeared when the Liberal Party disappeared from the House. Indeed, I suppose if one looks for new and imaginative ideas one still finds them from those parties who are no longer in the House. That is probably the main reason why the debate has collapsed in terms of constructive ideas and we remain bogged down in trivia day after day after day. What runs as a general theme through the trivia that appears to occupy this House day after day, week after week and month after month is the rigid, labour-oriented thinking of the NDP. Anything that doesn't fit into the ritual framework of trade unionism, which is a total preoccupation of that socialist party, is unacceptable to them. So they bring forward an amendment to this particular bill not designed to bring harmony to the people of British Columbia but to cast one more profession in this province into the rigid mould of trade unionism. That rigid mould is based upon the idea that there must always be confrontation' and bargaining, that there will be strikes as an inevitable outcome of that process, and therefore only those things which are cast in the rigid trade union NDP mould will be satisfactory for anybody anywhere in the province.

The members opposite laugh that uneasy laugh that always comes with lack of solid, constructive ideas. That uneasy laugh comes when the people opposite are called to account for their lack of imagination in debate and for their lack of constructive new proposals. I submit that the outcome of this unfortunate disagreement between the medical profession and the people of British Columbia — not the government — over balance billing is only going to be settled by cool heads; not by partisans chosen by the medical profession and not by partisans chosen by the government, should they be so unwise to do such a thing, but by people who the general public will recognize and trust as the type of individuals who will act with fairness and judgment.

We hope that the issue can be resolved by fair and honest negotiation as provided for in section 2 of this act, because it became very clear to those in government, who must act as the first line of defence for the general public, that what was involved here was not a serious and honest attempt on the part of the negotiators for the medical profession to arrive at an acceptable fee schedule for the taxpayers of the province. Clearly, when the amount of funds which was set aside as the pool for doctors was growing each year at a rate greater than inflation, to then take that pool and at taxpayers' expense increase it by a further 47 percent in a single year would be totally unacceptable to anyone, except possibly the people who would be the recipients and the beneficiaries.

The members opposite have recognized that circumstance. They realize, as do government members, that there was no intention on the part of the negotiating team to arrive at a fair agreement by which doctors would be remunerated for their services. What was clearly intended was an attempt to trigger a balance-billing system. That's why we have this bill. Because there was a blatant attempt — if I can use that word — to trigger a system which the public of British Columbia overwhelmingly rejects. That leaves us with no other choice, however reluctantly we may have made this move, but to bring in a bill which makes it clear to the medical profession and to the people of British Columbia that balance billing will not take place in this province. All right, that's fair enough. That's the main intent of this bill. We all agree.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what we have to do is come down to how you settle what the fee schedule should be, having eliminated balance billing. What section 2 does, Mr. Chairman, is say, "Let's negotiate seriously," because that really has not taken place up until this time. I think there is a fair and reasonable expectation that will be the outcome, because now all of the false reasons for having negotiation will be eliminated. We get down to what should have been done by people of good faith a year ago.

Now we come to section 6. What happens if that process fails? Mr. Chairman, all we're saying is in that doubly unfortunate circumstance. the only way the matter will be resolved in such a way that the public of British Columbia are protected and are being served is to have someone they trust to make the judgment. That's a very different circumstance to having some kind of muscle confrontation in the trade union sense — in the narrow rough-and-tumble of trade union negotiations where the disciplinary force is the marketplace; and where the industrial trade unions, from which the philosophy of the NDP has sprung, which has infected the minds of the members opposite to the point where they can think of nothing else.... That has made them unfit to serve the broader interests of the public of British Columbia. Until that

[ Page 4983 ]

party over there learns that to have government you must do more than serve the B.C. Federation of Labour, you must do more than try and twist every circumstance into B.C. Federation of Labour thinking and the labour-confrontation mode of dealing with every circumstance of the province...until you learn to drop that attitude that is evidenced by this particular section of this bill, then you should not aspire to government. While that may be your total world, it isn't the way the broader interests of the public of British Columbia can be served.

Mr. Chairman, to have the time of this House and the interests of this Legislature continually channelled down this direction by overburdening debate in a narrow range of thinking, as has taken place ever since the responsible opposition disappeared from the Legislature of British Columbia, is again to leave the people of this province ill-served by the very balance in the nature of the debate which takes place.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would say to the NDP: "Withdraw your amendment in this debate; permit the medical profession and the Medical Services Commission to get down to honest negotiations, as they should have done some time ago." If the government of British Columbia, in the event that that fails, is unsuccessful in setting terms of arbitration in a manner which the public of British Columbia distrusts, then you've got cause for criticism of the government; then you can honestly say: "These people have failed to serve the mandate they received" — not from the trade unions or any special-interest group, but from the public of British Columbia. Then is the time for your raising these issues in the Legislature and, if we're wrong, justly criticizing the government. But instead they say: "Don't even commence until we try and reduce the disagreement with the medical profession to a trade union level, to industrial labour confrontation. Don't even start until we can do that sort of thing." To me that only reflects the narrowness of the New Democratic Party.

It's a trade union party, Mr. Chairman; it's not a broad social movement. It's not something which serves the interests of the public-at-large; it's something which serves the trade unions. If everybody in British Columbia, including the medical profession, wishes to march to the military tune of the trade unions, then they should be happy with that kind of opposition and the sort of thinking they generate. But if they say no, we want freedom, progress, flexibility, prosperity and all those good things that go with the non-trade-union philosophy, then they will stick with this government, as they have done election after election after election and as they will continue to do in the future. I tell you, Mr. Chairman, just as the NDP have lost 14 elections, they'll lose 14 more if they stick with this kind of amendment in debate.

If I haven't said it up until now, I reject this amendment.

MR. COCKE: I always find it amusing when the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) takes his place in this House. He brings comic relief in here every time; he never fails. We will miss him. Mind you, I'll be delighted that we'll have an NDP alternative who will be here next time. I really will miss that member, because he reduces our side to amusement every time he stands on his feet and speaks.

He takes a debate around the principle of fair play, and he somehow manages to turn that around and tell amusing anecdotes about the NDP's affiliates and our narrow way.

This medical association is not a trade union. The clause we are championing here, offering to accept any fair and even-handed amendment the government can bring down on this section.... That's what we're talking about. We're not talking about the B.C. Federation of Labour or anybody else. There's no labour bias in this situation. The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) yesterday drew the House's attention to the Highway Act and the fact that if there is a dispute over land expropriation.... That can hardly be deemed a labour situation.

HON. MR. FRASER: Don't refer to him. He voted against you when you were in government.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that minister is getting a little excited. He's the Minister of Highways, and he, above all, knows that, in contrast to what we have before us, the arbitration section in the Highway Act is fair and evenhanded when an appeal is sought.

"Why would we amend?" they keep asking. We're only asking that a small portion — subsection (1) of section 6 — be amended. Why are we asking that that happen? We're asking that that happen for this reason: that that first subsection gives a party to the dispute the right to call the shots on the culmination of that dispute. Don't forget that the medical commission is an arm of government. It takes all its regulations and rules from government. This arm of government is then given the right to choose who shall decide the culmination of those negotiations.

There's no way one can misread this:

"The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may, by order, direct that, in accordance with the provisions of the order, any dispute between the association and the commission respecting the renewal, amendment or replacement of the agreement be resolved by a single arbitrator or by an arbitration board appointed or constituted as provided in the order."

What's a cabinet order? A cabinet order is a decision taken by cabinet and placed on an order-in-council which comes down and states: "This is the group that will decide," or, "This is the person who will decide what is fair and equitable for the doctors." Can anybody tell me that there is an expectation across there on the government side that there would be any kind of support for this in the medical profession or among the medical associations? What kind of expectation would that be? It would be imagination gone wild.

The minister has suggested that somehow or other the NDP is trying to incite the medical association. I will say that facts are actually contrary. We feel that the medical association at least understands that there are some parliamentarians in here who respect the rights of all people in our society, including doctors.

For the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications, to indicate that somehow or other this is in response to our labour bias is ridiculous. We have an Arbitration Act in this province. I have a copy of the act right here. Why didn't the ministers who were responsible for this drafting refer to that? It's even-handed. As I said, they could have gone to the Highway Act. They could have gone to any statute in this province to get guidance on arbitration procedures and come up with something that isn't biased and unilateral like this.

A couple of ministers have suggested that the amendment that I moved — and, incidentally, this bill was brought in in haste — wouldn't fit the situation. It fits the school situation — the School Act — but it wouldn't fit here. You know how

[ Page 4984 ]

W.A.C. Bennett would have handled that. He would have immediately sensed that a mistake had been made: he wouldn't let arrogance get in his way. What he would have done is taken a look and said to some of his legal people over there: "Let's bring in our own. They'll withdraw theirs, and everybody will go home happy." That did not occur. We don't particularly want our name — my name — on an acceptable amendment. Don't even amend the amendment — no subamendments. Bring in your own. We telegraphed that message right at the outset. At the beginning of this debate we said: "You bring in an amendment that is even-handed and we'll support it; we'll stand up and vote for it. We'll vote for the entire bill, and that's it." Is that too much to ask?

The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — that great man of wisdom — has suggested something about coming down on both sides of an issue. There are no...

MR. KEMPF: That's exactly what you're doing.

MR.COCKE: ...both sides of an issue, Mr. Chairman. There's only one side to this issue, and that is the issue of even-handedness and fair play. Now I understand that the member for Omineca doesn't really know much about that — or certainly doesn't seem to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I ask the member for Omineca to come to order, and I ask the hon. member for New Westminster to address the Chair.

MR. COCKE: Just as an aside, the member for Omineca dredges up a little history — a bit of a confrontation that he and I had in Houston. I wanted to democratize the health delivery system up there, and he was in opposition to it because it took away his power.

MR. KEMPF: You were a dictator and you know it.

MR. COCKE: The former mayor of Houston, my goodness, that great democrat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's get back to the amendment, all hon. members. Of course, we cannot interrupt the member who has taken his place and is speaking in the debate.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, there was another very interesting occurrence today, apart from the rather amusing speech by the second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer). He departed from his old freedom-fighting speeches that he used to make in this House. We can all remember them. He was freedom-fighting over everything. Now he is so close to retirement that I hope one day, before he leaves this place, he's going to get up, apologize for having supported this kind of legislation and make one of his freedom-fighting speeches as a swan song.

MR. MACDONALD: He'd make a great opposition member.

MR. COCKE: Would he ever! He's a great author too — Politics in Paradise.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I believe that if this government will just take a responsible position on this amendment, bring in their own, or at least have a meeting — I recommend it very strongly — between the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), and have a discussion about what is legally prudent, have a discussion around fair play in legislation, then Monday we might look forward to something responsible having been done in this House.

Mr. Chairman, they have statutes coming out of their ears. The people that I asked to have this meeting are people that know perfectly well that all they have to do is give some guidance to legislative counsel, and they in a matter of minutes can draft a satisfactory amendment to this bill.

I see before me something that anyone — anyone in their right mind — would know must be changed. Nod, if you're going to do something.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Are you Winken or Blinken?

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: A reply that I get for a very serious request was: "Are you Winken or Blinken?" The member for Omineca mumbles "Hypocrite!" Thank you, at least you've had the courage to say it out loud.

Mr. Chairman, I would never ask that man to withdraw anything. The voters in their own time will take care of that.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to take you to part 6 of the Labour Code. It says in this part: "The arbitration board includes a single arbitrator or another tribunal or body appointed or constituted under this part of a collective agreement." What they're talking about here, what they talk about in every statute, is a way of getting some even-handedness in legislation. I recommend it. Seriously and for heaven's sake, please let's see this legislation amended so that we can all accept it.

Mr. Chairman, are you fidgety? Am I sort of standing in the way of something that is about to happen but won't happen if I continue on till 1 o'clock. Oh, dear me! I notice that all the government members are here. I notice that I have ten more minutes in which to speak.

If somebody over there is prepared to stand up with an amendment that will bring evenhandedness, my time will be up. Failing that, I think we'll proceed.

This is the analogy I'd like to draw here. Let's say, for an example, that in the arbitration process this House brought in a bill that gave Forest Industrial Relations, FIR — that is, the representatives of management in the forest industry — the right to appoint an arbitrator or an arbitration board to resolve a dispute between Forest Industrial Relations and the IWA, what do you think the response from Jack Munro might be? On the other hand, if we brought in an act which stated that in the dispute between the IWA and FIR the executive of the IWA would appoint the arbitrator or the arbitration board and would also dictate the terms of reference for the resolution of the dispute, how do you think management would feel, colleagues?

MR. LEA: Down, very down.

MR. COCKE: The member for Prince Rupert says they would feel a bit down.

[ Page 4985 ]

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: That's right. A very disturbing situation would occur as a result of that.

The government feels safe here, however, because they're only affecting 4,000 people in this province who, incidentally — and I agree with this — have damaged their own cause by some of their inflammatory statements. There's no question about that. That's not the general run of the mill of doctors, but some of them have been pretty warm, and therefore the government feels that the doctors are not really that high in popularity. Therefore it is: "Let's really give it to them. Let's really sock it to the doctors." How do we sock it to the doctors? By bringing in section 6(l). That is, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council and the cabinet may do anything they want to resolve the dispute between this government and the medical profession. They keep referring to the medical commission. Well, the medical commission is an arm of government and they take all their orders from government. That is precisely the situation we're in.

I feel that if it were done to any major section of society it would not be accepted, and I hope against hope that the public in this province will seek to have this thing resolved in an even-handed way. I hope you get wires from people all over the province asking you to be fair. Maybe under those circumstances you'll do what W.A.C. Bennett would have done a long time ago. He would have taken a second look. I agree his second look would not have included accepting our amendment, but what it would have done is it would have brought an amendment from that side of the House, and it wouldn't have taken all this time. He was a political chap, and he understood the need for that kind of fair play. He made a mistake, a very bad mistake — that was that good old Mediation Commission. I think he made a couple more, but when he was in a box like this — and this is worse than that — he recognized it.

Before all the members of this House is an amendment. I challenge the people in this House to go home, phone around this weekend, and ask the people in your area just how they feel about it. I ask the member from Kelowna (Hon. Mr. Bennett) to ask his constituency office what people are saying. I ask the two members for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom and Hon. Mr. McGeer) to ask their constituency how they feel about it. I ask that you go to Delta and phone a couple of doctors to ask them how they feel.

I urge the doctors in this province to be moderate around this issue. I know they're angry, but I urge them to be moderate. At all costs we must save medicare. I also suggest to the doctors that their day is coming; this cup will pass, this government will go the way they should go. They almost went last time, but, Mr. Chairman, next time, after all of these destructive acts, there is no question in my mind that they're down.

In order that we can have fair play, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

PATRIATION OF CANADIAN CONSTITUTION

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a document after making this statement.

Hon. members, this document relates to a Canadian patriation plan which, I think, will allow for a made-in-Canada constitution. It is a copy of a Telex sent to the Prime Minister on behalf of eight Premiers by the chairman of the provincial Premiers' committee, Hon. Sterling Lyon, Premier of Manitoba:

DEAR MR. PRIME MINISTER,

ON BEHALF OF THE PREMIERS OF ALBERTA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, MANITOBA, NEWFOUNDLAND. NOVA SCOTIA, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND, QUEBEC AND SASKATCHEWAN, I AM WRITING TO URGE YOU TO SUSPEND CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION ON THE JOINT ADDRESS ON THE CONSTITUTION IN THE PARLIAMENT OF CANADA FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS,

1. EIGHT PROVINCES REMAIN FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS.

2. THE NEWFOUNDLAND COURT OF APPEAL HAS HELD IN A UNANIMOUS DECISION THAT THE UNILATERAL CONSTITUTIONAL ACTION PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA IS ILLEGAL.

3. THE APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENCE INITIATED IN THE MANITOBA COURT OF APPEAL IS NOW SET DOWN FOR HEARING ON APRIL 28 NEXT.

4. THE CURRENT AND PERSISTENT EFFORTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PROCEED UNILATERALLY WITH ITS PROPOSALS ARE DOING IRREPARABLE HARM TO FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND CAUSING DEEP DIVISIONS WITHIN THE COUNTRY.

FURTHERMORE. I MAY INFORM YOU THAT A NEW CANADIAN PATRIATION PLAN INCLUDING AN AMENDING FORMULA HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED AMONG US AND COULD BE DISCUSSED WITH YOU AS SOON AS THE GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASCERTAIN ITS FINAL POSITION AFTER THE CURRENT ELECTION. WE HAVE SCHEDULED A MEETING IN OTTAWA ON APRIL 16 TO COMPLETE THE PATRIATION PLAN. SUBSEQUENTLY WE HOPE TO MEET WITH YOU FOR JOINT CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW PLAN. IN THE MEANTIME WE URGE YOU TO SUSPEND PARLIAMENTARY CONSIDERATION OF THE RESOLUTION AND AGREE TO JOIN THE PROVINCIAL PREMIERS AT THE CONFERENCE TABLE TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL OF A MADE-IN-CANADA CONSTITUTION.

I INTEND TO MAKE THIS LETTER PUBLIC SHORTLY AFTER IT HAS BEEN DELIVERED TO YOU.

STERLING LYON. PREMIER OF MANITOBA AND CHAIRMAN OF THE PROVINCIAL PREMIERS.

Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table this very positive document, which I'm sure all members in this House, all British Columbians and all Canadians hope will lead to a positive attitude towards patriation and our constitution and a made-in-Canada constitution for our country.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Does the official opposition wish to respond?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I would notify the House Leader for the government that the members of the opposition are quite conversant with the rules of the House and do not need any prompting from the House Leader or anyone else in terms of when we might take the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: The member is out of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, it wasn't a question of prompting: I just didn't wish to foreclose the opposition.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 1:07 p.m.

[ Page 4986 ]

APPENDIX

19 Mr. Lockstead asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With respect to the B.C. Hydro Cheekeye-Dunsmuir. Transmission Line —

1. What is the anticipated total cost of the line in 1981 dollars?

2. How much of this cost has been assigned to (a) background studies; (b) engineering works; and (c) construction expenditures?

3. How much has been spent as of March 9, 1981 (a) in total (b) on background studies; (c) on engineering works; and (d) on construct expenditures'?

The Hon. R. H. McClelland replied as follows:

1. Total anticipated cost: Direct, $646,956; overhead, $76,343; interest, $99,849; totalling, $823,148. The above direct costs are inflated to the in-service date.

2. Breakdown of the direct costs is: Background studies, $4,780: engineering works, $18,354; construction expenditures, $623,822; totalling, $646.956. The forecast overhead and interest figures are not prepared in a manner which would allow a split in the above segments.

3. Costs as at February 28, 1981, are: Direct—background studies, $4,086; engineering works, $4 272; construction expenditures, $57,532. Overhead, $7,202; interest, $4,405; totalling $77,497. The request asked for costs as at March 9, 1981, but Hydro's monthly accounting cycle allows them to report costs only to February 28th.

2 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following questions:

With reference to social assistance fraud—

1. Were any persons formally charged with defrauding the Government of social allowance payments in any of the fiscal years 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, in the case of each year (a) how many persons were charged; (b) how many, if any, were convicted; and (c) what was the total amount involved in cases where conviction was obtained?

3. With reference to "fraud investigators" in the Ministry, what are the names, salaries, previous occupations, and locations of the investigators'?

4. What is the total number of administrative staff, excluding the investigators?

5. What is the total cost and number of months, covered for the investigators and administration in 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, and 1979-80?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (a) Number of persons charged, 1976-77, 154; 1977-78, 308; 1978-79, 235; 1979-80, 212. (b) Number of persons convicted, 1976-77, 89; 1977-78, 158; 1978-79, 133; 1979-80, 135. (c) Total amount, where conviction obtained, 1976-77, $318,105.40 1977-78, $352,239.69; 1978-79, $343,530.56; 1979-80, $351,269. (d) Cases still before courts as of April 1, 1980, 176.

"3. As of April 1980 the names, salaries, previous occupations and locations of the investigators were as follows:

[ Page 4987 ]

"4. Administrative staff, excluding the investigators, nil (The investigators utilize steno pools for their office requirements, i.e., typing and filing, etc.).

"5. Total cost: 1976-77, $176,652-1 1977-78, $601,208; 1978-79, $618,100; 1979-80, $653,243.75."

6 Ms. Brown asked the Hon. the Minister of Human Resources the following question:

With reference to child apprehension in British Columbia, what is the breakdown of the parents of children apprehended in 1978-79, 1979-80, and to date in 1980; single parents, parents on social assistance, breakdown by age, and percentage of cases involving native Indian parents'?

The Hon. G. M. McCarthy replied as follows:

"Information on marital status and age of parents is not collected."

27 The Hon. Jack Davis asked the Hon. the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Government Services the following questions:

How many Orders in Council were passed in each of the fiscal years front 1970-71 to 1980-81, inclusive'?

[ Page 4988 ]

The Hon. E. M. Wolfe replied as follows:

"The number of Orders in Council passed in each of the fiscal years from 1970-71 to 1980-81, inclusive, is as follows: 1970-71, 4,596; 1971-72, 4,850; 1972-73, 4,334; 1973-74, 4,410; 1974-75, 4,186; 1975-76, 3,874; 1976-77, 3,904; 1977-78, 3,536; 1978-79, 3,487; 1979-80, 3,014; 1980-81, 2,968."