Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1992

Volume 5, Number 6

[ Page 3099 ]

The House met at 2:05 p.m.

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

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

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

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

Oral Questions

SOFTWOOD LUMBER TARIFF

G. Wilson: My question today is directed to the Premier. The opposition notes with grave concern that the U.S. International Trade Commission this morning upheld the 6.5 percent tariff on Canadian softwood lumber. We are advised that the next step is a Canadian request for a hearing under chapter 19 of the disputes resolution mechanism. Will the Premier tell us what participation British Columbia has had in preparing that defence under chapter 19?

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

G. Wilson: We all know, and I'm sure the Premier is aware, that the tariff on softwood lumber was in place before the free trade agreement. The proposition that we're putting in place now with respect to the appeal under chapter 19 is of critical importance. We don't need any more rhetoric around how bad our trading partners to the south are; we need some concrete solutions for how we're going to resolve this question.

My question is specifically: what action is the government of British Columbia taking with respect to the government in Ottawa in preparing the appeal under chapter 19?

Hon. D. Miller: The written text of the ruling will not be available to British Columbia and Canada until July 6 or July 7. Once we have the written text, we will then know on what basis we will be appealing the decision. I'm assuming, of course, that Canada will refer the issue to a binational panel under the free trade agreement. It certainly supports the position that this government has taken: that it's right and proper for British Columbia to question the value of the free trade agreement, given the kind of harassment we've seen from the United States; and it's right and proper for British Columbia to question the wisdom of proceeding with NAFTA, considering the abuse that we have been subjected to by the United States.

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

On June 16, 1992, in the House of Commons, Hon. Michael Wilson said that at that time the government of Canada, the provinces and the industry had, under chapter 19, set up a mechanism and a deal to dispute what might come down -- which we know now has come down. On June 16 those governments were actively doing something. What role did this government play in preparing that case that is now made necessary by the ruling that was made today? On June 16 those governments were active. Was this one active at that time?

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

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

GROUNDWATER QUALITY
IN FRASER VALLEY

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

[ Page 3100 ]

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

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

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

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

[2:15]

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

PATRONAGE APPOINTMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

D. Mitchell: You broke your promise.

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

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

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

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

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

NATIONAL ANTHEM

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

[ Page 3101 ]

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

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

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

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

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

NEGOTIATIONS WITH DOCTORS

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

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

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

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

Leave granted.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

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

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

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

Leave granted.

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

Orders of the Day

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

TEACHING PROFESSION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

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

On section 1.

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

[ Page 3102 ]

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

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

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

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

[2:30]

C. Serwa: A straightforward and simple question: will all teachers in the province, regardless of what area they teach in, have to come under the College of Teachers for, I suppose, a certificate of competence to be able to teach in the province? Is that the intent of section 1?

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

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

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

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

C. Serwa: My understanding is that if they do not hold a certificate of competence issued by the College of Teachers, then they're not enmeshed in that. You've clarified that, and I thank you very much. That's all I have on section 1.

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

Hon. A. Hagen: Yes, it does.

Sections 1 to 4 inclusive approved.

On section 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3103 ]

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

Section 5 approved.

On section 6.

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

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

A short while ago we passed a statute in this Legislature, the Human Rights Amendment Act, which spelled out some terms and conditions. It was my understanding that that act covered this specific concern. We look at it, and we look at the College of Teachers exercising some control. The reality is that there are a number of areas. They're not just in the public sector; they're in various environments in the private sector as well as in the volunteer system. While it's not quite specific to this act, it seems inappropriate not to have a central registry that the Crown, the government of the day, would be responsible for. There should be some semblance of control in all of the areas where we're concerned about convicted child sexual offenders having access and impacting children in a negative fashion. We're only attending to one sector. We're placing the onus of responsibility on the college in this section, but we're really not arming them effectively with a central registry. How can this be an effective section when we're not arming them with the type of information, knowledge or jurisdiction that the Attorney General would have in government, for example?

The Chair: Before the minister responds, I'm wondering if the member is concerned with the section as it's stated, which is the process by which reporting is to occur rather than the substance of what may have created the cause for dismissal. If he's talking about the latter, I don't believe that would be the purpose of section 6. However, perhaps the minister might clarify the section for the edification of the committee.

Hon. A. Hagen: Section 6 is indeed an amendment that brings independent schools under the same reporting procedures as public schools. It's an amendment that's welcomed by the independent schools as an important tool in achieving the goals that the member has spoken about. I share the member's concerns about the protection of children. We're dealing with one statute that helps in that process. The amendments that we have taken are intended to provide yet one other means by which children are protected. There are other means that over time need to be there. They are not the subject of our debate today, but I certainly concur with the member that these are important issues for us to continue to work on. They require the diligence of all of us in our legislation and in our practices.

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

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

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

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

[2:45]

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

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

[ Page 3104 ]

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

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

J. Dalton: I don't have any particular concerns with section 6, but I thought it might be interesting to note an example that I encountered a few years ago. The minister's response was, I think, certainly satisfactory on this.

A few years ago a friend of mine was let go by an independent school. It wasn't anything over his teaching ability, competence or, heaven forbid, any moral issues; there was just a difference of opinion between the teacher and the administration of the school. If that case came up today, I'm sure the reasons would of course be provided, and I don't think there would be any difficulty. He would have due process. He actually came to me to seek my informal advice on the issue. I said: "If you care to, obviously you can go through the proper process." Just to make a short story even shorter, since then he moved to Australia, and therefore moved away from the problem. So I don't think there's any difficulty with that.

I presume it's appropriate now to note that there's no commencement section in the bill. Is that going to cause a difficulty?

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

Section 6 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE
SERVICES ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

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

Bill 71 has done nothing but create a festering sore in the medical health system. The festering sore that has developed will do nothing but mitigate the quality and quantity of services presently delivered to people in B.C. I have before me an urgent press release issued by Kelowna doctors; they will be closing their offices on Friday because of what they call the doublecross bill. Someone noted that in Roman numerals, the designation for Bill 71 is LXXI, and the doublecross comes from that. There's no question that it's quite appropriate, in a way, because there is a fundamental betrayal of the basic principles of human justice, a betrayal of the fundamental tenets of the Canada Health Act, and a betrayal of the Premier's promise of a properly co-managed health care system and the betrayal of the citizens of British Columbia with their continued expectations of a medical health system which is truly accessible to all in need of care. They are making their point and making it well. What we're talking about is the imposition of a rationing system in health care. I think we've covered that fairly well and fairly extensively in other sections of the bill. I'll continue to talk about aspects of this bill that really require a hoist motion.

The setting up of the Medical Services Commission itself, while it seems at the outset and from the view that most people may have of it to be fair and reasonable, is not set up or incorporated in that manner. It will consist of nine members: three appointed by government, three by the British Columbia Medical Association and three lay people. The chair and deputy chair will of course come from the government appointees, and we're well aware of what has transpired in a number of other Crown corporations in British Columbia over the last month or two. The reality is that the chairman has a great deal of power. The reality is that we're not providing a valid opportunity for a commission to function. We're simply diverting the focus of attention from the government of the day to the Medical Services Commission, which will, in fact, carry out the mandate of government -- whatever that may be -- because it's a part of the system. They will be political hacks appointed to that system. They will carry out their tasks without question, aligning themselves to the government and not to the best possible quality of health services delivery.

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

[ Page 3105 ]

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

There is a great deal of concern with what appears on the surface and what will actually transpire once this system is in place. The actions here are not those of a government or a party that is open and honest and consistent in its stance with respect to labour negotiations or negotiations with anyone. Some 88 percent of the people in British Columbia believe that binding arbitration is the only proper way to go at the end of protracted negotiations that can't come together. The members of the party that forms the government, as a foundation, a fundamental platform, have spoken consistently of their commitment to that negotiation process, to openness, honesty and fairness. In this particular case, none of that has been utilized with respect to doctors. Who is next? I don't know. Is it because doctors haven't contributed heavily to the last provincial campaign for the New Democrats, as other union organizations have? I doubt very much that that is the basis for the decision. I would be very surprised and hurt if in fact it was. But that's what it appears to be, and in this business, the perception is often the reality.

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

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

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

Hon. Speaker, I'm going to read from a letter written August 14, 1990. I will not read the whole letter, but I'd like to read a section of it because it is a very interesting letter. The writer of the letter is a doctor, and he had written to the former Health critic, now the Minister of Health, who replied:

"Thank you for your letter of July 5 concerning the fees for private medical laboratories. Yours is the first letter that I have received on this subject, and thus I have not been aware of the situation with medical laboratories or the fact that fees have not been increased for the past five years. However, it is typical of what I see happening throughout our health care system. The Social Credit government would like us to believe that health care spending is out of control. However, both you and I know that the proportion of the provincial budget that has been spent on health care over the last number of years has remained constant at about one-third of the budget. Unfortunately, the government is using the cost argument to avoid paying adequately for a wide range of medical services.

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

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

"Unfortunately, I cannot hold out any hope for a change to what you describe as a 'desperate situation' until there is a change in government. In the meantime, please be assured that my New Democratic Party colleagues and I will continue to fight for quality health care and honest negotiations with all of the health care community."

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

[3:00]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3106 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3107 ]

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

Hon. Speaker, surely it is a more sensible proposition for this government to recognize that they already have the provision under the Medical Services Act, under the Medical Services Commission, that would look after the concern that the Premier expressed to me today and that he again outlined in the House during question period: the concern that what they're really attempting to do -- in the words of the Minister of Finance -- is to claw back $50 million. They're after a clawback proposition from the government. That is an offensive term. What we have learned to believe is consultation and a cooperative spirit in the provision of services for fees rendered is not what we want to be going forward and being called a clawback. This Medical Services Act provides the vehicle that the government needs.

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

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

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

Let me say that if the government is serious about doing something more than simply engaging in a fight with the doctors, if this government is serious about putting forward some meaningful and sensible resolutions to the question of health care funding, if this government is serious about removing confrontation in the province and enhancing consultation and agreement through collective bargaining processes, then they will accept this amendment. They will accept the proposition I put forward today so that they can look after their financial concerns and, at the same time, give to the doctors exactly what they would give to their brothers and sisters in the BCGEU, the B.C. Federation of Labour and every other organized union in British Columbia.

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

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

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

[3:15]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3108 ]

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

In debate on this hoist motion, that hon. member said: "Well, why are we dealing with Bill 71 instead of advancing the cause of medicare?" -- as I once advocated. Again, that element of the debate shows opposition members not reading, or perhaps not understanding, what's actually in the statute. What the statute provides is a more flexible mechanism for dealing with the premium system and a more flexible mechanism for dealing with beneficiaries, or covered members of the population. Those modified provisions reflect the direction in which the province was moving in order to deal with the awkwardness of the premium system. More importantly, when they are combined with the budget my colleague the Minister of Finance introduced, which froze medicare premiums and indicated a direction of this province towards eliminating medicare premiums, they show that this government has been listening, that Bill 71 reflects the change I advocated at that time, and that the budget and policy direction of this government reflect that improvement in medicare.

Hon. Speaker, I think the majority of this debate is based on a misunderstanding of our intentions. Unfortunate publicity was given by the opposition House Leader in this debate, when we last sat, to claims that there may be a physician who would not provide a medically necessary service. In all of my life in health care, I have never met a physician who would not render a medically necessary service, whether that service was paid for or not. I think it is an insult to all physicians in this province to suggest that any physician would deny medically necessary care to a patient because of a political dispute with the government, an argument about fees, or uncertainty over whether a service is covered. Exhorting the public to that sort of fear that physicians would betray them is a disservice both to this legislative process and to the physicians of this province.

At the end of the day, all disputes end; at the end of the day, all parties to disputes find ways to work together. This statute provides the mechanism for the parties to work together in a way that they have never been able to work together before. It creates a commission that is no longer a one-person commission, with that person being an employee of government. It creates a balanced commission with three persons appointed through the British Columbia Medical Association, three persons appointed through government and an agreed-upon three neutral persons representing the public. Nothing could be closer to an ideal arbitration panel. What we have is the mechanism that will resolve the dispute and with which all of the parties can live.

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

So what else could be in dispute? The hon. member last speaking for the third party said: "Well, maybe the real problem is, can we really expect and make physicians to be the gatekeeper of the system?" I would certainly prefer to recognize that physicians are the gatekeeper of the system and should remain the gatekeeper of the system long before I would ever put a health economist such as myself as the gatekeeper of the system. It is my job either acting as a health economist or as a legislator to deal with the public policy question of how much resources, how much money should we be allocating to the system. But when it comes to the question of whether a particular surgery is medically necessary or not, it is only a physician who can make that decision. It can only be a physician who is the gatekeeper on that decision, it will always be, and that is recognized under the statute.

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

[D. Streifel in chair.]

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

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

Interjections.

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

[ Page 3109 ]

If I recall correctly, the previous administration started a medical review about a year and half ago, and we got the report around Christmas or New Year's of this past winter. I can see very little or no reflection of what was recommended in those reports in terms of what's in this particular bill that's before us. Surely if there was a fair amount of reflection.... But with little reflection in this bill of that report, I think it deserves discussion between the medical profession and the government. That's why I can probably understand why the doctors are so upset at this point in time. I don't think it does anyone good -- it doesn't matter what industry you're working in or where you're engaging people to provide a service -- when a confrontation of this nature occurs. It certainly doesn't do any good for us at the present, nor will it lend any good to the future.

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

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

[3:30]

V. Anderson: I also rise to speak in support of the amendment that is before us. This is the second time in my brief life span that I have lived through this kind of medical catastrophe. I lived through the catastrophe which took place in Saskatchewan -- although not a catastrophe in the results to the medical services plan that were finally brought forward. The results were beneficial and have been beneficial to all Canadians. I lived through the catastrophe of the upheaval of the total community, of the health care system, of families, of children, of adults because of the disruption that took place in family life, in community life and, I might even add, in the church where I was serving. I remember that in the week when the discussions were most acute, I happened to have listed in the paper the sermon title "Two Sides of a Coin." That title had nothing to do with the medical crisis; perhaps it should have, but it didn't. But I received a call at my office before church from one of our most active members, who said: "I refuse to come to church and hear discussion on the medical plan. I will not be there today." It was that kind of disruption, where families had to live apart because they were on both sides of the issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3110 ]

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

V. Anderson: The hon. member says this is 20 percent of the health budget, but this bill talks about diagnostic services, diagnostic centres and diagnostic facilities. This goes far beyond the question of medical practitioners. It deals with a whole host of other medical workers. This bill needs to be considered in the context of the total system in which it is found. We need to be concerned about the context of this bill in relation to establishing and perhaps forcing and requiring people to operate out of community medical clinics, because I believe this is the direction in which this government has said they are going. It would be the proper direction if we had a plan, guidelines and directions as to what is involved in community clinics. I have had experience, as I mentioned before, in the real uneasiness in communities where medical clinics were forced upon people and the doctors had no opportunity but to work in medical clinics. There was fractious infighting between the different kinds of services that were being performed.

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

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

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

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

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

One of the things I discovered in trying to do doctoral programs and work on a doctoral thesis was that when you wrote your first thesis, which was the best you knew at the time, the professors with whom you worked then said: "That's a starting place. That's what you know; that's what you accept. Now you go and do your homework." Whether you passed or failed from then on depended on how much you grew and changed from that original presentation. We have here the original presentation, and the government would gain untold stature and recognition -- and I'm speaking at this point on behalf of the government -- if they were to say to all of the people of the province: "We have heard your concerns. We believe that this document is at least 75 percent right, but you if can show us as we go through the next six months how the other 25 percent can be made right, we will all profit and benefit from it."

[3:45]

There is a face-saving way out. Back in the fifties, when this was originally being discussed, both the medical profession and the government had to learn that in any set of labour negotiations, labour and management have learned that there always has to be a face-saving way out for both sides. At the moment there is not a face-saving way out for either side. No matter what happens, the government will be condemned because of it. There is a face-saving way for this government to go. They can call in any of their professional mediators, who are doing excellent jobs in bringing together contentious sides in this province and helping them to find a face-saving process. This government can do exactly the same thing. They can bring in their negotiator. It isn't giving in, one side or the other. It's just saying that the process that the public demands is not in place or working at the moment.

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

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

[ Page 3111 ]

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

If the government would be willing to mediate the process of mediation -- not, I point out, to derive who's going to get paid for what, but to derive a process by which this solution can be found -- if in this solution that is so critical and so emotional the government discovers a way to demonstrate the validity of mediation, which they have been professing to follow, their road from here on will be much easier and much more constructive. If I really wanted to be an opposition member to destroy the government, I'd tell them to continue exactly what they're doing and not enter into mediation, because if they enter into mediation and they find a constructive result, it'll be much tougher for opposition to counteract them from then on.

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

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

This is an opportunity beyond any other that we will have in this present Legislature to let them know that the words and the actions match. I say this not only for the benefit of the government, but for the benefit of all legislators. As we've said here very often, legislators are not trusted by the community, by and large. It's amazing to me that the day before you get elected, you may be a trusted person in the community regardless of what side of the House you're on. The day after you get elected, people do not trust you, because they're convinced that power corrupts absolutely. This government has an opportunity to confirm that and say: "We have the power to ram this through, right or wrong." I would maintain that this government has a far greater opportunity to say that it has the power to turn this back to the people, back to the process that we have been putting forward. It has the power to prove that mediation of a process is available for us. I challenge this government to live by their words, and I challenge them to bring this back to the people and to use the process of mediation.

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

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

As I mentioned once before, there's one feature that really does bother me, and that is section 6 of the bill. It's a dangerous section and should either be deleted or amended -- and very quickly -- if they intend to ram this bill through. This section, as you are probably aware, provides for....

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

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

D. Jarvis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that you are right in that aspect. I was actually just referring to a section rather than discussing it point by point.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3112 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"How would it affect my relationship with my patients if the government could have access to my confidential patient files? The primary issue is: who do these files -- handwritten notes -- belong to? These files are my own private documentation, intended only to aid me in caring for my patients. At times they are transferred to another physician, only with the permission of my patients, again for the sole purpose of caring for the patient. I refuse to allow government officers to snoop through the most private of information, confided to me in times of my patients' physical and emotional distress. If the government has a concern about my billing practices, there are more than adequate existing means of assessing their concerns without invading the inner sanctum of the office chart.

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

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

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

[4:00]

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

An Hon. Member: Well, of course.

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

Interjection.

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

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

D. Schreck: Yes. Absolutely.

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

B. Jones: What does the college do now?

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

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

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

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

[ Page 3113 ]

The other day the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain gave what I thought was probably the best speech on this bill by members of the government. I commend her for it. I thought it was very interesting and very intriguing. She certainly knows the medical system from the side of a physician. Unfortunately, she is now sitting in a government that doesn't seem to understand it to the same extent that she does. I was quite pleased to hear her discuss the changes that are going on in the medical system, and how that affects patients and people in general, and how change, in general, causes fear among people, and if people don't have that fear assuaged, or put aside by information or some form of reassurance, that fear then develops into anger. I think that's what we are seeing.

This government has put forward Bill 71. It was brought forward in the middle of this month, towards the very end of the legislative session, now eight months into this government's mandate. It was brought in at the end of the session following the government pulling one of their first medical bills they brought in at the beginning of the session -- Bill 13. The people of the province are wondering if Bill 13 was so bad that it had to be pulled from the legislative order paper.... If the government came to see that Bill 13 was no longer of sufficient quality that it could persist and continue on the order paper, and even come forth for second reading, then the public wants to ask the government how can they possibly be sure that Bill 71 is now of the highest quality, a bill that deals with not only remuneration for positions but an overall drastic change and new direction for medicare in this province. How can the people be confident that the government managed to put that bill together...? If they have the same quality of legislation in Bill 71 as they did in Bill 13, we would be concerned about it, and the public would be concerned about it.

That's the reason for this hoist motion. That's the reason for this amendment asking the government to take some time and give the people of this province a chance to discuss this legislation, to debate it, to negotiate it -- the one section that deals with remuneration for positions -- so that their fears can be assuaged and put aside. Amendments can be made to the bill. We can go through the bill, examine it, change it where necessary, improve upon it where necessary, and the people of this province are allowed to contribute to a better piece of legislation -- a piece of legislation that the government itself has said is setting a new direction for medicare in this province. Those are important things.

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

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

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

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

You would hope that the government would then take that advice from those people. We had asked that it be sent to a select standing committee to tour the province for the summer, at least, and consult with the people of the province on the specifics of the bill. The government decided not to do that, so we're asking now that the government take some time and use whatever means it's comfortable with. If the standing committee is not the means they choose to use, then perhaps they can use some other means. But take the time over the summer and the early fall to take this legislation out to the various stakeholders: the public, the physicians, the people who are in the hospitals, the people who are dealing with health care, the health care workers -- all the people who participate in the health care system in this province. See what they think of the legislation.

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

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

B. Jones: Take your time.

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

[ Page 3114 ]

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

B. Jones: What happened to Bill 50?

G. Farrell-Collins: Bill 50? There's a great example. The member talks about Bill 50. I wish the Minister of Health and her parliamentary secretary, who's so vocal and who just brought up this fantastic idea, would take the advice of the Attorney General in bringing in some legislation. The Attorney General has done a fantastic job with Bill 50. He brought it through. He said in the House he anticipates further amendments coming forward to this House in the future, before the implementation date of Bill 50. I think that's a fantastic idea, and I would encourage the member to take the advice of the Attorney General, follow in his footsteps and do the same thing. He could certainly start doing that by speaking and voting in favour of this six-month hoist. That would allow that type of consultation to be ongoing.

B. Jones: Bill 50 passed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

[4:15]

There's no consultation to get the best people, regardless of political persuasion or even if they don't have a political persuasion. There's no consultation to see that those are the types of people who are put on these boards. We know the political views of the people that this government is likely to appoint to these subcommittees. So how can we possibly trust this government to appoint good, qualified people to deal with specific issues under the processes set up in Bill 71? These subcommittees would merely be brought forward at the whim of the minister when she wanted to get a certain result out the other end. We've seen that in the past, and we'll continue to see it. Why should the people of this province -- given the record of this government with regard to trust -- be expected to trust this government on an issue like the subcommittees in this bill? I ask the members. They sit in caucus. I wonder what goes on in the caucus. I wonder sometimes about the browbeating that goes on to get these members to go against their constituents and vote the way they do on some of these fantastic bills. I wonder what type of browbeating will go on with the people that the minister will select for these committees to

[ Page 3115 ]

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

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

G. Farrell-Collins: The reason I'm bringing up these issues is that I'm trying to enlighten the government as to why we feel this bill should be hoisted for six months to allow the government a chance to come to its senses and perhaps allow the backbenchers to strengthen their backbone, come to the defence of the public and realize that this bill needs some improvement. There hasn't been one member on that side of the House who's spoken in favour of amending this bill and making it better. They all think it's fantastic. They all say the same thing, and they'll continue to say the same thing. That's the way their government works. They're all identical. They should just put up cardboard cutouts of themselves and go home for the summer; it would make no difference. Hon. Speaker, I sometimes think that they are cardboard cutouts, the way they just sit there and don't move. I think somebody just pulls a string, and then they stand up when they have to vote at the right times.

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. E. Cull: It would be poetic.

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

There's another issue. There's a real concern that the government has brought forward, and we should certainly look at it. The reason this bill has to be pushed through so fast is to keep their expenditure estimates in line. The reason that they're really worried about that and about the $50 million is that this government overestimated its revenues in the budget. Three months have now passed, eight months since the government took office, and they're realizing that financial reports that come out in July and August are going to say that this government is so far off of its revenue estimates that they're facing the biggest deficit.... They've already seen the biggest deficit this province has ever had, but it's going to be bigger yet. They are in real trouble. They're very concerned about this $50 million that they say they're going to save by bringing in this bill right away. So they have a concern with this six-month hoist. They're worried about it.

There are provisions. I believe members have already spoken on them, but perhaps they need to be brought back to the attention of the government. The act contains the ability of the government to do what is necessary to keep the costs in line. That's there, and they are able to do that. There's no need to bring this bill in to do that. That's simply a false argument. Even if that was a concern, even if there was absolutely no way that this government could hold the line on health care without bringing this bill in, and $50 million was what they had to come up with in order to let this bill be discussed, then couldn't the government simply repeal the fair wage regulations it brought in and use the funds it would be saving on construction wages in the public sector -- this incredible fixed wage it talks about -- to offset any hypothetical increased costs in health care?

L. Fox: Fire all the friends and insiders.

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

Interjection.

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

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

[ Page 3116 ]

consultation on Bill 71. I'm sure that if they were to ask our semi-Australian member, whom I referred to earlier, for some advice, and if he were allowed to speak freely, he would come up with some. I'm sure that some of the members of the NDP back bench would come up with some interesting and intriguing ideas on Bill 71. But not even they have had a chance to do that; not even they have had the time to do that. The parliamentary secretary has certainly been involved, and we know the disaster that's resulted. The minister has certainly been involved, and we know what's happened with Bill 71 and Bill 13. But what about the backbenchers? What about the other NDP members, who have experience and background in business, in union groups and in union management -- and just life experience, for that matter? Some of them have experience in the health care sector, I'm sure. Why not consult with the people on the back bench?

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

That's the reason for the standing committee. We hoped that under the Chair, the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, and the other members, that committee would have had the opportunity to listen to the public, to contribute, to go through Bill 71 with a fine-tooth comb and improve upon it, make it better. Every bill can be made better, and this government should be willing to do that. We wanted them to send it to the committee, but they can't now. They've defeated that amendment, so we're giving them a second chance -- another alternative -- and we'll be giving them further alternatives. We've given them a second alternative to deal with Bill 71 in a constructive way. We're giving the NDP back bench and the other cabinet ministers who aren't here the opportunity to review Bill 71, and to take it home and talk to their constituents, to physicians -- I'm sure they're getting letters; we're getting them, so I'm sure they're getting them also -- to health care people, to workers, to the union people in health care, to HEU members, to patients, to the seniors in their community, to other people who have had experiences with the health care system, and ask: "What do you think of this bill? Do you think we're going in the right direction? Do you think there are some improvements we could make here?"

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

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

I'm sure that if we weren't sitting all the time, 12 hours a day, 16 hours a day, or whatever it is -- it seems like 16 -- and if these members were allowed to go back to their constituencies to consult with their constituents, their constituents would be saying the same thing. They'd be saying: "What's going on there? Why are you rushing through this bill? Why not give us some help with it? Why don't you take our advice?" That's what we're trying to do here. We're trying to give the government an opportunity, a second chance, to take this bill aside, deal with it, take it back to the public and let them have a look at it. I don't think that's out of line at all. I think that's certainly in line. It's a reasonable thing for the government to do, and the NDP backbenchers should be speaking up for their constituents.

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

Interjection.

G. Farrell-Collins: That may very well be true. We all know they blame everything else on the last administration. This government is not responsible for anything; it's all the fault of the previous administration. We've heard that time and time again. We will certainly have the privilege in three years to look back at this present administration, refer to it as the previous administration and talk at length about the disaster that it was. I'm sure the rest of the province.... The rest of the province is already agreeing with us, as we saw yesterday with the release of the most recent poll. In fact, after the short time of eight months, and three and a half months in this House, the rest of the province is feeling exactly the same way. So perhaps these backbenchers, if they don't go home this weekend, if they go home for Canada Day on Monday, will talk to their constituents....

An Hon. Member: Wednesday.

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

[ Page 3117 ]

Interjections.

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

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

Taking our advice on the six-month hoist on Bill 71 would be a move to show the people of this province that the government is serious, that they know they've made mistakes; they know they've done things that are wrong; they know they've made errors; they know they've broken promises; but they're going to change their ways. It's the end of the session. It's not too late. They've got another week, or two or three, left in the session. They've got an opportunity to go back to the public and say they were wrong on Bill 71, or maybe that they're not wrong on Bill 71, but they're willing to listen to what the people in the constituencies have to say and listen to the direction that they want to see us go in with health care in this province in the next 20 years.

[4:30]

My presentation today, my contribution to this debate on the amendment, has been specifically for the backbenchers of the NDP, because they're the ones who really have to put the pressure on cabinet. Cabinet has a big job to do. They work hard. They sometimes get too wrapped up in their own little world of their ministry, and sometimes it's difficult to see what's going on in the outside world. So it's up to the NDP backbenchers to every so often walk up behind them and shake them a little bit to bring them back to their senses. That's why I'm asking the NDP backbenchers, the individual members who are not in cabinet, to take the time to approach their minister and parliamentary secretary and say: "You know, I am getting a lot of comments from my constituency. There are a lot of people who are concerned about this. They wonder what's going on; they wonder what the direction is. Why don't we take some time? What's wrong with taking some time on this bill?" They should be doing that. That's their job. That's the role of the NDP backbenchers. If the backbencher has one duty to the province, that's it: to keep their own cabinet ministers in line. I would hope that the NDP backbenchers would come to their senses and help the parliamentary secretary and the Minister of Health come to their collective and respective senses on this bill. Take a break. Go back to the public to consult and see what they have to say on Bill 71. Find out what their valuable contributions, recommendations, amendments and improvements to Bill 71 are. Bring it back in the fall or spring again. We'd be glad to debate this bill once it has had a chance to go out to the public. I would encourage the members to do that, and encourage them to vote in favour of this amendment.

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

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

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

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

I'm proud to support this tough bill. I understand that it's making some waves within the health-provider community of British Columbia. Any change is bound to make some people a little edgy and even angry. This will all go away after we pass this bill. This bill will streamline the health care delivery system in British Columbia. This bill will protect a system that is in danger of pricing itself out of its accessibility and its universality in our community. This bill will protect the right of universal health care for all British Columbians. On behalf of my constituents, I'm proud to support the government, and support the Minister of Health in this bill.

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

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

[ Page 3118 ]

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

But the College of Physicians and Surgeons will send a couple of doctors to a doctor's office. This happened to me. This is called peer review. It's something that the doctors wanted. It's basically a form of improving your practice. I received a letter in the mail to say two doctors would be coming. I had never met these doctors before. They came and spent many hours in my office; they took many charts at random; they went through my day records; and they particularly wanted to look at my notes on people's physical examinations and saw notes on people who had been seen by a psychiatrist. They went through and made observations. The idea, as I said, was to educate, give recommendations, look at your prescribing patterns. Basically it was very beneficial. This went through with no fanfare. Doctors accept it. They wanted it to happen to help them in their practice.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We have proposed an option. We hope, quite frankly, that this government will pick up on a reasonable option, because we think that some reasoned debate can carry us forward. We are looking at the cornerstone document for the delivery of health care in the province, and this document is flawed. It has not received adequate debate or public scrutiny. It has not been scrutinized by the public at large. In 16 days it will not, in our view, have reached the consumers of the health care system that it needs to reach. This government has to take a reasonable view. Serious legislators -- the 75 people who sit in this chamber -- must take a reasonable view in terms of ensuring that every single taxpayer in British Columbia has had some input as to how they are going to receive health care well into the next decade and well into the next century.

We have many amendments to this bill should it reach committee stage, because it is fundamentally flawed; it is not a decent piece of legislation, in our view. We believe -- and we're quite willing to stand by our belief -- that this legislation could be improved by having reasonable time in debate -- and not just debate in this chamber; that is a starting point. We have basically given this bill the starting point by hearing debate in second reading. At this stage, given the six months of scrutiny that we are anticipating will come forward, that will be an opportunity for the public, the consumer, to come forward and suggest possible revisions and alterations as to how health care is delivered.

[4:45]

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

[ Page 3119 ]

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

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

The government was elected on the basis of the promise of open government. The promise was: "You as citizens of the province of British Columbia can trust us." That is what got this government elected: open government. We are simply asking for the natural extension of open government. In my view, the natural extension of that is to give this bill back to the people who will have to survive it as it currently stands, in order to see if their scrutiny can improve it. That is a reasonable choice. The amendment we put forward yesterday, which asked for committee referral, was the first step. We believe fundamentally that this bill is not decent legislation. We asked for committee referral, and it was denied. A referral to committee would have dramatically improved the essence of the bill, because the bill is bigger than doctors' salaries. The bill is about how people who live in this province receive health care.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There are two issues before us that we might want to address in the next number of minutes. The first is a new philosophical direction for health care. Somehow we are going to marry the concept of community care and Bill 71, mix it all up and hope that in some bizarre way we end up with reasonable health care in the province. That is another aspect where I believe sufficient discussion and planning has not gone on. Bill 71 will have an impact on how community care is delivered, and how health care continues to be delivered. To look at the current direction and the new direction that is going to be overlaid.... Again, we'll be looking at moving from institutional care to community care, and somewhere we're going to overlay those two concepts together, so we can somehow arrive at a new direction for health care in this province. I have no difficulty with that, but I don't think you muddy the waters by tying this to a fee-for-service negotiation. Both of those projects are huge and of tremendous magnitude. Both of those projects deserve to be considered on their own merits, and both of those projects could absolutely stand on their own. Of that there is absolutely no doubt in my mind.

I mentioned earlier that I have constituents who have been seeking out thoughts and looking at how this is going to affect them in terms of Bill 71. I have a number of letters from the consumers of our health care system -- actual constituents whom we are here to represent -- who believe fundamentally that the way health care will be delivered under Bill 71 will be dramatically different. Do they need time to digest that? Do they need time to adjust to that? Do they need time to be part of the process that looks at that? There's no doubt in my mind. Some of these letters are incredibly eloquent in terms of how people feel about something of this magnitude moving through this House in a little over ten days. It's unacceptable to the Liberal opposition, and it's unacceptable to a number of consumers.

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

"As residents of the province of British Columbia, we would like to express our concern regarding the proposed legislation. In our opinion, this legislation will cause a brain drain. We are particularly concerned about those doctors, especially those who specialize, who may find that it's no longer worthwhile to practise in the province of British Columbia. We believe there are other, more creative ways of putting a stop to those who abuse the system or are generating income from the budget. But it is unfair to punish those who got to their positions through honest, hard work and dedication. We need their example to inspire those who are striving for excellence in their field. If these doctors decide to leave the province and look for greener pastures, then in the long run we, the people, will be paying a much higher price in tax increases."

That is the issue. The reason we are interested in putting this bill to the consideration of the public is that these people have every right, every expectation, that their opinion somehow matters to this government and that they can somehow be considered in the decision of how health care is delivered in this province.

Certainly there are many, many constituents.... I will share one more with you:

"I am writing as a consumer of the B.C. Medical Services Plan.

"I grew up in Saskatchewan during the twenties and thirties, so I know only too well the value of our public medical and hospital services. Further, I realize that with costs rising, I will have to accept higher premiums and/or new arrangements for payment of fees."

This person, Mr. Campbell, is absolutely hoping that somehow a negotiation can take place and a compromise can be explored, so that he can again have faith in the government of British Columbia and faith that when he was asked to pay higher taxes and higher premiums that it actually mattered, that it was actually going to contribute to something that he believed in. He believes wholeheartedly in medical care in the province of British Columbia.

Somehow that hope and belief are no longer valuable, no longer valid. I personally cannot accept that they are no longer valid. I think, quite honestly, that the faith and trust that the constituents placed in their legislators, and the hope that they placed in a new government for British Columbia, have to be taken into consideration. It is absolutely not fair to suggest that a mere eight or nine months ago, when these people heard the promises of these individuals when they were candidates in the last election, all of that has somehow evaporated and no longer matters.

[ Page 3120 ]

One of the biggest problems we are facing as legislators in this province is the cynicism that people have towards politics and politicians in general. This kind of legislation only contributes to that cynicism. It only contributes to the lack of faith and trust that the citizens of this province have. They truly believe that they have a right to be involved in how their health care system is going to be delivered to them. I believe that as well, and the members of this Liberal opposition believe that it is absolutely imperative that people believe that they are getting a fair deal and getting enough information with which to make a decent decision. They do not believe it, based on the 11 days that will transpire between first reading of this bill and third reading -- if indeed this government has its way with the people of British Columbia. It is simply not enough time. The people who bought into the promise of the 48-point platform put forward by this administration deserve more than ten or 11 days of debate in this chamber. They deserve some public scrutiny of this very significant document, this very dramatic shift, if you will, in the way health care will be delivered in British Columbia.

This letter is from an individual who is currently working as an x-ray technologist, so he is not a physician but works with physicians. He has a very salient concern that I think we should be addressing.

"I moved to British Columbia seven months ago solely for employment reasons, since the job market for my profession was expanding in the province of British Columbia. I now find that my job is threatened by the proposed cap on the billing of diagnostic radiologists. I fear that this proposed legislation may force the radiologists to close my place of work or severely curtail the services they provide, due to their very high overhead costs on both their professional and technical fees. It does not seem reasonable to me to enact this legislation without taking into consideration the very high overhead involved with diagnostic radiology."

These are issues that this government has not considered in detail. It may seem appropriate to bash physicians in this province, but the auxiliary support people in their fields of work are going to be left in severe jeopardy in terms of how best they can be employed in this province. Again a broken promise.

We're looking for an economic strategy in this province. This bill is going to have an incredible domino effect, a ripple effect in terms of the number of people who will lose their jobs because they are now currently in support positions to physicians who will not be able to keep them on if the rationing of health care continues. This is a significant issue that must be taken into account when we address this bill, and we haven't done that.

We have not heard one member of the government say that jobs will not be lost due to this bill. We have certainly heard discussion of physicians leaving the province, but when you consider physicians in this province you must also consider the people who work with them to support them in their line of work. It doesn't just apply to radiologists, to technicians. It applies to a vast array of individuals in this province. I would submit that it applies to most of the graduates of the British Columbia Institute of Technology. A number of those folks end up working in medical-related fields. This is going to be an issue. Again, the people who will be affected by this legislation are not just physicians and not just consumers. The auxiliary support staff need the six months that we have asked for to consider this legislation in detail. We think it's abundantly important that that happens very soon.

Again, we have many pieces of correspondence. In fact, I have a petition here that is signed by some 300 members of a single constituency who are very opposed to the lack of consultation, because that is what they heard during the last election campaign. The words they remember are: "Open government. We will negotiate." We will somehow take British Columbia from being a province of incredible confrontation and move it to a province that has some sense of conciliation and compromise, that is truly interested in mediating disputes, is truly interested in moving from an arena that has not served British Columbia well. Certainly the history of strikes, of job unrest, of job disruption in this province is not anything we, as serious legislators, can be proud of. They looked at that history, and they said: "We believe this government has the ability to move us into a mode where we are going to be conciliatory, where we are going to put mediation as the number one priority of this government, where we are truly going to listen and we are truly going to negotiate." That has not happened, and for that kind of commitment that was accepted -- bought, if you will, by many, many voters in this province -- to somehow evaporate in a matter of months, if that's true, speaks very strongly for the need for this piece of legislation to be considered in the public domain over the next six to eight months.

It is critical that people have some opportunity to look at where they place their trust and to hopefully see that the government has stopped, taken a serious look, taken a seasoned second look if you will, and is willing to come back to this House in the fall or the next session of this House, whenever that may be, and bring legislation back to this Legislature that has been examined and scrutinized in more detail; that they have agreed to take a second look, took it to the community, looked at it in terms of public forum, looked at it in terms of all the consumer groups that we have in this province, looked at it in terms of the auxiliary groups that we have to the medical profession, and they have brought something back that was much improved. That, I think, is what British Columbians are looking for.

I talked earlier of a philosophical position coming up against the current problem, which is how to overcome a $50 million obstacle. Again, my position is that these two very different positions do not need to be advanced at the same time, and frankly they should not be advanced at the same time. There are many things we need to look at in terms of how both of them are regulated in this system, and something as important as the health care system should not, in my view, be tied to salary negotiation. It is a bigger issue than that. I fundamentally believe that.

Speaking as a teacher and educator, we would never have attempted to restructure how we delivered education in British Columbia, how we delivered a new educational direction, a new educational program, at

[ Page 3121 ]

the same time we were doing free negotiations with our teachers. Those two elements would not necessarily be married well together. One is a very confrontational situation, the other a very philosophical position. To put those two things together makes limited sense. That is the difficulty the Liberal opposition is having and continues to have with this particular piece of legislation. We fully support the notion that both of those things need to be looked at. We are strongly in support of this government sitting down with any reasonable party over the next number of days to see if they can resolve the funding question -- the $50 million obstacle -- that needs to be looked at in terms of how this province receives and offers health care. To do that at the same time as the passage of a bill as significant as Bill 71, I strongly believe, will do nothing but harm to the health care system in this province for many years to come.

We have people scoffing at the contribution doctors make to the health care system. I cannot understand how it's possible to have a medical community without doctors. For me, it just makes sense that you have people there who can make reasoned and rational decisions and are involved in the delivery of those decisions. We have not respected that. We have not honoured that. In fact, I believe there are individuals who do not believe that medicine is an honourable profession. I cannot accept that. I don't think you start any type of negotiation or ongoing dialogue by insulting one of the key players in that equation. That is what has happened.

[5:00]

Frankly, this administration has not learned from the previous administration. In 1982 they did exactly the same thing to teachers in this province. Ten years later we are seeing the same kind of reproach to reasonable, healthy government. It makes no sense. The educational community did not benefit when the previous government chose to bash teachers. In my view, taxpayers will not benefit because this government has chosen to bash doctors. I don't think you engage in any kind of meaningful debate or dialogue by beginning the discussion by insulting the person opposite. By saying that doctors did not have a reasonable contribution to make and they were the problem has done nothing to suggest any kind of conciliation. It has not even done anything to suggest that this government truly knows how to listen. That is an issue for me. It's really important to understand that any kind of mediation or negotiation needs to have a level playing-field. There need to be people who are willing to sit opposite each other and start out with a clean slate. We don't have that. We have a government that is prepared to take baggage forward and suggest that somehow the doctors are part of the problem.

All I can say is that we need a clear understanding in the province as to what utilization within the medical industry is. Utilization is patients' use of a system, people who visit the system, people who engage the services of a physician or of the medical system at large. That is utilization; that is the number of people receiving the same service, a different service, frequency, duration of service, etc. That is what drives the cost of health care in British Columbia.

Physicians, by themselves, do not drive health care costs. Physicians need patients to have health care have any cost attached to it at all. A physician without a patient could not drive the cost of health care in this province. I think we're not being clear with the public. We're certainly not being clear with the press in terms of putting this issue out in an understandable way.

There are significant issues involved in the deliberation of Bill 71. Again, I truly believe that any consideration of this bill needs to be done in a timely fashion. The time-frame that this government has allowed is not in a timely fashion. It is not going to allow us to move health care to the next level, to something that is superior and fine and British Columbians would be proud of. I believe, quite honestly, that we are going to end up with a health care system that we are not proud of. We are going to end with a government that we're not necessarily proud of, because they were not able to come together and mediate compromise and follow through in demonstrating what open government looks like. That is an issue for me. That is an issue that I think we need to consider in tremendous detail. Something as important as our health care system needs more than ten days of debate. Frankly, I would be amazed if anybody would think they could restructure any major entity in less than ten days.

Another issue that I don't believe has been touched on to date is that this bill is going to be a direct reflection on the Ministry of Health -- no question about that. It will determine how the Ministry of Health operates and how it interacts with the major players in the field, whether they be consumers, physicians or medical technologists. It will determine and set the framework for how those interactions take place.

We heard the hon. Minister of Health suggest in debate the other evening that no, she couldn't give me a plan; that there was not a plan available for community care because the new Deputy Minister of Health would want to be involved in that decision, would want to structure that in a fashion that she somehow believed in; that we were going to have a nationwide search to find this new Deputy Minister of Health, and that this person was going to have a tremendous impact on the way the Ministry of Health was structured.

No one disagreed with those arguments. They made sense. Putting in Bill 71 at this time, in the absence of this new Deputy Minister of Health, somehow voids the earlier argument, nullifies it completely. If it's important enough not to restructure the Ministry of Health until the new person arrives to be part of that process, part of that evolution, part of that development, it's equally important to have that person be part of a new bill that's going to restructure health care in the province.

It is equally important for this new person, who will come from a nationwide search to bring somebody forward who's going to have an impact on health care and how it's delivered in the province, to be involved in scrutinizing this bill, because they are going to be responsible for its tenets. They are going to have some administrative capacity in terms of how this bill

[ Page 3122 ]

functions, what it looks like in practical reality. We know what it looks like on paper; we find it very unsatisfactory. But that new Deputy Minister of Health is going to be responsible for looking at the implementation of this bill in all the sectors he or she will be responsible for, whether that be the public health sector, medical services, the Medical Services Commission, physicians, physician supply, or physician attraction and retention in different parts of the province. That person's going to have a significant role to play.

Again, if the argument was accepted -- and I believe it was the other evening when the minister offered her comments in debate -- that it was really important not to offer the opposition Health critic any plan for community health care because the deputy minister wasn't available, wasn't yet in her new job and wasn't able to bring her particular perspective on health care to bear on this new plan, it's equally important and an equally valid argument that this bill, in its six to eight months of consideration by the community, also be considered in minute detail by the new Deputy Minister of Health.

We in British Columbia have always put tremendous respect and power into the hands of deputy ministers. That person, I believe, will be taking on an incredibly large task. We've certainly heard the Ministry of Health referred to as a huge amoeba. It does need to be brought in and managed, administered in a reasonable fashion. This person is taking on a huge task. How she establishes a framework will come into conflict with Bill 71 if she or he is not part of the discussion of the bill. I think that makes sense. I think it only makes sense to have the new captain of the ship, if you will, be part of how the ship is actually constructed. It certainly makes sense to me.

British Columbians have many concerns, as I mentioned -- not just workers in the field, not just physicians, but actual consumers. We need to respect that. Certainly, as the opposition critic for Health, I have toured many hospitals in this province. I have looked at hospitals in Campbell River, Prince Rupert, Prince George. These communities are in turmoil because they do not believe that they have had an opportunity to look at this bill, to look at how best they can see health care delivered in their communities. If indeed this is a government that wants to downsize, that wants to move some of the decision-making authority from Victoria into those communities, they have to have an opportunity to look at this bill, because it will determine the opportunity they have to do that.

This minister seems impressed by national trends. We hear constantly of new directions in health care. Well, let me tell you that seven other provinces in this country have binding arbitration with their physicians and fully support it. If this minister is going to continue to be impressed by national trends, that is one that she has to be prepared to take a look at. The only provinces not engaged in this course of action at the present time are Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and British Columbia. The other seven provinces have seen the wisdom of separating out fee negotiations from philosophical discussions on how health care is delivered. We too can be part of the solution. We too can look at how health care can best be delivered.

What we'll add to that will be increased time, increased direction, increased input from the public at large. It's absolutely important that we do that. I'm standing firmly in support of the amendment to take a considered, measured, reasonable view of this new piece of legislation, which in my view will fundamentally impact on how we deliver health care in the province of British Columbia.

In closing, Bill 71....

Interjection.

L. Reid: Someone from the government side of the House suggested that somehow it was a housekeeping piece of legislation. If this is housekeeping legislation, hon. Speaker, Bill 71 is a monster house. It needs to be brought into order very, very soon.

The Speaker: The question is the amendment to Bill 71. The amendment is: "That the motion for second reading of Bill 71 be amended by deleting the word 'now' and substituting therefor the words 'six months hence'."

Amendment negatived on the following division:

On the main motion.

R. Chisholm: I rise to speak today for the first time to this bill in second reading. Canada's and British Columbia's health and social welfare services are envied by very many other jurisdictions, and we should be justifiably proud of that. Health care is presently taken for granted and has not been modified or reformed to keep up with the changing times, and our economy has changed.

Interjections.

[ Page 3123 ]

The Speaker: Excuse me, hon. member. Would the House come to order, please.

Please proceed, hon. member.

[5:15]

R. Chisholm: Our system has not been changed to keep up with the times or the numbers of people and the attitudes and what people expect. Because of this our system should be changing to accommodate the variances that have developed, but it should be changed with thoughtful debate. This bill affects every individual in British Columbia and utilizes approximately one-third of its budget. It should have lengthy debate. What is the rush? Why is the government not talking to the people, the doctors, the nurses of British Columbia? This government promised open government. When are they about to practise this? How come the government has blinders on? It expounds open government but it does not practise it.

This province requires a long-term plan for health care. These things you don't rush into. You take your time, and you listen to all parties and then make your plan; and when you implement it, you will not have a lot of opposition, just minor negotiations to contend with. This was not to be so with Bill 71. This government has just tried to run roughshod over the province and the people, forcing citizens to accept its point of view without debate or consultation.

Bill 71 has things right with it. There is no doubt about that, but it has many items wrong with it. This bill was four years in the making in the back rooms of this Legislature with no consultation with anyone, especially not the people, the doctors or the health care personnel of this province. Now this government wants to pass this bill in a matter of days. As we've heard before -- and you're going to hear from me now -- the audit inspection and the doctors' confidentiality are some of the things that are wrong with this bill. This bill allows government inspectors to raid doctors' offices, seize files, make copies of them and take them away. I thought we got rid of that type of government back in 1945. The government hasn't given any thought to how this process should be administered to protect people's privacy.

An Hon. Member: Are you that old? You can remember....

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

On a point of order, the member for Nanaimo.

D. Lovick: I wonder if the member's allusion, when he was talking about B.C., was to European parliaments in 1945 and the Second World War. If so, that comment is offensive in the extreme and must be withdrawn. Would he clarify that, please?

The Speaker: Hon. member, that is not a point of order.

Please proceed, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: Getting back to the point, that type of government has not been practised for many a year, and it should not be started again.

Doctor-patient confidentiality has been around a long time. There are reasons for doctor-patient confidentiality. Why would this government want to disrupt it? If it hasn't been working, then you change it; if it's working, don't touch it.

Another thing that is wrong with this bill is the co-management system that we seem to be going into. This legislation has no process laid out in it. There are no provisions for voting on the commission; there is no voting mechanism at all. The minister's new co-management style includes giving most of the power to the people she appoints and hardly ever requiring the committee to meet. That's not what I call a partnership in health care.

The minister has given herself the right to appoint subcommittees. She can give them just about any power she wants. It's a built-in escape hatch for the minister. If commission appointees start making decisions she doesn't like, she can just get rid of them. The minister can appoint just about anyone she likes. With this bill the minister is building another NDP patronage trough right in her own back yard. That is part of what has got to change with this bill. This is not what the population of British Columbia expected from this government; this is not what this government promised.

An Hon. Member: It's what they're getting.

R. Chisholm: Nice shot.

The powers of the committee is reintroducing most of the elements of Bill 13 into Bill 71. Apparently the public embarrassment that the minister suffered last time wasn't enough; she's back for more. I thought that we would learn.

This bill will drive doctors south of the border. It will drive them into Alberta. The doctors are not going to stay here and take this abuse. This government has received, I am sure, thousands of letters from doctors, and they've probably received thousands more from interested parties and just plain ordinary citizens of this province. Maybe this government should listen to them. Maybe some of those backbenchers over there that have this big joke should start reading them. Maybe then they could comply with the wishes of their constituents.

This bill is unjust. There are things that are right with this bill, but there are things that are very wrong with this bill. We as a Legislature cannot sit here and take away the people's right to privacy or to the confidentiality that they have with their doctor. This is not justice. This is not what we were sent here for. When are we as a Legislature going to learn that we are here to represent the people -- not our own interests, not the interests of our party, but the interests of the people who sent us here? This is not a joke, like some people would have us believe. This is disgraceful, and it's time some people realized that.

Bill 71 will allow the inspectors to go in. Where is the justice there?

I'm going to read from a letter. I hope you backbenchers are listening to it, because it might be a little

[ Page 3124 ]

bit embarrassing for you. "This is very strange! Things must be desperate in our health care system when physicians as formerly apolitical as I was feel driven to spend the weekend writing to MLAs. What is wrong?" This physician makes it very clear what is wrong. The process is wrong. I quote him:

"It is clearly not right to decide something as crucial as the future of British Columbia's health care system in a few days with no meaningful input to the process by the workers...who provide the front-line service to citizens of British Columbia. It is quite clear that the NDP government is in a terrible hurry to ram Bill 71 through the Legislature. When I hurry with one of my operations, I get into big trouble because mistakes are made and the patient suffers. The same is happening here. The patients are going to suffer because the government is in a hurry to have a summer holiday.

"There must be meaningful consultation before a new medical plan is finalized.

"In my own practice, we make extensive use of technicians to efficiently handle large volumes of patients. You will note that this was one of the many recommendations of the Commission on Health Care and Costs. Effectively we are being told to dispense with technicians to preserve funding for physicians. Less patients will be seen, and they will be seen less efficiently."

When a person like this writes to me or to the other side, maybe they should be reading the letters. After all, these people have been practising for 30 years. Maybe they know what they're talking about. He goes on: "Effects of budget capping. Allowing budgets to dictate health care spending instead of allowing health to dictate spending is wrong. 'Capping' gives a clear message: a citizen's health problem will take second place to the government's difficulties with the economy." How very true.

This same individual goes on and talks about the rights of privacy:

"One of the worst features of Bill 71, outside of the gross mishandling of the monetary aspects, is the wholesale invasion of the privacy of patients and their medical problems. There is no justification to give the government access to patient records. In the past few days I have asked almost every patient about this aspect of Bill 71. No one wants the government in the examining rooms of the nation!"

Is the government listening? I doubt it. The minister is not even here.

He goes on about fairness:

"We need fairness of process and rational thinking. Both of these qualities are beyond the abilities of government when it comes to health care, since the government is the insuring agency. We must have binding arbitration" -- I'm not so sure I agree with that -- "by an outside party to settle this health care dispute. This obvious route of settling this type of dispute has been adopted in the majority of provinces in this country."

We do need someone from outside to help this government and these interested parties negotiate a better deal. Some of you may remember that quote: "A better deal." After all, you people penned it: "The Better Way."

[5:30]

This individual has been a doctor for 35 years, and guess what a doctor is? He or she happens to be a citizen of British Columbia. Maybe you should listen up. This doctor states that he's been a practitioner for 35 years in the Nanaimo area.

"I have never seen the likes of the present situation between physicians and government. In the past we may have had our problems with the government, but we've always been able to sit down and negotiate differences and come to some solution. I had been expecting a much more open communication with the election of the present NDP government and have been very deeply disappointed that this open form of communication has not happened. I have had a very profound sense of a kind of powerlessness with regard to our position as physicians. On the one hand we are expected to be gatekeepers of the entry to the health care system and on the other hand we have no control who comes through the gate. It has become increasingly clear to me as a practitioner that people's expectations and demands are limitless with regard to their health care. I understand fully the need for putting a brake on the budget. The fact is, there is not enough money to afford the increasing demands of the system.

"Given that there is not a bottomless supply of funds, it is essential that everybody involved" -- you should listen up, hon. members -- "in the health care system come together to work out, in a reasonable manner, over however long a time it takes, a solution to our problems. The present government has really said that we will not negotiate with you. The real sense of sadness that leaves me as a physician is that I have only one option, and that is to opt out of the system and deal with my own patients directly."

That's most unfortunate to have a physician say that. He goes on to state: "It is my hope that good sense will prevail and the government will decide to sit down with us and help us all to save our health care system." These are doctors, and they are being very eloquent about their problem. It's too bad the government isn't doing the same thing. It's too bad the government won't sit down. Maybe you could be so noble, my hon. member.

Interjection.

R. Chisholm: Unfortunately you best go talk to the other people, hon. member, on that one. The issues here are larger than doctors' fees. This is about rebuilding our entire health care system. When are we going to get on with it? When are you going to sit down with the doctors? When are you going to sit down with the system? The Liberal opposition believes that this government has an obligation to consult with British Columbians. We believe that a balanced government does not proceed with haste and without consultation on something that affects so many individuals and communities. Not only does it affect individuals, it affects every community in this province. The government needs to design the program with them, not for them. If we don't, we're going to lose our health care workers. Doctors and our workers will leave, and the health care system as we know it will disappear.

M. Farnworth: Hallelujah, brother.

R. Chisholm: I hope someone was listening to that.

[ Page 3125 ]

On this note, I have to table an amendment. In this document is a start in the right direction. The government would gain very much respect if they would be willing to accept the amendment and negotiate an agreement with all parties. With these words, I wish to table a reasoned amendment that states that all the words after "that" be deleted, and "that" be followed by: "Bill 71 be not now read a second time, because: (1)the powers of audit and inspection allowed for in the bill will seriously compromise every citizen's right to privacy; (2) this bill will drive doctors, especially specialists, from the province; (3) the proration and capping of fees allowed for in the bill amounts to a rationing of health care and the introduction of a two-tiered system of health care in British Columbia."

The Speaker: Would you provide the Chair with a copy of the amendment.

On the amendment.

C. Tanner: It's with great reluctance that this opposition has introduced yet a third amendment to this bill. We've been accused of trying to prolong this bill. We are not doing that. We are trying to drive home the point that the party over there, the government party, is forcing something through the Legislature merely because they have a 51-seat majority and not because they consulted with anybody, least of all this side of the House.

We offered a first amendment that said we'd like to take this bill to a committee. That was a reasonable suggestion. It would have been an opportunity for all members to have input at the committee stage, to call witnesses and experts, to call all sides of the argument, to call the doctors, nurses and hospital workers, to call whomever we wanted or the committee chose. We could have had a reasonable discussion in a quiet atmosphere outside the House. We could have looked at the legislation. We could have made an improvement, and it would have been a reasonable way to go. We offered that choice to the members opposite, and they refused. They pulled their majority. The members stood up and voted that reasonable offer down. What were we to do?

An Hon. Member: It was not a reasonable offer.

C. Tanner: It was a very reasonable offer, made and rejected. We then offered a second choice. We said: "Okay, don't proceed with the legislation. You don't want to go to committee. You don't want to discuss it for some reason best known to yourselves." We came to the conclusion that you had something to hide, that you were ashamed of something, that there was something there you didn't want us to look at, or that it has implications that will hurt people, or that the medical system will suffer. But it was a reasonable second choice. It was rejected. Now you've forced us into setting a precedent in this House and offering a third substantive amendment to your motion.

An Hon. Member: A reasoned amendment.

C. Tanner: A reasoned amendment to your bill. You leave us no choice but to do this.

What does the amendment say? The powers of the audit inspection allowed in the bill will seriously compromise every citizen's rights to privacy. That's a very serious charge, and we don't make it lightly. We make it because we seriously think that that is the case in your bill. We seriously think that the government better look at their bill again, because they've made a mistake. We've tried in every way we know how to convince them that they are wrong. We've offered them reasonable alternatives, and they've rejected them. I think that was a decent and a reasonable way to go. It's in line with what we said during the election when we said that we would not be like the opposition that you've had in this House in the past. We would offer reasonable alternatives, and we'd give a reasonable choice to the public. That's what we've tried to do. What was done? It was discarded. It was rejected out of hand, because the 51 members on the other side, acting like trained seals, stood up and voted as they were told to.

The second part of this amendment to the motion says that this bill will drive doctors, especially specialists, from the province. That's another very serious charge, and we don't make that one lightly either. We have in our possession, and members over there have in their possession, literally hundreds, maybe thousands, of letters from intelligent, well-educated professionals, saying: "You better be careful with what you're doing. You're pushing us with our backs to the wall, and you're not giving us any alternatives."

An Hon. Member: Thousands?

C. Tanner: Literally thousands of letters. We're receiving more and more letters every day. They're coming through the fax machines, in the mail, to our constituency offices, to our legislative offices in the building here, and they're all saying the same thing.

An Hon. Member: They're form letters.

C. Tanner: They aren't form letters. They're individually handwritten, expressing a serious concern that the medical profession in this province has with the bill that the government's introduced. We all as members have seen these petitions by rote where somebody walks up to you on the street and says: "Sign this. I've got a petition because I don't like such and such." That isn't what we've been receiving. We've been receiving individually signed and written letters all saying in effect: "We're nervous about the legislation. Give us break. Let's talk about it. Don't push the bill through. Give us a chance to sit down and talk to you about it." And you just said no out of hand: "We don't care what you think. We've been in here eight months and we know better than you. We've got a minister who's been in office eight months, and she knows better than the professionals of this province, the 6,000-odd doctors of this province." She knows better? They're out there on the front lines administering the legislation that you're pushing through. They're not saying don't; they're just

[ Page 3126 ]

saying: "Give us a chance to tell you about our objections."

I don't think that's an unreasonable request. We feel, as a reasonable opposition, that we tried to offer some alternatives to the government. What have they done? They said no. And we don't do this lightly. We do it with a great deal of hesitation. We think -- and it says right here in the motion -- that the capping of fees is something that you'd better think about because the consequence of doing that could be that the flattening of fees to everybody and the opportunity for somebody to earn an income is being disadvantaged for the simple reason that everybody's going to have a cap and it's going to push everybody's fees down. We think that's a serious concern, too.

We think doctors have the same right as everybody else in this province to earn a reasonable living in line with the effort they put in, and everybody knows the effort that doctors put in -- that's in the letters, too. Time and time again the doctors are saying to us: "We start work at seven or 7:30 in the morning. We get home at eight at night. We grab a lunch if we possibly can." They don't just do it for four months of the year like we do here. They do it every day of the year. They do it seven days a week, and you're saying to them: "Well, in spite of that, in spite of the effort you put in, Mr. Doctor, in spite of the fact that you have to cope with 40 or 50 cases a day of people who are probably under stress -- if they're not only sick, they're under stress...." And they have to cope with those sorts of people every day, which is even more difficult, I suspect, than being a politician. Where we have to deal with people who are under stress or under pressure once or twice a day, they deal with 40 a day as a way of life. These doctors know what the front lines are like. They're saying: "If you don't give us the chance to make a decent living, we're going to go somewhere else."

All they're saying to the members opposite and to the government side is: "Let us just talk to you about it." They're not saying: "Stop it." They're just saying: "We'll make a deal. We'll make an agreement with you for the next six months or the next year, and in six months let's sit down and talk about it. Because it's serious stuff. You're changing the direction of medicare in this country."

Fellow members on the other side, I should tell you who you're talking to on this side. You're talking to Liberals, and Liberals are damn proud of the fact that they brought medicare into most of this country. You talk about it; you thought about it; we did it. We did it in every province in this country, and we did it nationally. You might talk about thinking about it. We've done it across this country, and we're proud of it. So don't try and push us on medicare. We'll stand here all day and all night fighting for medicare.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Please proceed, hon. member.

C. Tanner: We need time to consult. That's what we're saying with this amendment. We need time to talk about it. It's serious for us, the doctors, for you and the patients. Why can't you slow down? Why couldn't you have given the bill the six-month hoist? Why couldn't you have given the bill to the committee? If you can't do that, then try this amendment, because this might be the reason why you could stop for a minute and think about it.

[5:45]

There are a lot of other interested parties. Members opposite are trying to imply that we're standing up as the spokespersons for doctors. We aren't. We're pleading their case as one example of the problems that exist within the industry, within medicare. The nurses, hospital employees and other medical professions are affected. Everybody who practises medicine in this province is affected, but the people who are most affected are the patients.

If we have no other obligation as elected members of this province -- there are 75 of us here -- we do have the obligation to serve the 40,000-odd constituents that each one was elected by. We have an obligation to do the very best we can for them. We don't think the government side of the House is giving the people who elected us and the people who elected them the opportunity to have some input into this bill.

Some of the implications of this bill that has been introduced -- which we have tried twice to find reasonable alternatives to and the government won't allow us -- have serious capital obligations. We're going to have to find some more money to pay for and to build the facilities that are needed to implement this bill. We would like to see the evidence from the government that they have the capital to do this. We'd like to sit down in committee to work with them and hear what they plan to do. Perhaps we have some suggestions as to how we could improve it.

Madam Speaker, I surprise myself, quite frankly. I've been involved one way or another all my political life with the medicare plan. I ran on it in 1970 when I went to the Yukon. When I got there, I couldn't believe that this was the only place in Canada where you couldn't get medical services on the same plan as the rest of Canada. I came from British Columbia to the Yukon, and it was really the thing that motivated me into politics. I was very proud of the fact that when we won the election, we implemented it. It was a tough fight; it took us two years. We brought in the bill -- what a coincidence -- and we had to wait a year and a half. We had to fight it through a lot of committees. We had a tough time getting it through.

The day we passed that bill in the House, there were people sitting in the galleries with rotten fruit. There were RCMP in plain clothes to protect the elected members. There were threats to my family. There were all sorts of implications of difficulties for us if we continued to insist on bringing medicare in. We did anyway.

An Hon. Member: Did the doctors go on strike?

C. Tanner: Interesting point. The doctors, to a man, were opposed to medicare in the Yukon when we brought it in. I'll tell you why they were. They had a

[ Page 3127 ]

private scheme, and the private scheme was fine as long as you were well, you didn't get sick, they didn't throw you off the scheme and you had the money to pay. If you went back there today, the doctors now would tell you they were wrong.

An Hon. Member: The same thing will happen this time.

C. Tanner: The doctors will tell you they were wrong. The doctors are not saying that you are wrong this time. They're saying: "Give us a chance to tell you our point of view." That's all. That's a reasonable request.

There are serious concerns about the audit inspection services under this bill. It's something new for the doctors. They'd like to talk to you about it. They'd like to suggest that perhaps there's another way. They'd like to suggest that while they agree that it's necessary for the one-third of 1 percent of the people who abuse the system to put an audit in, they are not convinced that the way you want to do it is the right way. Frankly, I don't know what the alternative is. We might come to the same conclusion you did. The doctors need to have that proven to them. They don't want it thrust down their throats. We need to have it proven to us.

One of the more serious threats -- and I have to tell hon. members that it concerns me a lot -- is the fact that the doctors are saying that many of the doctors that we have in this country came from other countries. We had the benefit of having them trained in another country and they came here. They've come here for the simple reason that they didn't like the practice that they had in the other country. Many of them came from Britain to this country. The doctors practising in British Columbia came from Britain because they didn't like the system there. They now have the system in Britain that you're suggesting, and they're saying that it doesn't work that well. They've come here to practise medicine and have been very successful. They are giving us great service and are looking after the patients and working under the present plan. They're saying that if you're going to change it that radically without talking to them, they might have to go somewhere else -- probably to the States.

I'm almost of an inclination to say: well, go. That's the easy way out. That's what I've heard some of the members over there say. We don't want them to go. They're here. They understand what the system is. They've got well-set-up practices. They don't have to bill patients. They don't have to pay to collect bills. The system works reasonably well. They're saying there might be a few bad apples among the 6,000 doctors in the province. But is it worth finding those problems with a sledgehammer -- this type of legislation -- and ramming it through the House? Why not give the doctors the opportunity to discuss it with you? They've already made a public announcement that they're prepared to negotiate a temporary salary. They've already said that if that's what it takes, they'll make some sort of an accommodation for the next year while you stop the flow of this legislation and find some way to let them have some input into it. They think you're going too far, too fast. That's all. That's not an unreasonable request.

One of the things that might happen, and I think it's unfortunate, is that because of the tenor of the letters that we're getting.... They're not just coming from doctors who've been in practice for many years, and they're not just coming from doctors who are just starting out in the profession; they are coming from the full range of doctors -- those with many years of experience and interns with no experience. What we could find happening is that a lot of those doctors, particularly the new ones, will think: "I've been training for five, six, seven, eight or ten years, and they're going to change the system on me to one that I'm not sure I like. I don't understand it, because you haven't given me a chance to talk about it. I might just as well go down to the United States or to another country and start up again there." What about the cost to this country of the training that we've paid for? We paid for that -- not them. They put in time and their own money, but we put the facilities there, we gave the people to train them, we gave them the teachers and we showed them how it was done. That would all be lost to Canada; it would go somewhere else. And the Americans would benefit from it. I don't think members on that side of the House want that to happen any more than we do.

The doctors, nurses, patients, members and the public want to know what capping means. They want a better explanation of what happens when you cap salaries. If you cap them from the top, does it squeeze them all the way down? They're asking the minister and the government to give them an opportunity to express their professional point of view. I don't think that's an unreasonable request.

One final thing, which I don't think has been addressed in the debate so far, worries me, and it is probably the most worrisome one of all: why is there so much haste? Why does this government want to push this through? They keep telling us about a $50 million bill if we don't. The fact of the matter is that for the last number of years successive governments have underestimated at budget time how much they are going to spend on medicare, and they brought in special warrants to pay for it afterwards. That's not a great way to run a government; that's a dishonest way to run a government, quite frankly, because it doesn't tell the public what they are going to budget for the next 12 months. It's a serious problem that's got to be addressed, and this government is attempting to address it. I give credit where credit is due. It's got to stop, and you should attempt to stop it as soon as you possibly can. But it is not so serious a problem that you have to ram this legislation through. That $50 million, if it's there, and if it's going to have to be found, can be found in the same way as it has been found in every other year, or most of the other years in the last ten years, and that's by a special warrant.

If that is the only reason that you're pushing this through, we showed you today. We read to you in your present legislation, 3.09: "The commission is empowered to approve or to prescribe a tariff of tariffs or fees for the purpose of section 3.08 as the schedule of costs

[ Page 3128 ]

for payment of insured services...." We've shown you a way to resolve that problem. We've shown you what our concerns are. We've read you the letters from the profession, and we ask the question very simply: tell us another reason why you have to force this legislation through, because we haven't heard one yet that holds any water. That's the nub of the problem for the members on this side. If that is the only problem, the $50 million, which we think is available, then you must have another one, and we're suspicious about it. Otherwise, we see no reason for speed. We see no reason why we couldn't have gone to committee, we see no reason why you couldn't have waited six months, and we see no reason why you can't accept this amendment.

We don't like this amendment. This amendment is not the way we wanted to go. You've forced us into this situation. You've forced us into it because we're seriously concerned, as is the profession, as are the patients and as is the public.

Madam Speaker, I seriously ask the members on that side of the House to stop and think about what they're doing, and give us six months to think about how we can help you make this a better bill.

In view of the hour, I move we adjourn debate until the next sitting.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark: I move that the House at its rising stand adjourned for five minutes and sit no later than 11 p.m. tonight.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:59 p.m.

The House resumed at 6:07 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 30.

HEALTH STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. E. Cull: This bill amends eight acts administered by the Ministry of Health. These changes will remove impediments to better delivery of services by the Ministry of Health and provide for better self-regulation of certain health professions. A number of the amendments are of a housekeeping nature.

An amendment to the Dentists Act will remove a provision that specifically sets out the form of the annual licence to practice dentistry. There is no reason for restricting the wording of the licence or to include that in the act. The matter will now be dealt with routinely in bylaws made by the College of Dental Surgeons, subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

Since 1990 fees have been charged for legal documents served by the British Columbia Ambulance Service to recover the costs of this service. These have been authorized by the Financial Administration Act. We are taking this opportunity to provide specific authority for these fees by regulation under the Health Emergency Act.

Similarly, 1990 amendments to the Hospital Act have made the definition of "hospital," which is used for the hospital foundations of British Columbia, somewhat unclear. This ambiguity is being eliminated.

A more significant amendment is being made to the Name Act to eliminate provisions added to the act in 1977 that provide for a spouse to make an election of a surname upon marriage. These 1977 provisions are unnecessarily restrictive and no longer in keeping with contemporary society. Under them, a spouse who exercises this election makes what is tantamount to a legal change of name with very restricted options. Because of this, the vital statistics division has for some time routinely advised people not to make this election. This left them free to apply the common-law rule that a person may use any name by which they are known so long as there is no intent to defraud anyone.

The Name Act amendments will repeal the 1977 provisions for the election of surname on marriage. We are aware that banks and legal registries and a number of other institutions may have concerns as to their ability to identify persons with whom they have dealings. For clarity, a new section has been added which makes it quite clear that the person may use either their spouse's surname, or a current or former surname they have held. These are all options which are readily documented and should satisfy most requirements. There is nothing in the amendments, however, to bar persons from using other names under the common law rule or even pursuing a legal change of name and making their own arrangements to identify themselves appropriately to persons with whom they have business or other dealings.

Also involving the Division of Vital Statistics, the bill repeals provisions of the Vital Statistics Act dealing with the registration of stillbirths. The act presently has an anomalous requirement to treat a stillbirth as both a birth and a death for registration purposes. What this has meant is that grieving parents have had to comply with the same provisions as would apply to the live birth of a child: to register the birth and name the baby. This is obviously unnecessarily burdensome under some circumstances, and the removal of these provisions can be made without the loss of other information in regard to such unfortunate events.

The Division of Vital Statistics maintains a wills registry by which the existence and location of wills can be made known to interested parties. The legislation governing this, however, contemplates an era of quill pens and musty ledgers. Amendments to the Wills Act will permit this registry to utilize modern electronic media without compromising the integrity of its information.

Finally, amendments are made to the acts governing licensed practical nurses and registered psychologists. These are minor in nature and do not preempt the review which government is currently conducting in regard to the sweeping recommendations as to the governance of health care professions which were made by the British Columbia Royal Commission on Health Care and Costs. However, in discussion with these

[ Page 3129 ]

professions, it has come to our attention that minor amendments to their legislation can significantly improve the efficiency of their procedures to discipline members. The professions have requested these amendments, which are consistent with the spirit of the Royal Commission recommendations. We are introducing them at this time to ensure the public continues to receive the protection it deserves in matters of professional self-regulation.

I move that the bill be now read a second time.

L. Reid: I wish to cover a number of points this evening, but very briefly. We have no difficulty with the comments that the minister raised in terms of the Dentist Act. We believe this will enable the College of Dental Surgeons to set their own forms. This would allow the college to create the forms for proof of licensure, but would not change the requirements for qualification as a dentist. This amendment makes the Dentist Act consistent with other acts. The college initiated and supports this amendment.

In terms of the Health Emergency Act, we believe it allows the Emergency Health Services Commission to charge a fee for supplying documentation for the public, particularly lawyers. However this is past practice, and certainly this formalizes its authority to levy a fee. Our only comment would be that this is indeed another user fee; however, being past practice, we do know that it will be passed on to the consumer.

Hospital Act. It deletes a redundant reference to the definition of "hospital." We have no difficulty with that.

The Name Act portion of this bill is interesting. We certainly understand and appreciate the fact that this bill removes the requirement that a spouse must elect a surname upon marriage. Under the existing legislation, a spouse must choose a surname -- hers or her husband's -- when she gets married. This bill allows spouses to go back to using either their maiden or married name without applying to Vital Statistics. This will be particularly helpful for women who wish to change their name after a marriage or at the end of a marriage.

Nurses (Licensed Practical) Act. This recognizes that either the council or a disciplinary committee may conduct disciplinary proceedings against a licensed practical nurse. The Council of Licensed Practical Nurses initiated and supports these changes.

Psychologists Act. The amendment allows the college board to establish a panel to hear disciplinary proceedings, and broadens the available scope of disciplinary action to include advice given to govern future practice. We certainly have no difficulty with that.

Hon. Speaker, I would also support this bill in second reading.

[6:15]

Motion approved.

Bill 30, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

HEALTH STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 30; M. Farnworth in the chair.

Sections 1 to 7 inclusive approved.

On section 8.

L. Reid: We have a question regarding this section, hon. minister. Perhaps we could clarify this in very short order. We believe that this section under the Wills Act changes the requirement governing the storage of information.

Hon. E. Cull: Wrong section.

Sections 8 to 11 inclusive approved.

On section 12.

L. Reid: I appreciate your patience. This is the section we have some concerns about. Our concern is basically one of privacy and confidentiality. We understand that this section will change the requirements governing the storage of information so that the director of vital statistics may use computer technology to record wills. The only information that is stored with vital statistics is a statement that will have been drafted on where the will is located, the name and the birthdate, etc.

I would appreciate some clarification on that section, because my understanding is that the will itself is not kept on record at vital statistics and therefore is not kept within the computer system. Nevertheless, the use of computer technology to store this information has raised the question of confidentiality. If you could comment on that, I would be most appreciative.

Hon. E. Cull: The member is correct; the wills are not stored. It is simply the information that there is a will and where it can be found. The system will be maintained on a mainframe computer with the regular protection and confidentiality that is around all kinds of sensitive government records kept in this fashion.

L. Reid: I have just one other item for clarification, hon. Chair. Is the process still that the backup to that, whether it be a computer disk or the actual hard copy, will be stored at vital statistics? Or will it still be in the hands of your own private lawyer?

Hon. E. Cull: I need clarification of that question. I'm not sure whether the member was referring to a backup of the will or a backup of the electronic data information.

L. Reid: The clarification I'm seeking is whether the actual record of where the will is stored -- i.e., the computer disk or the hard copy -- is with vital statistics, or does it remain in the hands of the lawyer who drafted the will? If indeed the computer system were

[ Page 3130 ]

not functioning, where would we go next to find the record of where the will is stored?

The Chair: Perhaps the member for Richmond East might wish to repeat the question for the new arrivals.

L. Reid: The question we had was in reference to the confidentiality of a will and it being stored with vital statistics on computer. Is the backup record of where that will is located stored at vital statistics or is the record of the location of the will in the hands of the legal profession?

Hon. E. Cull: They'll actually be in both places. The lawyer would have the records and we would also have the records on hard copy as well, which would either be in vital statistics or in storage in a warehouse.

L. Reid: So in the event of any computer disruption or malfunction, we would not ever be in a position where we would lose any of this information.

Hon. E. Cull: That's correct, but I should also point out that even when things are stored electronically, there is always an electronic backup system as well, and tapes or disks are always stored off-site for security.

Sections 12 through 15 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 30, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 62.

HEALTH STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1992

Hon. E. Cull: This bill amends the Health Act, the Hospital District Act and the Vancouver General Hospital Act.

The chief amendment to the Health Act is to provide a legislative framework for the operations of the health status registry. This registry has operated within the division of vital statistics since 1952 without any specific statutory basis. However, related to concerns for clear treatment of freedom-of-information and confidentiality issues, it is desirable that the registry have specific authority to continue collecting personal data. The registry collects information with respect to congenital anomalies, genetic conditions and chronic handicapping conditions of individuals. Strict policies and protocols have long been in place for the maintenance of confidentiality. These will, of course, continue to be enforced.

The legislation will provide authority to require source agencies to provide information. The registry has traditionally relied on voluntary participation by source agencies, but it is felt that the accuracy and reliability of the data could be greatly improved if the registry had the ability to require compliance with a request for information. There is provision for such a request to be disputed by appeal to the court, similar to the legislation we have now governing the British Columbia Cancer Agency. Data collected by the registry is essential to health research and to the planning and development of health care services. The more information we have about handicapping conditions, the better equipped we will be to deal with them.

In addition to the new provisions concerning the health status registry, the bill includes three housekeeping amendments to the Health Act, which update obsolete references and practices and pave the way for new environmental health protection legislation.

The major purpose of the amendments to the Hospital District Act is to improve and streamline the procedures relating to regional hospital districts which are established and governed by this act. For many years the boards of regional hospital districts under this act and the regional districts under the Municipal Act have been the same. However, the procedures under the two acts do not always agree, and this has been a source of confusion and irritation. Accordingly, we are amending the Hospital District Act so as to make applicable the corresponding Municipal Act provisions, or to provide procedures substantially similar to those under the act in a number of areas. These include provisions for weighted voting, remuneration of directors and officers, the calling of meetings and the establishment of standing committees.

Amendments are also being made to permit the inclusion of administrative costs of the regional hospital district in its own budget. At present the act requires that these administrative costs are to be included in the budget of the regional district. In some cases these administrative costs are small and inclusion in the regional district budget is expedient, especially where the regional hospital district and the regional district are sharing the same office space, staff and so on. However, in larger regional hospital districts, inclusion of administrative costs distorts the budget of both the regional district and the regional hospital district. Recognizing the differing situations of various boards, amendments to the act permit the regional hospital district to include these administrative costs in its budget where it so authorizes, but does not require this to be done in all cases.

Finally, some minor amendments have been made in regard to capital expenditures and financing to clarify the present intent of the act and to reflect current financial procedures. While a major concern of this act is to authorize provincial cost-sharing with regional hospital districts in regard to capital expenditures, in some instances regional hospital districts will request approval for non-cost-shared capital expenditures. An

[ Page 3131 ]

amendment to the act makes it quite clear that these expenditures are those designated as such by the Minister of Health. Other minor amendments update the requirements for financial reporting and long-term borrowing periods to reflect current sound practice. These amendments make needed improvements within the overall purpose of this act. They are the result of consultation with the regional hospital districts and enjoy their support.

Finally, amendments to the Vancouver General Hospital Act affect one of the two hospitals which is established under the authority of its own statute. These have been discussed with and have the concurrence of the hospital. Section 3 of this act is amended to provide the hospital with the "powers and capacity of a natural person" in order to carry out its purposes as a hospital. In particular, it ensures that the hospital has the adequate authority to engage in fund-raising activities for hospital purposes. The other provisions of section 3 remain unchanged. The second amendment is a housekeeping amendment to define the quorum of the hospital board as being a majority of its members. The present specification of seven members as a quorum does not allow for changes in the size of the board as a result of amendments to the hospital's bylaws from time to time.

I move that the bill be read a second time now.

L. Reid: I'm prepared this evening to lend my support to Bill 62. I welcome the passage of this bill at the earliest opportunity.

Motion approved.

Bill 62, Health Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT
ACT (No. 2), 1992

The House in committee on Bill 62; Mr. Giesbrecht in the chair.

Sections 1 to 21 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. E. Cull: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

[6:30]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Bill 62, Health Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 49.

COMPENSATION FAIRNESS REPEAL ACT

The House in committee on Bill 49; H. Giesbrecht in the chair.

On section 1.

F. Gingell: As I'm sure the Chair will remember, the Liberal caucus supported this bill during second reading. I rise at this time to do only one thing: to get into Hansard something I meant to say on second reading. I did say it when I was questioned by the local press on this. That is that I'm sure that the administration of this province agrees with the opposition on the importance of the various boards, agencies and authorities that are affected by the repeal of this act of acting in a sensible, responsible manner.

This is not the sudden lifting off of the salary limit of everyone who earns more than $79,000. Obviously agencies, school boards, hospital boards and municipalities have to recognize their responsibility to be responsible with the taxpayers' money. But clearly it is their responsibility. In this case, I don't think it is the responsibility of the government to put these restrictions on. So with the proviso that these agencies and boards recognize their responsibilities, we support the passage of Bill 49.

R. Neufeld: I can't let Bill 49 go by without saying a few words to it. The official opposition has expressed agreement with this bill. This bill was designed not so much to control municipal councils, which of course are responsible to the electorate in their communities for wage increases; it was more for the public servants who are employed by government and for school boards, which get all or most of their funding from the provincial government. It was because the public sector wages were far outstripping private sector wages. And if I remember correctly, the famous Peat Marwick report brought that issue out also. It seemed to be a fairly focal part of that report. It was the one part that I agreed with: in the last few years, public sector wages have outstripped private sector wages. I think every 1 percent increase in public sector wages costs the taxpayers $88 million. It was a bill that was used to try and control the escalating wages. This government has seen fit to let wages go wherever they may go and run the deficits however high they can run them. Other than that, I'll take my seat.

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; M. Farnworth in the chair.

[ Page 3132 ]

Bill 49, Compensation Fairness Repeal Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 65.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. G. Clark: I move the bill be now read a second time.

The bill makes a number of technical drafting changes to the Financial Institutions Statutes Act and the Credit Union Incorporation Act. I commend it to all members of the House for bedtime reading if they are having trouble getting to sleep. These amendments correct some practical problems in these two statutes, but do not affect the basic underlying policy of the statute.

One amendment made to the Financial Institutions Act is to change the composition of the Insurance Council of British Columbia by adding the requirement for two "lay members" to be appointed to the council. This has actually been a concern of mine for some time that self-regulatory bodies, generally speaking, should have a couple of people from outside the profession. I think it enhances the credibility of that organization in the eyes of the public. At present, the council, which is responsible for the licensing and regulation of insurance agents, sales persons and adjusters, is comprised solely of industry representatives. The addition of two lay members will ensure the general public's interest is represented on the council.

Some of the amendments made by the bill clarify the application of the Company Act to financial institutions. Other amendments correct definition problems and inconsistencies, ensure gender neutral balance language and clarify the application of the Financial Institutions Act to extraprovincial companies. Further amendments contained in Bill 65 implement several improvements and corrections, clarify ambiguities and refine the policy intent of certain provisions.

I move second reading.

F. Gingell: I appreciate very much the words of the Minister of Finance, who suggested that this would make good bedtime reading. I was privileged to receive a very thorough briefing on this bill. We started at about 2:30 in the afternoon in a room that faces south. I can assure you that you don't actually have to go to bed to be put to sleep by this bill. It was a hot afternoon.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There are two sections of this act that I would appreciate the minister making amendments to. They are, in my mind, quite important. The first is section 26, which allows a credit union to reduce the full package of information that they send to their members from a complete financial statement to a condensed financial statement. I would suggest that the minister consider making an amendment that would require clear and prominent disclosure on that condensed financial statement that a full set of financial statements is available at any office of the credit union during business hours. I can assure you that the credit unions will accept that amendment, because I took the liberty of discussing it with them when I expressed my concerns that the credit unions would not be required to mail full financial statements to each of their members.

The second section that I'd like to suggest to the minister that he consider amending is the one he mentioned during his words on this bill immediately before I started to speak. It deals with section 35, which calls for expanding the board of the Insurance Council from nine voting members to 11 voting members. The change that is proposed in this bill calls for two additional members who need not be licensed under this act and who shall be members at large. I would like to suggest to the minister that he consider changing it to two individuals who must not be licensed under this act. If we are going to have lay members ensure that the voice of the public is being heard in this council, I think it is important that they not be licensed under this act. I think that would be an improvement to it.

The remainder of the act is a lot of housekeeping. We look forward to a more detailed discussion of it during committee stage.

Hon. G. Clark: I appreciate my colleague across the way, who is almost consistently constructive in debate in the House. I think it's worthwhile noting.

I think the two suggestions that he has made are reasonably good ones. I'm not prepared to accept them, however, at this time. I say that simply because there has been extensive consultation with the credit union movement and with the Insurance Council. But I will undertake in all sincerity to take them under advisement over the course of the next year and consult with the bodies to see whether in fact they make sense. I don't think either is required, frankly, but I accept the spirit upon which they were raised. At this time I'm not prepared to accept the amendments, but I do appreciate the constructive comments.

I move second reading of Bill 65.

Motion approved.

Bill 65, Financial Institutions Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[6:45]

Hon. G. Clark: I'm delighted to call second reading of Bill 69.

TAXATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon G. Clark: Bill 69 proposes a variety of amendments to the Hotel Room Tax Act, the Motor Fuel Tax Act, the School Act, the Social Service Tax Act and the Tobacco Tax Act. That sounds familiar. I think we have done a number of amendments to those acts this session. For the most part the proposed amendments

[ Page 3133 ]

are administrative or housekeeping in nature. However, a few of the amendments are somewhat substantive, and I'll discuss those in greater detail.

Bill 69 proposes amendments to the lien provision of the Hotel Room Tax Act and the Social Service Tax Act. Under existing legislation businesses can divert tax-collected trust funds to other business purposes and shield their assets from lien attachment by placing ownership of the assets in a separate but related or associated company. The province has no method of recovering the tax collected but not remitted, because the debtor company has no assets of its own. The amendments proposed in this bill will allow the province to attach a lien to all assets used by a debtor company if the assets are owned by the debtor company or by a separate company that is closely related to or associated with the debtor company. This removes an incentive to defraud the province and protect provincial tax revenues.

Bill 69 also proposes amendments to the Social Service Tax Act that include measures to close two loopholes. It had allowed for tax avoidance on the purchase of manufactured goods and in goods modified as a condition of sale. With respect to manufactured goods, the existing legislation allows businesses to avoid payment of tax on the full cost of manufactured goods by artificially structuring manufacturing contracts as agency agreements.

Under an agency agreement the manufacturer acts as the business's agent in the purchase of raw materials. As a result, the business pays tax only on the cost of the raw materials. Manufacturing, labour and other processing costs are not subject to the tax, because the act does not apply tax to labour and service charges for modifying goods owned by the customer.

With respect to goods modified as a condition of sale, some sellers are avoiding collecting tax on the full charge to the customer by artificially splitting a single sale into two sale contracts: one for the sale of the property and the second for modifications to the property, such as Scotchgarding furniture or rustproofing a vehicle. Under such a two-contract system, tax applies only to the charge for the property, not for the subsequent modifications. This occurs because theoretically the modifications are performed after the purchase of the property, and the act does not impose tax on labour and service charges for modifying property owned by the customer.

These loopholes undermine the basic principle that the tax applies to the full purchase price for the goods that are actually being acquired by the purchaser. They also create inequities for sellers who are collecting and remitting the tax on the full purchase of manufacturing costs.

Bill 69 also proposes amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act to strengthen the legislative basis for administering the act. These amendments include clarification of the requirements for obtaining tobacco wholesale dealer and retail dealer permits, as well as conditions under which the province may grant, refuse to grant or cancel such permits. Similar amendments are proposed in this bill for the Motor Fuel Tax Act.

Finally, Bill 69 amends the School Act to correct the current lack of financial consequences to municipalities which delay the remittance of school taxes collected on behalf of the province. The amendments impose interest on late tax remittances and provide authority to inspect municipal records where the amount billed and the amount remitted are not the same.

I might inform members that the UBCM is fully supportive of this amendment. In fact they've in some respects requested it, because, obviously, it's in everybody's interest to have the remittance of taxes apply equally to all municipalities or all individuals. This corrects a current inequity.

Hon. Speaker, I now move second reading.

F. Gingell: As the minister said, this bill is a mix of a lot of housekeeping and some substantive matters too. I'm quite prepared to speak in second reading, but if the minister wished to proceed quickly to committee stage on this bill, I would concur with that, and it would make our discussion a little more meaningful.

R. Neufeld: The Social Credit caucus doesn't have much problem with a lot of the bill, and we would just as soon go to committee also, along with the Liberal opposition.

Motion approved.

Bill 69, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

TAXATION STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 69; M. Farnworth in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

F. Gingell: Section 2 deals with the question that the minister brought up during his introductory remarks in second reading. It deals specifically with the ability of the government to seize assets of a corporation if those assets are used by another corporation -- in the operation of a hotel in this case, and the hotel room tax has been diverted to another corporation.

I don't have any problem with that. I can understand that the provincial government wishes to ensure that tax that has been collected is remitted to the provincial government. The only problem I have with this -- and I'd be most interested in the minister's response -- is that the ownership thread is developed by reference to associated corporations. I believe that as far as the federal Income Tax Act is concerned, this might only require a similar share ownership of 25 percent. I appreciate that the second company will be using these assets, so it appears that there is a fairly close-knit arrangement.

But it is quite possible for there to be a very real arm's-length management arrangement where the hotel owner, having moved the management off to a different

[ Page 3134 ]

and separate group of people, takes a 25 percent interest in that management company for the purpose of some profit-sharing arrangement that would be perfectly reasonable. Because of this 25 percent ownership, he could have a lien attached to that hotel for a cause that they were innocent of. That just seems to me to be a little strict or stern. I'd appreciate the minister's response to that.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't agree. I think the 25 percent is the rule -- I believe you're correct -- of the Income Tax Act of Canada for the definition of an associated company. But remember, a lien applies only if the individual debtor company has gone under, is bankrupt and has not remitted taxes owed, and the individual has moved assets over to try to escape taxation. So it's quite appropriate to track those assets, it seems to me. In fact, one could argue that 25 percent is not tough enough if one were to be creative and move assets to a variety of associated companies all underneath the 25 percent threshold.

These amendments come in every year, and this is an attempt to close what is clearly a growing loophole in the act which has allowed some debtors to escape paying tax when they have all the means available to do so. That's really the point here. Obviously there is not an intent to be punitive on individuals who cannot pay. These are people who can pay, should pay and have essentially used a tax loophole to avoid paying. So it's a minor amendment. It's not unique in the tax law, and it's not unique in Canada. It's an attempt to deal with a specific loophole which we've identified.

F. Gingell: In my reading of section 2, I didn't appreciate that it is only if the assets have been transferred out. I thought it would also apply in the case where business is difficult, the hotel has been going through difficult times and has decided to pay the waitresses in the restaurant, or the staff who clean rooms, in preference to admitting the tax. I didn't appreciate that it would only apply where it can clearly be shown that assets have been moved out.

We have to recognize, particularly in the tourist industry, that many hotels and business establishments are suffering difficult times. I'm sure if you review the number of bankruptcies that take place, there are ten or 15 real and genuine ones for every one that is a fraud.

K. Jones: Could the minister please clarify for us the definition of "related individual." It says the same thing in the Property Purchase Tax Act. What does that actually entail?

Hon. G. Clark: Spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, great-grandparent, great-grandchild, mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandmother-in-law, grandfather-in-law, great-grandmother-in-law, great-grandfather-in-law, daughter-in-law, son-in-law, granddaughter-in-law, grandson-in-law, great-granddaughter-in-law, great-grandson-in-law.

K. Jones: That's just a great response, and it's terrifically well read.

That is what I suspected it would include. It troubles me when section 2(b)(a) and section 2(b)(b) actually relate to the fact that a provision can be taken against real and personal property of a related individual of the person who is indebted. That means that if you happen to be a distant relative, an in-law.... Could the minister please clarify how this related individual is being referred to? Does this not mean that you're bringing a lien against anybody?

[7:00]

Hon. G. Clark: You obviously weren't here for the earlier discussion. It's only if you're a debtor and you transfer your assets to a related individual in order to shield them from the tax. That's the only way we can provide a lien against a related individual.

F. Gingell: That brings me back to my feet. Doesn't the property that is being used in the operation of a hotel have to be operated by a relative?

Hon. G. Clark: That's correct.

Sections 2 and 3 approved.

On section 4.

R. Neufeld: Having been involved in the sale of petroleum products for quite a few years, I went through a number of dye audits in my time. Could the minister explain to me why it had to be changed? What reasons were there? As I recall, the inspectors had the authority at any time. Specifically, I was an agent for Petro-Canada. It was well known among all agents that when the inspector came, those records had to be on hand and in order for the inspector to look at. I can't imagine where there was any problem.

Hon. G. Clark: This is really a rewording and strengthening. It is truly a housekeeping change. Apparently we have had a few problems with respect to inspections. We looked at other legislation across the country and realized that we had a few loopholes -- I guess you could call them. It's not a a huge problem at all. You are quite correct. They routinely have significant powers, as you know. This tightens it up a bit, makes it consistent with other jurisdictions and helps deal with a problem that my staff felt was developing, although I appreciate that my staff are pretty zealous in this regard.

R. Neufeld: Although it's not in this part of the act, I wonder if the minister and his staff have thought at all about removing the fuel tax completely and redevising it, because it is a system that's really a little draconian. It's a little ridiculous that you dye fuel when you resell it to people who can buy dyed fuel. It's not done by a magical measuring amount. I can tell you that in most cases it's done with a one-gallon or five-gallon pail. You are supposed to be within a tenth of a litre at the end of the month. It gets very difficult unless you put into the act that every place that dispenses marked fuel has to have an absolutely exact metered system for

[ Page 3135 ]

putting in the amount of dye required for the amount of fuel that's going in, like most refineries have. It's really kind of a ridiculous type of act to start with.

I think there has been lots of representation made by different dealers, agencies and corporations, like Petro-Canada, Shell and Esso, to do away with it and come in with something a little bit different. It would make it a lot easier for the people out there, and probably a lot easier for the inspectors and the staff in your ministry to look after it.

Hon. G. Clark: It sounds reasonable. It's the first I have heard of it, to be quite candid. But of course, we had 16 years of Social Credit government, so it would not surprise me if there are some problems with it. I say that with a smile on my face to the Social Credit member who spoke.

In all seriousness, it is new to me, but I'll take a look at it. I see my colleague from Cariboo nodding his head. It certainly sounds reasonable. Maybe it's time to take a look at that question. I'll ask my staff to do so and report back to me.

R. Neufeld: I'm glad the minister said that with a smile on his face. I'm also glad that he looked over at his colleague the member for Cariboo North before he really agreed. That's gratifying. It's a little housekeeping hint for you to help you along your way, to show you that sometimes our heart is in the right place.

Sections 4 to 6 inclusive approved.

On section 7.

R. Neufeld: Do I understand section 7 -- permit system for dealers and vendors who sell tax-exempt fuel? At the present time that's required. At least in the business I was in, you could not sell tax-exempt fuel to anyone unless they had a tax-exempt number. If that tax-exempt number was not valid when it went into, for instance -- in my case -- PetroCan, that was just charged right back to the agent because he hadn't made sure that the number was correct. So I wonder why we're redoing it.

Hon. G. Clark: I'm not absolutely certain. The amendment authorizes the establishment of a permit system for retailers who sell tax-exempt fuel products, similar to the existing system under the Tobacco Tax Act for retailers selling tax-exempt tobacco products.

I'm not exactly sure of the difference, except that we.... As you know, we have a growing problem in this area as a result of a court case. I'm not sure whether members or my colleague across the way are aware that the government of B.C. won the court case today on the question of tax-exempt fuel and tobacco. So we have brought in a series of amendments like this to help us tighten up to deal with the growing erosion of our revenue from sales on native reserves and from smuggling. In fact, many of these amendments may well be useful down the road, but at the moment the previous quota system is being reinstated as we speak because the Appeal Court of British Columbia has overturned the Supreme Court ruling which was resulting in significant erosion.

Many of these amendments that we've seen in other bills and this bill were an attempt to tighten up the regulatory structure to deal with some increasing problems we've been having. They may in fact not be as necessary today as they were yesterday; nevertheless it's worth going through and improving regulations. Again, this is part of a package that we've seen this session to try and deal with a growing problem.

Sections 7 to 9 inclusive approved.

On section 10.

F. Gingell: I am quite pleased to see this. I didn't appreciate that there was a problem with municipalities not paying the funds to the school boards for the taxes they have collected.

We note in (2) of 139(1) that the municipalities shall pay the interest that has been calculated to the Minister of Finance and Corporate Relations. Shouldn't they be paying that to the school board?

Hon. G. Clark: The reality is that we don't anticipate collecting any. This is a basic compliance provision which was requested by the UBCM and several municipalities. Almost all municipalities promptly remit their school taxes. There have just been a couple of problems, and it has resulted in a request for us to bring in this legislation. The Union of B.C. Municipalities and representative municipalities have reviewed this -- lots of consultation -- and they concur with this approach. This is not an attempt to collect any revenue; it's an attempt simply to stop a very small problem from growing.

F. Gingell: Recognizing that school boards do collect their property tax portion in one chunk and their provincial grants monthly -- or it may be quarterly now -- it is terribly important and all part of the financing of our schools that those funds are properly invested so that additional revenues, additional funds, can be earned to help pay for our school costs. If the municipality doesn't pay the money over to the school board on time, the school board is at a disadvantage, because if the money had been paid on time, they would be able to invest it for a period. It seems to me that it would be appropriate for any amount of interest earned to be paid over to the school.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't believe that's the case at all. Now that school boards do not have taxing authority, that is remitted to the provincial government. There isn't a penalty associated with it. If you were correct in your logic, I would agree with you -- if that was in fact the case. Any delay in paying has no impact on school boards; only on the provincial government. Then again, it's not a problem for us. Quite candidly, at the moment, there are very few examples, but the UBCM and other municipalities have asked us to bring this in to make sure the rules are the same for everybody.

[ Page 3136 ]

F. Gingell: I accept that, Mr. Minister. Everything's changed since I was a school trustee, and I find as days go by that everything keeps on changing, and the more it changes, the faster it changes. Thank you for that advice.

K. Jones: I'd like to refer to the next clause. It gives to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council -- in other words, the cabinet -- the ability to set the rate of interest. That means that it could be wide open for the cabinet to set whatever rate they wanted, even a punitive rate, against a municipality. That's one taxing body charging another taxing body on how my taxes should be collected. I object to that wide-open means of penalty. In fact, I even object to the whole principle of one level of government taxing another level of government. I think it's totally unacceptable for double taxation to be generated in the form of an interest charge. A collection of interest on anything from one tax level to another is not an acceptable way of doing government.

If there's a problem, deal with the problem. The problem with the community in the Kootenays where the mine wasn't paying the taxes to the municipality, and therefore the taxes weren't available to be given to the school district.... Is that the case that this was drawn upon? Surely that's not going to work out, because ultimately the mine didn't have the money either or wasn't in a position to provide the money, so the municipality was in no position to provide the money, so the taxpayers in that community were charged with extra taxation to this government in the province -- not to provide more services in that community, but just to be a penalty. To me that's philosophically wrong, let alone being wrong in principle. This whole concept should be scrapped.

I cannot understand why anybody in their right mind, knowing how democratic taxation is done, would bring in such a piece of legislation. Could the minister please give us a clear explanation of the philosophy behind this type of taxation?

The minister doesn't wish...?

The Chair: Hon. member, please address your comments through the chair.

[7:15]

K. Jones: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I find it very, very upsetting for the people of British Columbia that the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the financial operations of this government, is unprepared to respond to the basis under which he's taxing people. We have here a simple principle of taxation, and he's unprepared to stand up and say why he's doing it. Is it because he doesn't have an answer? He doesn't know why he's doing it? Perhaps he'd like to bring in some advisers to give him an idea of why this is being brought in. Is this Bob Williams's taxation principle being passed through the minister? What type of approach is this? We're not getting fair taxation, yet the minister sits there and refuses to give a response to a very simple question: what is the philosophy behind taxing and double-taxing the people of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Clark: It's extremely hard to deal with the member from Mars or wherever he's from; he's not from this planet. This has nothing to do with taxing. They remit the taxes to us; all municipalities do that. A few have been delinquent. The Union of B.C. Municipalities asked us to bring in compliance provisions to try to ensure that everybody complies. It is commonplace. We have compliance provisions in everything. I guess there were no compliance provisions with respect to the School Act when taxing authority was removed from school boards. There's no gouging; there's no attempt to do anything here. This is simply a provision to ensure that a couple of municipalities, which have already collected the taxes, in turn remit them to the provincial government. There are no extra taxes anywhere. I don't know what you're talking about.

J. Tyabji: I would like to know: if my municipality has been delinquent and ends up paying interest, which in effect is my taxation money going to interest just because they've been negligent, will there be publication in the case of a municipality? Will there be a list or publication in local newspapers of the amount of interest payments? I don't see anything in the bill about that.

Hon. G. Clark: That's a good question. No, there isn't any attempt to publicize it. To be candid, we don't anticipate any delinquent municipalities. There are virtually none now, but there have been a couple that either through neglect or to make a little interest income have not remitted on time. Once you bring in compliance provisions, the purpose is not to raise extra revenue at all; the purpose is simply for them to comply. Believe me, nowadays with the municipalities, which are under the same pressure that all governments are, I will assure you that when we bring this bill in, I'm almost positive that they will all remit promptly in order not to pay a penalty, so that they don't have to further penalize their own taxpayers. I'm sure that if they did have to pay a penalty, there would be vigilant people in the municipalities -- reporters and others -- who would question whether that was a good use of taxpayers' funds.

I'll take it under advisement whether there's any way of publicizing delinquent municipalities. There isn't in this act. It's probably not appropriate in this act, but maybe there is another mechanism we can use.

K. Jones: I find it very unusual that a minister stands up and says: "I don't anticipate ever using this law, but I'm going to put the law in the books just for the sake of it." I really don't have a problem with laws being generated when there's a need for them, but when we put laws in just for speculative matters, that is wrong legislation. That is not what government is intended for. We're already overgoverned by laws that are totally useless. This is what I call a useless law. Let's just take this thing into consideration and eliminate it. The minister has no reason for its being here, yet he still

[ Page 3137 ]

insists on bringing it forward. He's not prepared to take it out. Is that right?

He says that is correct. That's the type of government we've got here. We've got a government that loves to see laws just for the sake of creating laws. It's a system of power that they're after. They're not after giving good government; they're after power. They're power-happy as a government. This government should be ashamed of their attitude here.

The Chair: Order, please, hon. member. I would remind you that we should stick to relevancy on this section and reel it in just a bit.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, I really feel that what I was speaking to was very definitely relevant to this issue. It is definitely a reprehensible type of legislation that is unnecessary, even by the minister's own statement. We have one more example of the type of government we have here that doesn't care about anything but more power, more power and more power. It's the old socialist attitude of big government -- not democratic government, just big government.

The time has come when this government needs to withdraw this type of legislation. It seems that the minister is totally unprepared to do anything in that light. It's a typical socialist government, and we'll just have to continue to provide the warnings to the public: "This may be dangerous to your health; this will cost you more taxes; this will cost you the bureaucracy of creating a collection basis; this will cost you the printing of all of this...."

The Chair: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair is trying to allow latitude in this debate, but I would ask the member to reel it in and to stick definitely to just the section that's before us.

K. Jones: Hon. Chair, this section has to do with the cost of producing this section -- that's a cost to the taxpayers -- the maintenance of this section and the means of collecting that. It's all relative to this section. Very definitely.

Section 10 approved.

On section 11.

F. Gingell: I just wanted to ask a couple of quick questions on section 11. Was it not clear before this that goods brought into the province to be repaired or worked on and then returned out of the province were tax-exempt? Has there been some kind of problem with it?

Hon. G. Clark: Perhaps I could just give you the benefit of some explanation on the section. The existing definition of the term "use" lends itself to broad interpretation that tangible personal property purchased in the province or brought into the province for use is not subject to the tax if it is later removed from the province. Also, the existing definition of "promotional distribution" is restricted to taxing persons who distributed promotional material within the province.

Several court petitions have been filed for recovery of about $3 million in tax paid on materials purchased by British Columbia businesses for promotional purposes and later mailed to recipients outside the province. So this is a $3 million amendment. The appellants argued that such promotional materials are not subject to the tax, because the existing definition applies to tax only on promotional materials distributed in the province and excludes from tax the storing or retaining of property for use outside the province.

If the court adopts a broad interpretation of the definition, the province would be able to impose the tax only on goods purchased and used exclusively in the province and goods brought into the province for temporary use. Goods purchased and used in the province and later permanently removed from the province for use elsewhere would not be subject to the tax. Revenue losses to the province would be in the tens of millions of dollars if we lose this court case. Therefore we are amending it while it is in court.

F. Gingell: This sounds to me as though the province is trying to tax property that is used outside the province. Surely if we have printed a whole bunch of pamphlets and mailed them to people in Alberta, they haven't been used until they've gotten to Alberta and been read by the persons to whom they were addressed. It seems obvious to me that that is not an appropriate tax. We are impinging upon the rights of Albertans.

What concerns me more is that as people get lazier and our lives change, there is a really large growth in catalogue shopping. I have found that there are now in Canada, out of Scarborough, Ontario, two companies that send us catalogues with really very good-quality goods in them. I can see this as a growing business. I take it that if such a business were to establish in British Columbia, get their catalogues printed -- which could cost them many hundreds of thousands of dollars -- and mail those catalogues out across the rest of Canada in the way the people in Scarborough do, the province would now insist on being paid tax on the value of the catalogues that go outside the province as well as those that go inside. If I were thinking of setting up such a business -- and it is a growing business -- British Columbia is the last place I would come to set that business up. I'd like the minister to give some thought to that particular example.

Hon. G. Clark: I don't believe that is correct. It is true that if you purchase promotional material in British Columbia, you pay the sales tax. The current rule says that if you mail half of that promotional material outside of the province, you should be able to get a refund on the sales tax. That's the sort of current court case. In terms of simplicity, it is true that we would be taxing people who received that promotional material outside the province, but it is purchased in the province.

It is true, you may argue, that in a way we're penalizing Albertans. The problem is that in terms of

[ Page 3138 ]

the mechanics it's quite complex. If you're purchasing promotional materials here and you have to divide up how much you're sending outside the province, how much is inside the province and then attempt to collect a refund on it, that will result in tens of millions of dollars in revenue lost to the province. If you are opposed to that, I suggest you vote against this section of the bill. I understand that and I can understand your logic.

What we're doing here is bringing into law the current practice in British Columbia. But it is challenged in court. There is a sense from our lawyers, in reviewing it, that we may well lose, and so this is to clarify the original definition as it was applied in British Columbia -- as we thought it applied. It will retain millions of dollars for the province. I understand the logic that you're using, and I think if you follow that through you may want to vote against this section. We're not prepared to jeopardize tens of millions of dollars in this regard, because we'd simply have to raise the revenue somewhere else.

F. Gingell: When I mentioned the Albertans, I didn't mean the individuals. I was talking, of course, about the province taxing the value of a good that is consumed within that province. Right now, if you're in business in British Columbia and you have calendars printed -- as an example, because that is something that does happen quite a bit -- in Alberta, Manitoba or Saskatchewan, and bring them into the province, you are required to pay the social services tax on the cost of those goods. That's what happens now, and your auditors go around looking for those kinds of things and find quite a few of them.

What really concerns me is not that we're going to lose the tens of millions of dollars of social service tax by not bringing this in; I'm afraid that we might lose it by bringing it in. I'm not suggesting in any way that the province should not collect social service tax on tangible goods consumed within this province. That is clearly the intent of the Social Service Tax Act. This is an important revenue stream for the province, and we should protect it. It's very important. But we should not insist on a British Columbia sales tax on goods that move out of the province just because the business organization that is sending them out happens to reside in the province. That doesn't seem right. If a business in Alberta or some other province buys goods from a British Columbia company and the goods are delivered to them outside the province, they're not subject to a tax. I really do believe, as I said earlier, that it was the old Sears Roebuck and Eaton's that developed catalogue shopping years ago, and it tended to die down, but in recent years it is really coming back again. I'd hate to see a provision in the Social Service Tax Act that will cause people to have the warehouses and the sales offices and the administration of such a business outside the province of British Columbia because they will be subject to an additional cost if they operate within the province.

[7:30]

Hon. G. Clark: I tend to agree with you. If in fact this amendment has the consequences that you're suggesting, clearly we'll have to review that. My staff say that's not the case, that that's not what is intended by this section. It could perhaps be an unintended consequence. So we'll review it after we have it in place and deal with that court case. If it does have that consequence, then obviously that can make an excellent case that we'll in fact lose more revenue by doing this than by not doing it. But that's certainly not the advice I'm receiving. I'll undertake to review it again.

K. Jones: I'm very surprised to hear the Minister of Finance saying that we'll put through legislation now and take the cost of a court case so that we can prove whether it's going to be good legislation or not. This seems to be a waste of the taxpayers' money. We have good staff to research these things. Why shouldn't this be taken out of here at this point to be researched properly and brought back? Let's not waste the taxpayers' money on this type of legislation. This is a waste of money.

The Chair: Please, hon. member, we are on section 11, committee stage. Second reading has been passed. I would ask that you keep any questions strictly to section 11.

K. Jones: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My reference was specifically to section 11, and the minister's reference was to section 11. He wasn't talking about the rest of the bill; he was talking about that one section in response to the member for South Delta. It is totally relating to this question, and I hoped that we would have recognized that fact.

Sections 11 and 12 approved.

On section 13.

F. Gingell: This is quite a major change to the act. I can appreciate and understand why the government feels that they have to do something to try and avoid the loss of revenues this sometimes results when people buy the materials, pay the tax on them and then have them fabricated by a third party in the province on which no tax will be charged. They avoid paying the amount of tax that would have been paid if they had bought the original total package. I understand that there have been some tax cases on this. I'm wondering if you would just advise us of the kind of money that is involved in this.

Hon. G. Clark: The main tax case that spawned this loophole was the 1984 Burrard Yarrows Court of Appeal decision. Burrard Yarrows entered into an agreement with Norsk Pacific Steamships to manufacture six steel barges to a total cost of $3.4 million, for which they should have paid sales tax. Burrard Yarrows, however, acted as an agent for Norsk on the purchase of $1.65 million worth of material to build the barge, and Norsk entered into a separate agreement to build it. They were only required to pay tax on the

[ Page 3139 ]

material rather than the actual barge as it was completed. The decision was completely contrary to the act. Artificially structured agency agreements are being used increasingly by large businesses to avoid paying tax on the full cost of custom-built machinery. It's actually quite clever. They buy the material, enter into a separate contract to build the thing, and then they only pay the tax on the material but not on the built product.

We estimate our revenue loss at $3 million to $4million annually, but it's increasing fairly significantly. Again, it's something that's only really available to very large companies. If you're buying equipment from a company, you have to structure it so that you buy the material and enter into a separate contract to build the equipment. Then you only pay the tax on the first part. It would only make sense and be worthwhile if it's a very large contract and you could split it into two pieces.

If an amendment is not made -- and such contracts are now starting to be accepted as standard business practice -- it would result in a reduction of tax payable on many other items manufactured in the province, and the revenue would be forgone. We think it will reach about $20 million annually if we don't close this loophole.

You're right that it is a significant change, but it's not a significant change for the average person. It deals with a loophole that only large corporations can take advantage of.

F. Gingell: Moving on, I understand that paragraph 3 is designed to stop a long-established practice that has been done by car dealers relative to subsequent work done like rustproofing and Scotchgarding of automobiles, basically entered into at the time the car is purchased. They have it done separately, and they avoid the tax. I understand that this practice by car dealers has been going on for quite a long time. I was wondering if the minister could advise us why this problem wasn't solved by the previous administration.

Hon. G. Clark: That's a very good question. I'm going to resist the temptation to say that they were all car dealers. I was surprised to learn that we had a few more car dealers among the new members elected for Social Credit.

Clearly the real answer is that as the session got to the end, as we were at this stage, the previous government was reluctant to move these kind of bills forward. We may rethink this view now that we've been in office as well. The reality is that this a significant erosion of revenue. The previous government -- I don't mean this in a partisan way -- was desperate to get out of the House. They didn't want to clutter up the legislative calendar with this kind of bill. I really think, to be candid, that that's the reason. Often they would let bills die on the order paper. We have no intention of doing that.

F. Gingell: I just rise to assure the minister that he's got lots of time. He can bring in as many bills as he likes.

R. Neufeld: Getting into the record as I understand it, how the House used to collapse was that the government, then the opposition, let almost anything through so they could get out of the House. I just wanted to get that on the record.

J. Tyabji: I just want to back up a little bit. The member for Delta South and the minister were talking about the tax on services related to purchase. I'm concerned that it says "from another person" -- we're talking about a purchaser and a person. The minister has said that this is primarily to catch large corporations and businesses. The way this reads says "enters into a contract," which could be a verbal agreement. It seems to me that there could be a lot of interpersonal.... Your neighbour decides to fix up your car for you. I don't know to what extent you wouldn't have.... Is there the potential that we could see a provincial GST, a services tax? It isn't specified as anything other than person and purchaser.

Hon. G. Clark: I can assure you that that's not the case. The reason is precisely the one your colleague mentioned. We do have a problem with car dealers and rustproofing and the like. What happens is that you buy a car. Next you'll be buying the car without paint on it. Then they'll go and paint it so they don't have to pay tax on that component. That is essentially what rustproofing does. You buy a car that's rustproofed by a dealer, but what they're doing is structuring the contract so it looks like you're buying it without rustproofing. They add the rustproofing on a separate contract so you don't pay tax on it. That's become common practice.

That's the erosion that amounts to millions of dollars at the end of the day. To be candid, that is a very small amount relative to the major purchases, which is the principal problem we're dealing with here, but we did want to deal with it at the same time. There's no intention at all to expand the sales tax base in services, other than legal services, which we did this session. This is not an attempt to do that at all. This is really an attempt to deal with a much bigger problem as a result of some court cases.

J. Tyabji: Could the minister explain why it does read "purchaser and person," rather than "incorporated body" or "business?" The way it is worded here, we're talking about persons or agents of purchasers. It really doesn't go into anything that specifies anything to do with a business.

Hon. G. Clark: The purchaser or persons, meaning persons purchasing from a car dealer or from another person.... That's just an attempt to make it consistent with the existing Social Service Tax Act and to avoid loopholes, to avoid a tax leakage. It's not a nefarious plot; it's exactly consistent with the rest of the act. You have to have a definition that's consistent throughout the act.

[7:45]

N. Lortie: One small question that keeps going through my mind: what happens if I purchase a car

[ Page 3140 ]

today and then go back and get this rustproofing and a paint job within a week or so? Do I avoid paying those taxes?

Hon. G. Clark: An excellent question. In fact, you do. If that became a common practice, I'm sure we'd have to revisit it. Again, the principal purpose of this is major purchases as well as some other tax avoidance schemes that we see developed by dealers. I think that would be unlikely to take place. But you're right. I hesitate to say that you're right, in the chamber here, because it may give ideas to members purchasing.... Or even worse, it may give ideas to Social Credit members who are car dealers. I'll leave it at that.

F. Gingell: I was under the impression that there was a 48-hour period; that if it's more than 48 hours, you don't pay the tax. I'd like to suggest to my very good friend from Delta North that when he needs tax advice, he knows where to come for it.

C. Tanner: I have another suggestion as to why this legislation is here now, and that's because we've got a green Minister of Finance and a very experienced department that has been trying for years to push this junk through, and finally found a live one. That's why we've got it, Mr. Chairman.

Seriously, I have a problem with legislation like this. It makes the life of a poor businessman so difficult because he has to hire an accountant to go through this stuff, which is not a good idea because they're mostly parasites anyway, you know -- along with lawyers.

Interjections.

The Chair: Order!

C. Tanner: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I got carried away.

All the frivolity apart, what is confusing is that this doesn't make it easier for anybody to understand. When you throw this into the legislation that already exists, it's very convoluted. I know that you're trying to write plain-language legislation, but did the minister give any thought to rewriting the act when he did this, to put this in some sort of sequence so that it flows all the way through? Having had a quick look at the act and having a look at this, it doesn't seem to fit very well.

Hon. G. Clark: I think it has been announced, but if it hasn't, I hope I'm not breaking new ground. We're going to review all of the statutes under the Statute Revision Act and put them into plain language. Speaking of green ministers, members of my staff have suggested we rewrite it, and I've been resisting it, in part, because I want to make sure that it's not just an expensive and lengthy make-work project, to be candid. We are going to be reviewing all of the legislation for plain and gender-neutral language and the like, and that is a big process. The last time it was done, I believe, was fairly early in the Bennett administration. It's worthwhile to do it fairly regularly. It's true of all the legislation, and this one is no different.

In fact, I think you're right. I think this one is probably worse, because every year we bring in these amendments -- the previous government did the same thing, and I'm sure we'll do the same thing -- and they're basically closing loopholes as a result of court cases or trying to close loopholes before they win court cases. That makes the bill extremely convoluted at the end of the day. I think that's a very fair comment, and we are reviewing it; but I'm not sure if this one in particular has a separate review in my ministry.

K. Jones: This section of the act reminds me of a new service tax. Is the minister attempting to harmonize with the federal GST through the back door? Could you answer that?

Hon. G. Clark: I answered that. The answer is no.

K. Jones: This tax is not exactly.... The minister has implied that it was for one particular situation. It's an all-encompassing situation that will cover many different forms of services. He's talking about services to cars. It could be services to anything else under this legislation, the way it's worded.

This is not the way to bring in, under a basically miscellaneous bill, the essence of a complete new taxation system that the government is trying to slip by us in the late hours of this session. This is really a matter of preparing us for the harmonization of taxation. The minister did indicate he was going to make the collections at the border. It looks like he's going to be making that harmonization, even though the minister, when he was asked about collections at the border, said that he was restricting it to liquor and cigarettes.

This is definitely harmonization. It's a form by which they can utilize this nice little loophole to hit just about anything.

Section 13 approved.

The Chair: Shall section 14 pass? Aye!

Shall section 14 pass? So ordered.

Section 14 approved.

C. Tanner: Point of order. It's the custom in this House, Mr. Chairman, for the Chairman not to say "aye." It's us guys out here that say "aye."

The Chair: That is why I asked the question the second time, hon. member. The point is well taken.

On section 15.

F. Gingell: I think that it's worthwhile recording that many of us had concerns with section 2, which dealt with the Hotel Room Tax Act. We have the same concerns, I think, in dealing with this, which is a similar provision in the Social Service Tax Act. I sincerely hope that it isn't used to get at property which is clearly not intended. I can appreciate the desire of the minister to

[ Page 3141 ]

look into cases where there has clearly been fraud, and I thoroughly agree with that. I think I could sit here all evening -- I promise you I won't -- and come up with examples that would be real and genuine yet caught under this section of the act.

During my years in practice, I can assure you that I found that provincial tax assessors and collectors do their job as thoroughly as they possibly can and try to use every possible means to look after the interests of the province. I have a feeling that this particular section may be one that they will be using in the future should they come to court cases where perhaps the minister is involved in a decision about whether Her Majesty in right of the province will proceed. He will remember that we were concerned about stopping fraud, not about stopping perfectly reasonable business arrangements where people, through no fault of their own or just through the conditions of the business environment, have had to declare bankruptcy.

K. Jones: This section once again is a typical tax grab by this socialist government to try and be all-encompassing. It's like a seine net being used when a trawl line should have been used to deal with a specific problem. The minister is reaching out to grab every bit of taxation he can, using whatever means he can. This government is totally incapable of managing the people's money. They're just spending it willy-nilly, and all they need is to keep grabbing the tax money so they can keep pouring it into their programs which show no attempt to create efficiency in them or anything else. They're just grabbing tax money from the people.

The people are sick to death of this government trying to grab taxes from all of us. It's about time that the government treated the people the way they should be treating them. Taxation should only be there when it's absolutely necessary. This government does not seem to have that approach to it. They seem to be just throwing a wide net out and grabbing everything they can from whatever vehicle they can, regardless of the ability of the people of British Columbia to pay for it. Our economy is going to be going down the tube because there won't be any money around to circulate in our economy.

Sections 15 to 18 inclusive approved.

On section 19.

F. Gingell: I need to just read what my notes say. Mr. Chairman, could we ask the minister what his notes say?

Hon. G. Clark: This amendment establishes that a person who contravenes the requirements to collect tax on the purchase price of services related to a purchase, as established under section 2.02 of the act, commits an offence against the act. All it is is a current provision.

Section 19 approved. On section 20.

F. Gingell: Is section 20 the one that deals with the diplomatic corps? Thank you.

Section 20 approved.

On section 21.

F. Gingell: I was most interested in the minister's remarks earlier this evening with respect to the court decision that concerns this particular matter, which you were going to try and solve. I understand it's a difficult subject. Perhaps you could fill us in a little more on the result of the court case.

Hon. G. Clark: It's not quite on topic, but I can fill you in.

As you know, there was a quota system with respect to tax-free alcohol and cigarettes on native reserves, and that quota system was struck down. I think it was 1,000 cartons per dealer. That was struck down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia in July of '91. As a result of that, the loss in revenue to the government went from about $250,000 a month to $3.9 million a month -- a dramatic escalation of sales of tax-free alcohol and cigarettes.

The government of the day appealed the court decision. We have just been successful, so we are reinstituting the quota system for sellers of tax-free alcohol and cigarettes. Again, I don't know what.... It just happened today. We'll be reinstituting it. Obviously that should stem the tax loss quite dramatically.

In the absence of a quota, you simply have to devise another mechanism to monitor the situation. We've been doing that through this and the tobacco tax act, which is going to a committee. In some jurisdictions, for example, they require the cigarette companies to label "tax free" right on the cigarette package or the carton. That simple thing has dramatic consequences, because the real leakage of tax revenue is wholesale selling to small grocery stores, gas stations or the like, and you can't track them. If you have a label on the cigarette package or the carton, you can track them.

We're not completely on the point here, but what we are doing here is quite correct. In anticipation of losing this court case, we were tightening up the regulations with respect to sales of tax-free tobacco and alcohol. I must tell you that it may well not be required now, because we have won the court case. Nevertheless, these are probably prudent amendments in the event we have some problems down the road.

F. Gingell: I was just going to ask, and I guess I'm out of spot. What you were planning on doing was using the new section 30(i) for this process.

[8:00]

Section 21 approved. On section 22.

C. Tanner: My notes say that the only reason that this is here.... The permit for the retailer and the

[ Page 3142 ]

wholesaler is not going to cost anything, but it provides the government with more enforcement and enhances their ability to enforce.

I wonder if the minister is aware of how the sale of tobacco works, for the sake of argument, in the city of Victoria. There isn't a retailer in town who could get cigarettes directly from a manufacturer. The only place they can get them from is a wholesaler. They might go and pick them up from a wholesaler or the wholesaler might deliver them; both methods happen in town right now. Consequently, there is no need that I can see for the government to go to the trouble, or for the retailer to be troubled by having a permit. It's not accomplishing anything that I can see, unless you want to enforce something else that isn't apparent in this act.

Hon. G. Clark: Persons who make retail sales of tobacco products must have either a permit or an authorization. Retailers who purchase their inventory tax-exempt and who therefore must file tax returns -- for example, native Indians -- will be issued a permit. However, most tobacco retailers prepay the tax to their wholesaler and therefore are not required to file returns. These retailers are currently registered under the Social Service Tax Act and do not have a separate tobacco dealer's permit. These retailers will be authorized under the regulations to sell at retail.

It's another attempt to clarify and clean up the regulations and the governance of the sale of tobacco in the province. Appreciate that we're not trying to throw any more regulatory hurdles. It's really just trying to clean it up.

Today's ruling makes a difference. I don't mean to apologize for that, because a lot of work has been done on this across the country. This is a serious problem which, as you know, is partly responsible for the Mohawk problem -- a very serious problem in Ontario. We've been working very hard, and I've instructed my staff to work very hard, to try to deal with this problem now before we have a serious problem in British Columbia. Some might argue that it is already serious, but it has the potential to be very serious. We want to try to deal with it as quickly and as prudently as we can.

C. Tanner: I appreciate what the minister is saying, and I would assist him in any way I could in doing that, but it's unfair to the rest of the retailers, what's happening when they're being sold without the tax being collected. What I thought I heard the minister say when he read his notes is exactly what I said: that the vast majority of cigarettes that are retailed are initially retailed through a wholesaler. Consequently, you don't have to go after those retailers to ask them for a permit. The only ones the minister mentioned from his notes are those people who haven't got a permit and are buying tax-free.

Hon. G. Clark: I think the reason is that we're trying to have some consistency in the law and not simply design a separate regime just for native Indians or for others who might sell in that regard. We're trying to make it consistent across the board in terms of providing licences for everybody. There's no cost to those licensees. It shouldn't require anything, but it's a way of us tracking better all the tobacco sales in the province.

I don't know what's going to come out of the parliamentary committee on this very question, but I suspect we will find tougher rules governing the sale of tobacco in the province, if the all-party committee comes up with regulations in that regard. These kinds of amendments are in anticipation, I think, of tougher rules governing the sale of tobacco and alcohol.

The permit fixes one problem but also is part of a broader package which we may or may not implement, depending on what members of your party and all members of the House do in public consultation, including with retailers -- most importantly, perhaps, in some respects. We're embarking upon a major review of this question of the sale of tobacco, and this is in anticipation of some potential changes. There is no cost and should be no inconvenience to those who are genuinely doing business.

C. Tanner: I have one last comment on this. We don't need to flog it to death. My concern is for the hundreds of retailers who are going to be asked by government inspectors -- or government in some form or other -- to fill in more forms. They detest them, they're suspicious, and they don't need it, quite frankly. There are enough things to be looking after already. There is a lot of bureaucracy. There's a consequence, particularly after what the minister said. I don't know whether this is possible, but could he possibly bring this act into force and not proclaim section 4.1 until we've been through the committee stage in the summer or whenever we go through the committee?

Hon. G. Clark: It's possible, but I want it to be clear that there are other problems. I appreciate that you said that you can only buy from a wholesaler, but it's clear that a significant number of cigarettes are being sold off-reserve to retailers: small corner stores, gas stations and the like. That is not proper, and there is no way of tracking that.

The other argument for tobacco sales permits for all retailers is so that we can track exactly how many cigarettes are supposed to be on the premises and are supposed to be purchased. We do have a clear leakage, and that's why the sale of cigarettes off reserves is now costing us $3.9 million per month in tax loss as opposed to $250,000 per month just a few months ago.

C. Tanner: I was quite happy until the minister got up the last time. Now he's really frightened me. Are you saying that when you've got the permits here -- no cost -- you want a reckoning on certain periods of time from every retailer?

Hon. G. Clark: No, I'm just saying that it's a way of tracking who's selling cigarettes in the province across the board, with native and non-native wholesalers and retailers, and this is part of the government structure. You said it was no problem, and you made the point that you can't buy cigarettes except from a

[ Page 3143 ]

licensed wholesaler. I'm suggesting to you that that is not always taking place. This is just a very modest change, but we have made other changes to tighten it up.

We do have a parliamentary committee reviewing not really this question, but the sale of tobacco generally. So a permit system is one which we felt was not onerous on retailers. If the parliamentary committee desires to toughen up regulations governing the sale of tobacco, it may result in some enhancement of the regulatory structure in that regard. We're not doing any groundbreaking here. This is something that exists in other provinces, I understand.

J. Tyabji: Further to the minister's comments then, if one of the main problems in terms of tracking the sales is potentially the sale from a native base to a retail outlet, wouldn't it make more sense to attack it from that end, rather than permitting everyone outside when the majority of the people on the outside wouldn't be participating?

Also, I wonder what the potential loss is in government revenue as opposed to the number of people who would have to be hired to administer the program. It seems like that would be a heck of a lot of paperwork if you had to permit everybody in the province who was selling cigarettes.

Hon. G. Clark: We don't anticipate any problems at all. This is a very simple administrative structure, and at this point we're trying to move fairly cautiously and conservatively with respect to imposing new regulations. But we do have a very serious problem on our hands. And we have another problem -- a health problem -- which the committee will be looking at this summer and fall. So we're trying to bring in a government structure consistent with other provinces. We're not anticipating this to have any increased staff costs, though.

C. Tanner: I have one last question, because I still am not entirely convinced by what the minister says. I want a promise from the minister. When this legislation goes through and is proclaimed, if I can bring a case to prove to the minister that there's more happening at the retail level than what he's saying here.... In other words, if I can find an illustration of where bureaucracy is starting to pester the retailer because of these permits, will the minister give me an undertaking that he will withdraw that piece of legislation?

Hon. G. Clark: I won't do that, but I'll give you an undertaking that I'll certainly review it, because that's not the intent.

K. Jones: I have just one further question with regard to this area. Could the minister explain why it is necessary to have a permit? Why couldn't the minister just have a verification check of purchase orders to determine whether people have purchased them through the legitimate process or whether they have stock in hand that is not accountable, due to the fact that it was purchased through cash or in some other illicit manner? Wouldn't that be much simpler?

Hon. G. Clark: Perhaps, but I'm sure it would frighten the member from Saanich significantly more than what we're talking about here.

Sections 22 to 34 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 69, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: I call second reading of Bill 73.

REVENUE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. G. Clark: Bill 73 responds to the federal government's offer of February 12, 1992, to collect provincial tobacco taxes and alcohol markups at international border points. The bill authorizes the provincial government to enter into agreements with the federal government to collect provincial tobacco taxes and alcohol markups at the border on personal importations, and authorizes federal customs officials to collect the levies on the province's behalf. In both cases, the collection of these taxes and levies will be on a cost-recovery basis. We will pay the federal government for their services to collect this tax.

Negotiations regarding federal cost-recovery charges and federal-provincial agreements to address a number of administrative issues are required before the federal government will begin collecting the provincial levies. In addition, Canada Customs requires time to upgrade existing computer systems and train customs officials. As a result, the collection of the levies will be between three and six months following the introduction of the bill. I'd like to emphasize that provincial levies will only be payable on personal importations of alcohol and tobacco in excess of the federal government's established personal exemptions limits. Your bottle is still safe if you're down for 48 hours. The government recognizes that British Columbians shop across the border for many reasons. The collection of these levies will not stop British Columbians from cross-border shopping. However, British Columbians who purchase these products in British Columbia contribute to funding the many important social programs which benefit all British Columbians. This initiative will ensure that those who purchase these products across the border

[ Page 3144 ]

will also contribute to funding the programs that they enjoy here in British Columbia.

[8:15]

All other provincial governments have expressed interest in pursuing the federal offer to collect these levies at the border, and two provinces to date -- Manitoba and New Brunswick -- have introduced and passed similar legislation. It's my understanding, talking to finance ministers, that every province in Canada will soon follow suit.

I now move second reading.

F. Gingell: The Liberal caucus basically supports this bill. We don't have any problem with it. But this is an opportunity for me to speak on the question of cross-border shopping, something that is discussed at some length in this House and something that is of great concern to us.

I would bring to people's attention a research report recently completed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, based on a complete cross-Canada survey. There was a great deal of response to it. This report points out to us where the people who are on the front lines of cross-border shopping -- you can appreciate that they're the ones close to the border -- believe the problems are and where the solutions may well lie. I call upon both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Development to read this report and to work diligently and expeditiously to find solutions to the cross-border shopping problem.

It is not only the loss of retail sales; it is not only the loss of sales taxes that would be collected on those goods; it is not only the income taxes that the province would collect from more employment in the retail trade. It will also bring more employment to the province and reduce our needs for unemployment insurance and other forms of income support. It really is a problem that this government must concentrate on. With those few words, I will take my seat and support this legislation.

J. Weisgerber: We in the Social Credit caucus also support the bill and its intent. The only concern I would have is that the tax be set at a level that wouldn't in itself encourage consumers to go to the United States and purchase large volumes of either alcohol or cigarettes for their consumption. I'm not certain, from the brief comments by the minister, whether the federal government will set the tax rate or.... He indicates that the province will. Then I would encourage him to ensure that the tax rate is such that if you were to go to the United States and buy a case of whiskey, there would be no significant advantage in doing that other than to bring back the one tax-free bottle. I believe the same principle should apply to tobacco as well as alcohol.

With those few concerns it's our intent to support the legislation as it has been tabled.

B. Copping: I ask leave to make in introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Copping: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House a longtime family friend, Kay Piaggio, who represents three generations of family friends. It's the occasion of her eightieth birthday. She's here to spend the night with me along with her daughter Norma Popescul. Would the House please make her welcome.

C. Tanner: I'd like to comment on one section of the act. I know we're talking on principle, but I think it goes to the principle of the act, too.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, with the greatest of respect if you could just speak without making reference to sections, we may be able to accommodate you.

C. Tanner: I thank you for your advice, Mr. Speaker.

There is an area in this act that refers to the powers of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which are very far-reaching and very wide. That sort of discretion, giving carte blanche to any government, is always disturbing. They should always be serving the Legislature. I don't like to see things like that in any act, and it appears in this act. It's the first one I've seen since we've been in session. I'd ask the minister, when he gets to that area, whether he would be prepared to consider erasing or modifying it in some respect.

Deputy Speaker: The minister on second reading of the bill.

There being no further debaters, I call second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 73, Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

REVENUE STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

The House in committee on Bill 73; M. Farnworth in the chair.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

F. Gingell: I hope the minister can answer my questions. The way I understand this is that when you arrive at the border, if the amount of liquor you have with you is within the duty-free amount, there will not be any charge, but if it's greater than the duty-free amount it will be seized from you, and you will then have to purchase it for the amount of the liquor control board markup.

Has the minister realized that he's going to have to publish a list of all the liquor control board markups? Is he prepared to do that? You've really got to have a situation where somebody going to the United States or on an airplane bringing liquor back needs to know how

[ Page 3145 ]

much the tax will be. As the amount of tax isn't some percentage calculation but is the amount of the markup that the province takes on each particular brand and size, there's going to be a fairly substantial listing of these amounts. I wonder how you plan on handling all that?

Hon. G. Clark: That's correct. It is complex, actually. They have to collect the GST now. Federal customs officials collect the GST now. So what we're doing with the federal government -- this is why it takes a few months -- is doing a computer listing of them all. We can plug in the markups at our end at any given time. So if markups increase, they are simply electronically transferred to the border, so the people at the border will also be collecting the provincial markup as they collect the GST. I agree with you that this is not a simple matter, because the markups vary quite significantly. That's why the federal government originally said no, and that's why the federal government now is saying it takes three to six months to administer it, to train the staff, etc. I appreciate that it's complex. The real purpose for doing this, of course, is not really to collect revenue but to discourage cross-border shopping.

F. Gingell: When we get to section 8(1)(4), I understand that the general manager is going to be in a position to make decisions on a day-to-day basis as to what is reasonable for someone to import liquor for personal use. I'm sure there is a great deal of variance in that, I guess, depending on the colour of your nose. I just wondered whether the minister has got into a discussion about what kind of ground rules may be brought into place for this.

Hon. G. Clark: You're right, we have not established it yet. New Brunswick has set a limit of 45 litres, which seems like a fair amount for personal consumption. I believe that's liquor, yes. We have to negotiate the amount with the federal government. That's why this is permissive legislation.

K. Jones: I'd like to ask the minister whether the markup price will also reflect the sale price that occurs from time to time in liquor pricing in the liquor distribution centres.

Hon. G. Clark: No.

J. Tyabji: Out of curiosity, in the event of someone not surrendering the liquor at the border, and it coming to light afterwards that there was some that.... Maybe the person isn't aware of the legislation. Would there be some kind of retroactive taxation? How is that going to be dealt with? In addition to that, how is this going to be publicized? As you say, it's not intended to produce revenue so much as it is to curb cross-border shopping, so is there going to be some kind of campaign to make sure that people are aware of this? Otherwise, I can just imagine what kind of backlog you'll have at the border.

Hon. G. Clark: Well, remember that people have to pay the GST now, so when they go to pay the GST, they, if they don't know, will discover that they have to pay the markup as well. If they don't pay the GST or the markup, the same rules apply as apply to anybody who smuggles products and is subsequently caught. There are very serious consequences to that, although I'm not sure very many people are caught once they make it through the border, in any event. We'll be relying on the federal government's current practice and current regulatory mechanisms to deal with those questions, but I take your point about it being publicized. Obviously it was on the front page of the paper so some people know. But perhaps they could do more to publicize it.

K. Jones: This is an area of definite concern to many of my constituents, since we have the two major border crossings occurring right on the southern boundary of our riding. A lot of people go over there to have a visit and pick up a six-pack of beer on their way back to bring back. You're going to force them to go into the centre each time.

Hon. G. Clark: They have to do that now -- to pay the GST.

K. Jones: If it's a six-pack, they are not being stopped; they are just being waved on through in most cases. It's not worth their while to enforce that. You now think that this is going to change the situation? The federal government is permitting this to occur today. Do you think they're going to change? It looks like this legislation allows them to choose who they're going to select for calling in for payment of these fees. Is that the way you understand it?

[8:30]

Hon. G. Clark: The same rules apply. The same people are collecting. There's no change in current policy; they're just going to collect our tax.

Sections 2 to 8 inclusive approved.

On section 9.

C. Tanner: This concerns me. I suspect it might be because the government wants to make an agreement with the federal government. If there was some limitation as to that agreement, I wouldn't have any trouble. But as it reads now, I suppose by saying it's section 30.1, it cannot do anything beyond that with the agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Clark: That's correct. I also want to remind members that regulations have to be published -- just to give you some comfort. Remember also that I will make the agreement with the federal government public. We won't be making regulations beyond that which is encompassed by the agreement with the federal government.

Sections 9 and 10 approved.

[ Page 3146 ]

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The House resumed; E. Barnes in the chair.

Bill 73, Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 1992, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I call second reading of Bill 78.

FOREST AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1992

Hon. D. Miller: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

Hon. Speaker, Bill 78 amends the Forest Act and enables the Ministry of Forests to take interim administrative measures to deal with forest management isues arising from the establishment of study areas under the protected areas strategy. The bill enables cabinet to specify Crown land as a study area up to the year 2001. This will enable the Ministry of Forests to take interim measures to protect conservation values while government makes its decisions under the protected area strategy. A decision to specify an area will be made on a case-by-case basis. Where it is apparent that an interim management strategy is required for a study area, an interagency committee for the protected area strategy will develop management options for cabinet. Cabinet will specify a study area as being subject to this legislation only if it is satisfied that areas must be specified to protect a study area or to ensure proper stewardship of surrounding areas.

Once an area has been specified by cabinet, Bill 78 gives the Ministry of Forests the ability to take temporary measures respecting Forest Act agreements, licences or plans that relate to a study area. These powers include the ability to temporarily vary, suspend or refuse to issue or approve various Forest Act agreements or plans, attach conditions to Forest Act agreements to protect the environment and reduce the allowable annual cut of licences issued under the Forest Act if necessary to protect the forest resource surrounding a study area. These temporary measures will expire once the final designation of a study area is made.

Bill 78 also permits the Ministry of Forests to return temporary reductions in allowable annual cut to an affected tenure-holder if all or part of a study area is not designated as a protected area. The current Forest Act does not have this provision. Hon. Speaker, I move second reading.

W. Hurd: It's a privilege to rise in the House to debate Bill 78 in second reading. I must say that the opposition has had a chance to thoroughly review this bill and is very concerned and alarmed about some of the clauses it contains and the powers it grants to the Minister of Forests. I can honestly say that the opposition is opposed to the bill.

I find it rather significant that in the last two days we had a delegation from Williams Lake -- a job protection committee -- come down to speak to the Liberal caucus. This type of legislation and the kind of uncertainty it adds to their life in a place like Williams Lake is the reason that those on this side of the House have to speak against and oppose this particular bill.

It's an example of a government that's looking to avoid making meaningful decisions. It's the type of legislation that destabilizes the industry, which is dependent upon the resource and the trees to sustain jobs, communities and economic activity. It seems to fly in the face of the kind of legislation this government has brought forward during this session as it relates to environment and land use. They brought issues forward to establish the Commission on Resources and the Environment, which was supposedly a consensus-building model. It was going to involve communities in decisions about their well-being and their livelihood. Yet we're dealing with a bill very late in the session without proper and adequate consultation with the people involved. It's a bill that will discourage investment in the industry, because it gives the ministry the power to designate a study area and reduce the annual allowable cut.

Of even greater concern is the fact that we're already seeing investment dry up in the forest industry in this province. There's already enough uncertainty out there with the study areas that have been designated by the Ministry of Environment. It's gotten to the point now where major integrated companies, as a result of losses that have been sustained and the uncertainty about their annual allowable cuts, are simply freezing investment in this province. The opposition sees nothing in this bill that would encourage a forest company to invest money in this province based on secure access to timber.

We're troubled that we have a government and a ministry that, despite its concern over the resource and inventory -- which is a worthy concern -- still seems to see no cause-and-effect admission between timber supply and the manufacturing sector that relies on it. It still is a fact of life in this province that mills and small companies gain access to bank financing based on security of access to timber. That's an inevitable and unavoidable fact of life. It would be rather interesting to have a small tenure holder in this province with a mill that required upgrading take a copy of this act in to his banker and have the banker concede that it in any way increases the security of that licence-holder on the land.

There's no question that this bill seems to destroy the consensus-building approach on environment and land use issues that this government claimed it was in support of. It's a bill that tends to circumvent the Owen commission. It's suggesting that the ministry will make unilateral decisions based on study areas, on reducing cuts and reducing timber supply areas.

It's interesting to note the uses that are controlled under this particular bill and the control the ministry will now have over cutting permits, road permits,

[ Page 3147 ]

timber sale licences and free-use permits in these study areas that can be arbitrarily reduced.

Again we run into this no-compensation idea. No matter what decision is made.... If a decision is made to freeze an area until the year 2000, and you have a mill or are dependent on the timber supply, you're going to be out of luck in terms of gaining access to that timber. This is a piece of legislation that simply isn't consistent with the approach the government has claimed it intends to take in resolving these kinds of land use disputes.

It's troubling to us that the minister and this government appear to be unconcerned about the impact such legislation will have on investment in the forest sector in this province. I harken back to the meeting we had yesterday with the Williams Lake job sustainability committee. Their major concern expressed to us was the type of decision-making that they see imposed from Victoria that affects their jobs and their livelihoods with minimal input. As we search through this bill, we search for an area that would allow for that kind of community input, that would allow for the kind of input that's being asked for and pleaded for, in fact, by some of these local communities and their job sustainability committees. Individuals in places like Williams Lake recognize the dangers that bills like this pose for the security of their communities. They understand that instead of introducing certainty to their lives, it's merely destabilizing communities by concentrating decision-making in the hands of the minister, who is not accountable, necessarily, to the areas in which this timber is located.

As a result, we intend to oppose this bill. In the committee stage we will be attempting to propose some amendments that we believe will make the bill less offensive, less a bill that will destabilize investment and one that, when it does emerge, will hopefully not have the effect that this bill will have in its current form.

We look through the various conditions and terms in this bill, giving the minister wide amplitude to alter the very existence of some of the licence-holders in the land.

This is a bill which, in the view of the opposition, should not have been introduced this late in the session. It's clearly the most controversial bill affecting the forest resources in this province. I find it troubling -- because it contains so many major and significant policy shifts for the government -- that it should have been introduced at this late date without the proper consultation we believe is required from the stakeholders, people like the Williams Lake job sustainability committee.

It's a bill that in our view should be considered over the summer with a lot of other bills. There's nothing of an urgent nature in this particular bill which would suggest that it has to be brought forward and brought into law at this present time. I would certainly urge the minister to give careful consideration to the kind of impact this bill might have, and the kind of influence it might have on some of the small communities in this province which are already facing significant annual allowable cut reductions as a result of decisions by the chief forester, and which have already been forced to contemplate the effects of Bill 32, which has since been withdrawn but which still hangs out there the issue of whether compensation will be payable to anybody who does lose a licence.

This particular bill merely confers to the minister wide-ranging powers to declare study areas and to not demand or require much in the way of public input, if he should choose not to solicit it. We have a great deal of concern about this bill, about the impact it will have and about the uncertainty it will create. I believe that we are in a sensitive economic time in British Columbia, particularly in smaller communities like Williams Lake and forest-dependent towns. At this time, when the market for their products is uncertain and when we're beset by labour disruptions in forest industry towns, it's almost essential, in our view, that the Minister of Forests bring forward bills that recognize that kind of economic climate. Even though some of the bills that we've seen previously may have good clauses and good ideas about resource sustainability, they do not take into account the kind of short-term and difficult problems we're facing at the moment.

I certainly urge the minister to give careful consideration to the impact this bill might have and to the kind of uncertainty that it might create, and to work with the opposition during committee stage in exploring some of the possibilities that might be available to us to eliminate some of that uncertainty.

[8:45]

J. Weisgerber: I too rise to express some real concerns about this legislation, and in fact to indicate the Social Credit caucus intention to vote against the bill. This Bill 78 might well have been better named Bill 32A -- or the Bill 32A end-run legislation -- because clearly what this bill sets out to do is provide a way of taking from forest companies tenures that are in designated study areas destined to become parks. Instead of denying the tenure-holder a right to seek compensation within a 15-month period, as Bill 32 did, what this does is suggest that if there's an area where the government might like to see a park created, they establish a study area.

They do it by regulation, rather than the process of ministerial order that is now the practice. The new practice is not appealable. There is no compensation to the tenure-holder for the lost AAC. In fact, at the end of the day this may turn out to be much less acceptable than Bill 32 was. When we look at the number of study areas that were tabled and the amount of tenure that is going to be withdrawn as a result of the desire to study these areas, the effect on the forest industry may well be more substantial, significant and damaging than the effect of Bill 32 would have been.

We understand why this legislation is introduced at a late date. It's introduced for reasons not yet made clear to us. The government has indicated it won't proceed with Bill 32, so it has to look for another way to deal with the question of compensation to tenure-holders for lands that are going to be studied for park designation. If one were going to be cynical, one might suggest that the government has decided that it's not going to have to worry about settling land claims for the

[ Page 3148 ]

next 15 months and that the real issues of compensation, which were the subject of Bill 32, will be applied only in the area of lands removed for park or for study for park. The minister shakes his head and says that's not the case. I'll be interested to hear why that's so. There is provision now in the Forest Act for the minister to designate a study area, but it is appealable. It requires the minister to notify the tenure-holder of the decision. And I suspect that the Forest Act calls on the ministry to provide compensation if AAC is taken away from the tenure-holder. The act can't be designed to enable the ministry....

Interjection.

J. Weisgerber: The minister says.... We'll hear the response. If we can be assured that the question of compensation is not the underlying motive for this bill, if we can be assured that the Crown intends, when it alienates tenure, to compensate the tenure-holder in a fair way, if we can get those kinds of assurances from the minister, then certainly we will feel more comfortable reading these amendments, which certainly cause anyone to believe that what we were seeing was an end run on the issue of denying compensation. I will listen and then decide, having heard that and perhaps having had another look at the legislation to assure myself that that's not the case. Clearly that is our concern with this legislation.

We are concerned with the lack of appealability to decisions. We're unclear why the government would want to change the process from one where study areas are designated by ministerial order. The tenure-holder has the right to appeal, to make his arguments to this designation by regulation, which denies the tenure-holder any opportunity to appeal, removes from the Crown the necessity to advise the current tenure-holder and allows for the establishment of study areas to the year 2001. I suppose the minister will tell us that it's important to have that time in order to study the areas. As it is, at our analysis of the bill today, we stand firmly opposed to the legislation and seriously concerned about the impact on the forest industry, on the communities that depend on the forest industry and, most importantly, on the people who work in that industry and live in those communities and who are dependent on the forests and the forest industry for their livelihood.

V. Anderson: I'm not an expert in forestry, but I am concerned as I read the blank cheque that is given to the minister as the act is presented. I realize -- as the minister shakes his head -- that he has one idea in mind. Perhaps the idea isn't conveyed in the act itself, because after the study area is designated, as you read the act section by section, it says the minister may, the minister may, the minister may.... It has been previously pointed out there is no chance to appeal the decisions. The chief forester may make an order; the minister may make an order; the regional manager may make an order. All the way through the act you have that same phrase. It is simply giving a blank cheque. In case the blank cheque were to bounce, there's a clarification at the end that says these orders override anything in the act itself, which gives you an unlimited blank cheque no matter what you write on it. This is a very uncertain presentation. It conveys the wrong kind of opinion of the power that is being exercised.

Hon. D. Miller: I certainly appreciate the sentiments that I've heard expressed from the opposition benches with respect to the bill. I really would like to reassure them. First of all, I'm quite prepared to offer a technical briefing between now and committee stage of the bill. I want to reassure the members that what they have read into the bill is, in fact, not the case. Currently we do have the power under the Forest Act to do all of these things. We can remove an area from active harvesting. We can reduce the AAC. What we currently lack under the act is the ability to return to the original licensee anything that was removed.

The hon. member of the third party, as a former member of government, should be well aware that the current Forest Act allows us to take away, but there is no provision to return. Once we take it away, it's retained by the Crown. We have discussed this with representatives of the Council of Forest Industries. I've assured the hon. members that there's a rigorous process that would have to be followed, unlike the current Forest Act, for this section to be utilized. In other words, it has to go through a committee, I think, of ADMs. It has to go to cabinet.

There is some urgency. Just to mention one area: the Tsitika is the subject of a five-year moratorium. It's the view of myself and the chief forester that it would be unwise and imprudent to continue with the same allowable cut, given the five-year moratorium that's in place. We must reduce by whatever amount is technically determined. We want the ability to return any portion that is not going to be put into a park, or whatever designation, back to the licence-holder. We currently don't have that power.

I would also say, with respect to the protected area strategies and the map, that under the former government there was extensive public consultation to determine those areas. It was probably the most extensive public consultation in the history of this province. That map was produced and the public knows what those areas are.

I think there's a benefit to the forest industry in the approach that we're suggesting here. We think it's important. I think that quite often, in dealing with forestry issues, there are problems of perception. I guess it is understandable. It's a very important industry. It bears particularly on the rural parts of this province. It has such import and impact that I can understand that feeling. I react as well to statements. Perhaps the Liberal Forests critic has a different view.

When I get a letter like the one I received a copy of from the Liberal Environment critic that says that they support an immediate moratorium on old-growth forests.... When I have to listen to the Forests critic from the Liberals talk about suspicions about this bill, I'm a bit perplexed. If we follow the advice of the Liberal Environment critic, we would shut down 70 to 80 percent of the logging in this province tomorrow.

[ Page 3149 ]

With that explanation and the fact that I'm quite prepared to give that kind of technical briefing to reassure members that their suspicions are unfounded, I would hope that they see the wisdom.

I move second reading.

[9:00]

Motion approved on the following division:

Bill 78, Forest Amendment Act (No. 2), 1992, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

MEDICAL AND HEALTH CARE
SERVICES ACT
(continued)

On the amendment.

V. Anderson: When it comes to the reasoned amendment, a number of considerations that we have been asked about come in a variety of the three reasons that were placed in the amendment. The first of those had to do with the powers of audit and the inspection allowed in the bill which compromise the rights of the citizens to the privacy they so cherish. There are few areas in which the citizens cherish their privacy more than in the privacy around health care. This information might be distributed, perhaps unintentionally but nevertheless distributed, and in the process endanger their employment, their family relationships and their community relationships. This is a major concern.

This bill does not acknowledge the nature of this concern, nor does it provide the kind of protections that might have been put in place. If the police were to undertake this kind of inspection, they would need to have an order of the court. That order of the court would put in the kind of safeguards that must be provided. This bill does not provide the safeguards that are needed for the citizens. It uses an audit excuse, an economic excuse, without providing the safeguards involved. Apart from that, this bill has the tendency, even in the discussion stage, to begin to discourage the doctors and the specialists whom we so need to depart from the province. I expect this kind of disruption and emotional uncertainty will not only affect the doctors and specialists, but it will affect the other nursing and health practitioners in the province. The Seaton commission report projected, even without this particular bill and the threatening aspects of it, that we could well not have a surplus of doctors, but a shortage of doctors. This bill has not contemplated that disastrous situation.

We need to be reminded by that report that the physicians' income has not contributed to the increasing costs of health care. That has come about by other reasons completely separate from that undertaking. There's a concern about this because there is the opportunity within this commission, if so appointed, to determine who is a medical practitioner and who is a health care professional. Safeguards on this determination to protect are not included in this bill. I raise the question of how this sits with the recognition of who is or is not a qualified professional or medical practitioner under the authority of the College of Physicians. It seems to me there's a conflict between these.

There is also in this bill a whole variety of opportunities to set a commission with a certain authority, then by the action of the government to take that authority completely away from the commission, for whatever reason, and apply it to an administrator. That administrator then totally replaces the commission. On the other hand, it has a third option. It has the option to appoint committees, and these committees then take over the power of the commission and replace the commission. Doctors, medical practitioners, nurses and others are never going to be sure who they're working for or what kind of fallback procedure there is if they should disagree with the government of the day on any particular clause. They have so many options that they can use to move in other directions.

It's this uncertainty that does not encourage and invite medical practitioners to come to the province. Wherever these practitioners undertake to exercise their vocation.... They can use it anywhere in the world where they choose to care for and bring health and wholeness to people. If they move from here, it does not take away their opportunities. If they can have a better climate in which to work, if they can have a better opportunity in other places to serve more people with less hassle, then of course they're going to take that opportunity -- apart from any financial costs. Many of them have spent 12 and 14 and more years in training for this purpose. They want to dedicate their time to medical practice, not to being involved in bureaucratic wrangling.

The third part of this program that we object to is the way that capping fees has been undertaken in this bill. There was recognition in the Seaton commission that some control was needed on health costs. Everyone recognizes that necessity, for balanced budgets need to be balanced. On the other hand, any organization that consistently underbudgets, as was reported by the government earlier in this debate, causes us to question

[ Page 3150 ]

the method of their budgeting. They're not able to project the causes. If school boards underbudget, or if municipal councils underbudget, they have to take that responsibility. If the government is consistently under budget in health care, they cannot blame it on the costs; they must take credit for underbudgeting in the first place.

In talking about caps and the Seaton report, doctors and nurses and others have been willing to accept caps in a system where there can be proper negotiation and mediation. That report talked about caps that are arrived at after bargaining, not a cap that's placed in the beginning, and then bargaining begins to take place under that.

At the same time, there is a concern that a focus is placed on only 25 percent of the health costs, which is that part of the cost that is portrayed under the Medical Services Plan. The other 75 percent of health costs are in the other areas not related directly to the Medical Health Plan itself. This plan distorts the responsibility and opportunity of the government to respond.

The government maintains that much of the planning and presentation that it has given us has come from the Seaton plan. It tells us that there must be a process of change, moving from hospital-based care to community-and home-based care, after a plan is in place -- trying to develop over a period of time. If this planning could be done over a period of time, even over the next months once the plan is in place, so that the people can study it and respond to it, then we could have more assurance and be supportive. But until that happens, we must object to the process, for the process itself is self-defeating.

D. Jarvis: Once again I rise to debate an amendment to this bill. This is the third amendment to the motion for second reading, and I am voting in favour of it.

[9:15]

There are many aspects of this bill that are in question, such as the question of being able to send inspectors, as I mentioned before, into the doctors' offices to examine their files on the premise that they are going in to do an audit to stop the doctors from supposedly cheating, if they think they are. Earlier today I discussed this aspect of trust with members of the government, but the members of the government, especially the members in the back rows over there, continued to yell across the floor, saying that this was nonsense and what we were saying was wrong.

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: Just a moment, hon. member. I think the point is well taken that members should not speak from their seats. It would be of great assistance if we would keep that in mind.

D. Jarvis: As I was saying, the members across there were discussing with me what was right and what was wrong about our objection to this bill. They felt it was nonsense, what we were saying with regard to the access to the doctors' files -- that the government would not have any other thought than inspection of the audit.

However, doctor after doctor, and now private citizens, are worried. We are getting letters. I have not had too many letters myself, mainly because I think most of the doctors in my riding are getting ready to leave. They're leaving ostensibly because of this bill that's being proposed. They are worried that their civil rights or the privacy and confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship is in danger.

Earlier I alluded to the question of oath. If the inspectors are to be doctors, who do they owe their allegiance to? Who do they owe this oath to? Not to the Hippocratic oath, as it's no longer valid; the College of Physicians and the code of ethics is the one that the doctors ostensibly use now.

The member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain said that it was not true that the oath of the College of Physicians pertained to this bill. I said that I did not feel that the oath taken through the code of ethics pertained to a third-party situation; it pertained ostensibly to doctors who practise on one patient, or when one patient was referred to another doctor and anything in confidentiality was kept between them, but not to a situation where a third doctor and/or inspector would come in to examine the files. I was told that I was wrong, so I made a point, seeing that it is typical of the government and the doctors that there is a mass confusion out there. No one seems to know, even this government. The members in the back benches certainly don't appear to know whether this legislation is right or wrong, or even the oaths of their profession. I say to them: "Phone the college and ask them." We have. I have, and they say it does not apply.

The code of ethics was written without anticipation of a situation such as this. It does not cover or comply with a situation where a doctor's office is entered and files of his or her patients are seized and reviewed. As I said, I do not have any letters, but I have one from my riding, and I want to put one of its paragraphs into the record. This doctor says: "One feature of Bill 71 that I find particularly offensive is the provision for MSP representatives to assess the patients' records. Patients and doctors have always considered the confidentiality of their files to be of the utmost importance. What if some MSP clerk discovered their next-door neighbour was infected with a debilitating disease?"

Mr. Speaker, I say that this aspect of the bill is wrong. I would say to this government and to the members in the back benches that they should call the College of Physicians and Surgeons and see. It's very simple. Look it up in the book. It's under "C" if you can't spell. It's obvious that the government has not done so in the past, and they have not done a proper job in consulting on the writing of this bill. Or perhaps they did. Perhaps this is the purpose of this legislation. Perhaps they are seeking a suspicious intent. Who knows? It's something that no government in this province has ever done before, but there's always a first time.

It bothers me to see that they want legislation to allow them to enter someone's office and look at their files. Who will be next? Probably the lawyers. Why does this government possibly need to have the power to

[ Page 3151 ]

view potential patients' files? It's not right. But there is a way, as I said before, if they intend to ram this bill through. They should consider an amendment. As a matter of fact, like the member for Vancouver-Little Mountain said the other day, if we aren't happy with it, put forward an amendment. He was quite sure that his party would be amenable to having an amendment. So this is what we're doing, and when it comes to this aspect, I shall probably put through another amendment. It will be very interesting to see how many amendments are required in this bill.

I believe that when the time comes, as I said, I'm going to put through an amendment on this aspect, exactly as I've related above. However, I would like to see at least some semblance of change with respect to who may or may not be able to enter the doctor's office and see the patient's files. That is what the government would want to do in this bill, and that is why I'm voting against this. Let the College of Physicians police their own inspectors. We cannot allow the government to choose their own inspectors when they do not understand the ramifications of this bill themselves or how dangerous it can be to doctor-patient privacy and to the rights of the citizens of this province. Let's consider an alternative by letting the College of Physicians choose their own inspectors, as I said, and they can appoint a slate of doctors that the government can choose from. Let the College of Physicians create their own oath, which the doctors will take. That oath would encompass the aspect of the third-party situation, forcing the inspectors to keep the patient's confidentiality, as though it was a patient or he was one that had been referred. There is no oath that covers this aspect in this bill.

It's time that the government got back to the drawing-board. It is time to end this confrontation between the citizens of this province, for we're continually being faced with that sort of situation. With this government and the previous administration, we have had too many issues pitting one of our citizens against another or one group against another.

We know that the health plan as we know it needs some revamping. Let us do it by consensus with the medical profession, who are ostensibly the experts and who know what it's about, not by ramming it down the throats of the doctors who are taking a stand, threatening to opt out of the system and getting ready to leave the province or the country. In fact, some of them have already done so. What would a member of this government do if they had a family member who lived on the North Shore and needed a neurosurgeon? Two of the three remaining neurosurgeons on the North Shore have already left. Now there's only one left. What happens if he goes on holidays? The member of the government will have to say to their loved ones: "Well, there's no one here to help." They've destroyed the system. How does one live with themselves? They're destroying a sector of our community that has dedicated itself to its profession.

This is a restrictive parliamentary bill, a draconian bill that will have grave implications for the health care of this province. All the doctors are prepared in their way to share, to decrease health care costs, but not in this way. This government is betraying the right to negotiation in good faith. Health care in this province is going south in a handbasket. The province's medicare system will soon be in a shambles of confrontation. If we lose doctors, we lose an investment that we already have here now. That is a waste of tax dollars in itself.

This government is promising a workers' paradise but creating a bureaucratic dictatorship. To proceed with this bill will only enhance the chaos in the medicare system we have. This government is mortgaging the fate of all for the comfort of a few. This government should be focusing on the strengths we already have and adding to the system, not breaking it down, in order to improve or maintain the proper level of what we have. They are content to be dogmatic and willing to see it destroyed, rather than to admit that they may be wrong -- which is true socialism. They will let the country go down around them, rather than change. We see evidence of this all around the world. As in other parts of this world, socialism is again proving it doesn't work.

Hon. Speaker, once again I seek some moderation from this government. This is a time for consensus. Do not ram this bill through; vote for this amendment. Let us see some moderation. Do not let the state of the health care in this province deteriorate. Do not lower the standards that we have now. For your information, I'm going to read....

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: Well, you probably weren't in the room when we put forward this amendment to the motion.

D. Streifel: Is that the one you tabled?

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

Hon. Speaker, I am voting for this amendment. I would ask the rest of the members to consider voting for it as well. Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

[9:30]

W. Hurd: It's always a pleasure to rise in support of a reasoned Liberal amendment in this House. I have to say that this is a bill in which even the title, Medical and Health Care Services Act, shouldn't pass, because there really isn't anything in this bill that refers to medical and health care services. This is a bill about money, and this is a bill that has really been brought forward by the Minister of Finance. There's no question that his hand is in this bill, and the argument, really, after we've gone through three sets of negotiations.... At the end of the session we have Bill 71 introduced, and we finally get to

[ Page 3152 ]

the heart of the matter, which is about money for doctors in this province. The feeling, or argument, by the Minister of Finance is that if we adopt this bill before the end of the session, somehow the taxpayers will save between $50 million and $100 million. That's what this bill is all about. It's about dollars and cents. It's got nothing to do with medical and health care services in British Columbia.

How do we know that? Because we know that a number of problems exist in the health care system in this province. One of the most shameful things about health care in British Columbia is that 25 percent of the population is not even covered by the medical insurance system because they haven't paid their premiums on time. This is the only province in the country where if people have not paid their medical premiums, the government denies them access to medical insurance, which means that the doctors of the province are required to provide the service and are not necessarily able to collect on the billings they might submit.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

Obviously this is a major problem with health care in British Columbia, and it isn't even addressed in this particular bill. There are other examples of deficiencies in this bill. We are concerned that in fact this bill will do what we've suggested it will do in the amendment -- it will drive doctors out of the province. In fact, the government has not shown any determination to deal with this problem of people who are not covered and bills that are submitted and not required to be paid.

It's rather astonishing that a government that has over the generations worshiped at the shrine of universality in our health care system should in fact be the only government not to have extended this basic service to its citizens. You would think, hon. Speaker, that that particular problem in health care in this province would be dealt with in this bill. Surely it's the most important medical services bill to come before this House. By the government's own admission, it's the most important bill to come before this House, and that fundamental problem of 25 percent of the population not being covered is not even dealt with in this bill.

We have to wonder what the motives are in bringing this bill forward so late in the session. We're dealing with dollars and cents here; that's the issue involved. We're not even sure of the kind of money that's being talked about here. It changes almost daily. Is it $50 million or $100 million? The government suggested that the tax meter was running and that because of that, if we don't pass this bill before the end of the session, the taxpayers will have to pick up an additional $100 million. Well, it's the understanding of the opposition that a deal has been offered to the government to resolve that problem; that there is a possibility that there is a deal there for the doctors and the province to resolve this matter temporarily, while this important piece of legislation is considered at greater length. But we see no willingness on the part of the government to compromise. They are determined to ram this bill through by the end of this session, and there appears to be a diminishing return, because the kind of ill will that will be engendered in this province from the medical community will certainly last for the four years of this government's mandate, and will continue, I'm sure, into the next election.

It's troubling to the opposition that previous amendments proposed by the Liberal opposition that would give the government more time to deal with this bill have been steadfastly turned down and spoken against by members opposite. For whatever reason, they feel that this particular bill has to pass before the end of this session, and that somehow the treasury of the province of British Columbia will be compromised if it doesn't. That just isn't the case. I wonder sometimes how the government's negotiations with doctors in this province stack up against their treatment of other organizations, notably labour unions in British Columbia, the government's fair wage policy, and the manner in which it has dealt with the B.C. Government Employees' Union and its health care workers.

To contrast that approach to the unionized sector with the kind of approach we're seeing reflected in this particular bill makes a very interesting comparison. As we know, there are honest attempts made by the government to appoint mediators, to deal with public sector workers and to treat them somehow differently than the doctors in the province, who are also public sector workers to the extent that they rely on billings to the health care system.

Why do we see this double standard? Why has the government chosen to treat the doctors in this province differently than it would treat other public sector workers? This is the kind of thing that troubles us in this bill. Would it not be prudent for the government to look at the kind of ill will being engendered by this piece of legislation and say to itself that surely there has to be a better way of approaching negotiations with the province's doctors than the way we've chosen, the kind of bills we've seen come before this House -- Bill 13 floated like a trial balloon, then withdrawn and then re-enacted in the form of Bill 71? It just makes no sense to the opposition that the government is determined to play hardball on Bill 71, and I can honestly say it makes no sense to the province's doctors either. I'm sure that members opposite, as well as the members of the third party -- and I can certainly say the Liberal opposition -- have received many letters from concerned physicians. They surely cannot all be wrong. They've addressed concerns about this bill, and they've analyzed it carefully. I know that the government has very little faith or interest in negotiating fairly with the B.C. Medical Association, but surely it should be willing to read some of the concerns that are being expressed in those letters by concerned physicians.

The physicians must deal with this legislation once it's enacted. Is it not the kind of legislation that deserves a second look? That is the whole thrust of the amendment that is being proposed by the Liberal opposition: give the government an opportunity to take a second look at this bill. We've seen absolutely no hard evidence introduced in this House that would lead the opposition or the people of the province to believe that what we're dealing with here is not in fact a matter of dollars and cents. This is not a health care bill; it's a bill about

[ Page 3153 ]

so-called budget restraint by the Minister of Finance. I wonder sometimes how stridently the Minister of Health has argued in cabinet for a bill which would deal with the real problems in health care in this province, instead of just foisting off the problems onto the backs of the doctors, who then must make a choice of how they're going to restrain their billing activities for the government and how they're going to make the hard choices that they're going to have to make as physicians to make sure that they reach the cap that's being imposed on them. That's why we're receiving these kinds of letters. We're receiving letters from physicians who work long hours in this province -- 40 and 50 hours a week. They know the kinds of problems that come through their doors and know that under this legislation they are going to be forced to make those kinds of decisions, when it's not their position to play God in the province of British Columbia.

Again, in the letters we've received the doctors are well aware of the constraints on provincial budgets. They understand that the medical and health care system in this province is undergoing tremendous stress and strain as the economy shrinks and as the pool of tax dollars dries up. The suggestion by the government in this bill seems to be that despite that knowledge that they have, despite the concern they have about a system that they as doctors have relied on for lo these many years. Despite that, the government seemed to be suggesting to them that they don't really care about the future of the system: "As long as you are able to bill it as you always have, as doctors you're not that concerned or alarmed about whether or not the pot at the end of the rainbow goes dry and there's no more money in it to provide the kind of technical expertise and equipment needed to sustain a modern health care system." The kind of letters we're receiving belie that suggestion by the government. They are from concerned physicians, who, as I say, work 40 or 50....

An Hon. Member: Name names.

W. Hurd: Thank you. That gives me an opportunity to read some of the letters that have been introduced. A Dr. Waterman from Nanaimo writes: "The impact on the morale of physicians in hospitals will be negative. The lack of privacy of medical records would undoubtedly require costly court challenges, which we'd all pay for and would not stand. The lack of a mechanism for resolving future disputes is a glaring omission." It goes on and on. The Wellington Medical Clinic, Campbell River, B.C. -- we've got communities from almost every corner of the province, individual doctors who will be affected by this legislation. These doctors are not automatons who write because they have nothing else better to do. Many of them are already working 40 or 50 hours a week. It takes considerable time for them to put the kind of thought that would be required into these letters.

The reason they're concerned is that they have read the legislation; they have examined what it will mean for their individual practices. All they're asking is that the legislation be given more time to be studied. As I look back on the debate on this bill in this House, and on the bills that proceeded it, we realize that all we've ever asked the government to do is to measure and gauge the impact of this piece of legislation on the practising doctors in this province. They're the ones who are on the front line of our medical health system. They're the ones who have to make the decisions on the type of treatments that need to be prescribed. It seems that before we enact a bill of this magnitude, which will basically enable inspectors to examine medical records, to examine the billing practices of doctors as to whether or not the treatments are necessary, we surely need more consideration of whether this tripartite committee will actually function as it is intended to function. Surely this is the type of bill that requires some sort of consultation with the broader community.

I'm participating in a legislative committee which is going to be examining the value-added manufacturing sector of the forest industry. Surely, if we can send a committee around the province to examine value-added forest manufacturing, we can send a committee around the province to examine a bill which will affect the health care system in this province for generations to come. That's the kind of consultation that the medical fraternity is asking for, that the doctors are asking for, that the opposition is asking for. Yet we sit near the end of the session unable to convince an intransigent government that we need this kind of consultation.

It's not as if the members opposite have not identified, in the past, some of the difficulties faced by our medicare system. I referred yesterday in the House to a letter written by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale, who is coincidentally the chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Health and Social Services. He wrote that British Columbia is in violation of the Canada Health Act for maintaining an eligibility system that results in less than universal coverage. He was writing on behalf of a Mount Pleasant health clinic, three physicians who devote almost one full-time person to chasing down Medical Services Plan eligibility. "It seems to me that those resources would be better spent providing health care." That was a very reasoned and concerned statement by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale when he was running as a candidate for the government side of the House during the last election.

Where is that concern reflected in this particular bill, which the government has suggested is a health care bill that is absolutely vital to the future of medical insurance and medicare in this province? Where is that fundamental problem reflected in this bill? We have to acknowledge that it isn't in there, nor is the issue or the challenge of how we're going to retain our medical specialists in this province and how many are leaving; nor is there anything in this bill as to how we're going to pay for the new medical technology we need. There seems to be a one-dimensional approach to this bill that if we somehow cap the fees of doctors over the next six months, we'll manage to preserve our medical health insurance system for the next four years. It's a simplistic approach; that isn't so.

[9:45]

I do not believe that the doctors of this province are asking for anything more than what has been granted to

[ Page 3154 ]

the trade union movement in this province under existing labour legislation. They're not asking for anything more than is available to any other professional group in this province. But for some reason they've been denied that basic right as a representative group in our society. It troubles the opposition that there appears to be a double standard at work here on this particular bill. The government refuses to admit that despite the rancour and bitterness that has been prevalent with this bill, it will not support a reasoned amendment.

Many of the letters expressed concern about the possibility of physicians, particularly specialists, leaving this province. This is something that I believe the government has forgotten when it considers the ramifications of this particular bill. Doctors are trained in British Columbia, and the taxpayers of the province pay good money to train them. I think it's fair comment to say that the taxpayers of the province and the government do not recover that money from physicians during the course of their training. The province gets its money back when these specialists stay in the province and provide the kind of world leadership in health care that only they can provide with the training that they've been given.

If indeed some of these letters and predictions are correct and some of these specialists decide to leave the province, how much money have we lost training these experts and medical professionals, who will then decide that, as a result of their unique expertise, they're able to leave this province and go to other areas where the treatment of medical practitioners and the philosophy of the government is more favourable than it is here? I ask the Minister of Health to consider that long-range impact. We're not seeing that kind of long-range thinking from this government. They're determined that this bill will pass and that this figure that supposedly is going to be saved over the next six months will in fact be saved. If medical professionals elect to leave this province, then that's a long-range negative impact from this bill that they're willing to accept.

The letters that we're receiving from medical doctors suggest that there's a better way. They're not interested in leaving this province, where they've been trained and have set up their practices. They recognize that, while their services are in demand in the United States and in other provinces, they have chosen to make their homes here. They have been trained here, and they would leave only with great reluctance. But the fact remains that when these types of bills are thrust upon them with minimal consultation, it becomes the only option that they will be able to consider as the full effects of this bill unfold.

I ask the government to consider the impact that this legislation will have on the trained specialists in particular -- the neurosurgeons, the people who spend 15 to 20 years of their lives preparing for the job of treating the people of British Columbia who rely on that expertise. What impact will it have on these specialists that we're producing in such short supply in this province? That's another critical issue in this particular bill that I don't believe the government has even considered: the impact on the professionals, the neurosurgeons and the trained specialists, who spend four or five years in addition to the effort they have to devote to their basic education and training.

We are concerned on this side of the House about the long-range impacts of this bill, not necessarily about the next six months or the next year. Maybe the rancour and bitterness we've seen over the past three months will eventually die down; I'm sure it will. But the long-range impact of this bill and what it will mean for the medical fraternity in this province are the parts of this bill that we just don't believe the government has been prepared to consider.

As I indicated before, when we consider the long-term effects on health care in this province, that leads us to the conviction that this bill has nothing to do with health care. It is being directed by the Minister of Finance, who has identified an opportunity to so-called "save" an undetermined amount of money and is prepared to see this bill rammed through without the proper consultation or the support of the medical fraternity, who, after all, prescribe treatments and have the understanding about what type of treatments are required.

I would like to return to an argument that I raised earlier about the kind of decisions that the medical practitioners will have to make in this province about basic health care. They will have to make those decisions now for the first time -- tough decisions about whether operations should be required or whether they can justify the expense that might be needed in a certain medical treatment. Some of them are going to have to play God and make decisions about patient care that they may not be qualified or able to make as practitioners. They will have to decide who gets an operation and who doesn't.

Again, it's the type of situation and outcome from this bill that we find puzzling and hard to understand. It's from a party that throughout its proud history has championed the cause of universality in health and, indeed, even championed that cause during the last provincial election. I can recall debating health care issues in my riding with the two major parties, and the candidate for the government side of the House stood firm on the need for universality in health care and steadfastly refused to accept the idea of user fees in health care in the province and opposed to even the system of fees we had in place at the time.

I return to the issue I first raised: the fact that we have a percentage of people in this province who are not covered because they have not paid their premiums. These are the points that cause us grave concern about this bill and the reasons that we have a proposed an amendment to the bill which would give us more time to consider the ramifications. It's this power of audit and inspection that the doctors are gravely concerned about, because they have expressed the view that they're concerned about what it will mean for doctor-patient relationships and whether or not aspersions will be cast at them for making the kind of medical decisions they have to make. Implicit in this type of legislation is the assumption that doctors will have something to hide, and that the treatments they prescribe will be

[ Page 3155 ]

subjected to an arbiter process which will determine if they have overbilled the system and somehow ripped off the taxpayers of British Columbia.

We're concerned that the bill really represents a rationing of health care. It represents a full retreat from the principles of universality, the principles on which the government side of the House has stood firm throughout its long history. I wonder what that great social democrat, Tommy Douglas, would think of this type of legislation and what impact it might have on the people of the province. If Tommy Douglas were alive today to participate in this debate, I can assure the hon. members opposite that he would be on this side of the House arguing in favour of universal health care in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, I stand proudly in support of this amendment. What is needed is a second look by the government. I want to urge the members on the government side of the House, who have received many of the same letters we have, to take time during the coming days of this debate to read some of the concerns that are being expressed by individual doctors and ask themselves a basic question: is there anything in these letters that has a ring of truth to it? Is the kind of anguish that we see expressed by physicians in these letters real, or is it imagined? It's the kind of concern that my doctor is expressing.

That raises a good point. I would urge all members of this assembly, particularly on the government side of the House, to prepare for the debate on this bill by phoning their family practitioners and asking them what they think about the bill. It's something they may choose to do before they submit themselves to whatever treatment they might be submitting themselves to in the next three or four years in this province.

H. Giesbrecht: Doctors are better than that.

W. Hurd: They certainly are. I'm glad the hon. member raised that point, because we've been saying that on this side of the House since the start of this debate. This particular bill makes a lie of that statement by the hon. member, because it says to physicians of the province: "Until proven innocent, you're guilty of ripping off the system, and we intend to send inspectors in to make sure that that is what's happening."

I'm proud to support this amendment and to speak in favour of it. I urge the Minister of Health to hold immediate meetings with the doctors and the Minister of Finance to see if there isn't a way around this tragic impasse that we find ourselves in today, an impasse that has generated letters from almost every clinic and medical practitioner in the province. As I said earlier, they are concerned individuals who do not spend time idly by writing letters of concern to the government, when they're working the long hours that they have to work to meet the patient demand.

If this bill were really a Medical and Health Care Services Act, it would deal with some of the long-range problems in health care in this province: the concern about medical practitioners leaving the province; and the fact that this is one of the few provinces in the country without truly universal access to medical health insurance -- which, I might add, was a problem that was identified during the last campaign by the members opposite. This isn't a bill about medical and health care services. It's a bill that's determined to extract short-term budget relief from the backs of the physicians; it's a bill with serious long-term and negative consequences for a system of health care that the government has held dear in the past. It made those kind of statements during the past election.

In closing, I urge the members opposite to do something to prepare for this debate: to call their individual physicians. They are not political people by nature. They do not write letters to the government because they support one party or the other in this assembly. But they are the ones on the front line of health care who understand what it means to have to make the decisions that the government will be requiring them to make in patient care, and they will give government members an honest answer about the impact this bill will have on them. I urge them to make that call, to talk to their medical practitioners. I believe that if they did that, they would approach this particular bill with a different perspective and would take a long look at the constructive amendments that have been proposed by the Liberal opposition to buy us more time on this issue. I reiterate again that surely there must be a way for the doctors and the government to arrive at a six-month solution in resolving this budgetary impasse in health care, to at least give us the opportunity to have that second look in British Columbia. I ask: is not the health care system in this province and this country, which has served Canadians and British Columbians well for three generations, worth a second look by every member of this House?

L. Stephens: It is my pleasure tonight to rise and speak in favour of this amendment. I've been having great difficulty in understanding why this government is so possessed and compelled to ram Bill 71 through the House in little more than a week. The hon. Leader of the Opposition has offered the government an answer to its financial concerns, yet the government continues to ram this bill through the House. We cannot understand the rush. Surely medicare is far too important to make such controversial changes so rapidly. If Bill 71 is so great -- as the government says it is -- then it will survive closer scrutiny. Why the rush?

I do not believe that anyone from the government side of the House has responded to the point made by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. The reality is that they have all the power they need under regulation 30.9 of the Medical Service Act. Their hollow comments that the tax meter is running are just that: hollow words. The reality is that they can achieve their budget target using existing legislation. There is no need to bring Bill 71 into law this week, next week or the week after that. There is simply no reason to rush with this bill. We must slow this process down and make absolutely certain that no serious mistakes are made.

The opposition is receiving a great deal of support from the public for the position taken on Bill 71. The public wants more time to examine the bill in detail and give feedback to their MLAs. Is this the open and honest

[ Page 3156 ]

government promised during the last election campaign?

[10:00]

I wish to discuss a number of concerns that have been overlooked. Many people are not aware that of the 10,000 British Columbians who are directly employed by their doctors, most are women. They will likely lose their jobs as a consequence of Bill 71's capping provisions. Despite the rhetoric from the opposite side of the House that doctors are fat cats, most doctors are not fat cats, and the only way for them to protect their incomes is to reduce their office expenses. The major area in which they can cut back on their expenses is by letting their staff go and having their spouses work for them, to maintain their family income. The end result will be innocent, hard-working British Columbians losing their jobs. Then what happens? You figure it out. The government will pay to support these people on unemployment insurance and social assistance.

Not only does Bill 71 cause a lot of turmoil with doctors, but it is likely going to cause real hardship with a lot of single mothers who are working to maintain their families. What happens to the money saved by the Ministry of Health? It simply gets paid out by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing. I ask you: why is the government rushing to invoke all this turmoil and hardship?

Another point I would like to raise is the television coverage on BCTV "Newshour" on the evening of Thursday, June 25. It concerned Dr. Anthony Chan, the vascular surgeon in North Vancouver whose letter was read on Tuesday, June 23, by the hon. member for West Vancouver-Garibaldi and whom the hon. member for Matsqui referred to in question period. This doctor complied with the directions of the hon. Minister of Health, stating that he could not justify the expense of operating a third time on a patient with a gangrenous leg when there was only a 30 percent chance of success. This is exactly what Bill 71 forces the doctors to do.

Did the Minister of Health stand behind the doctor's decision? No way. She dumped all over him for letting the public know what Bill 71 really means. Now the good doctor is left hanging in the breeze for supporting this government's flawed fiscal policy. The government blames the doctors for driving health care costs. As soon as the doctors try to help the government save the money the government wants saved, the hon. Minister of Health doesn't have the fortitude to stand behind her government's policies.

Fortunately the doctor has booked the patient for surgery, which will occur next week, but now the doctor is going to do the surgery for free. I ask why the doctor should be expected to work for free. I hope the hon. minister has enough fortitude to write to Dr. Chan and insist that he bill the Medical Services Plan for the usual fee that he would be paid for the surgery. There is absolutely no reason that the doctor should be expected to work for free.

These are just a couple of reasons that this bill must be reviewed carefully over the next few months. The bill is based on ideology and is seriously flawed. Medicare is just too important to permit this to happen. I will be voting in favour of the amendment, and I urge all members of the House to do the same.

We have many letters. We've had a lot of support from people all over the province. I have a couple here. There are a couple of excerpts that I would like to read to you. This one is from Nanaimo. This is a doctor in the practice of neurology, one of the specialists who are seriously needed in this province, as in other provinces in Canada, and one professional who is seriously considering moving elsewhere. He says:

"The impact on morale of physicians in hospitals would be very negative. The lack of privacy of medical records would undoubtedly require costly court challenges which we would all pay for, and it would not stand. The lack of a mechanism for resolving future disputes is a glaring omission. The lack of funds will clearly reduce the quality and quantity of care.

"The NDP came to their senses about the forests and mines compensation bill. Perhaps it will happen again."

We have another letter from another physician, also from Nanaimo. This doctor says:

"The biggest and most complex of all ministry responsibilities, medicare, must not be dismantled and rebuilt with no consultation with the main providers of the service to the public. An unrealistic, non-negotiated global cap on physicians' incomes will surely bring about the desired results: longer queues for care in a province already frustrated by the line-ups for critical health care. My patients are not happy and are telling me so. This is not what they want or expect."

I have one more. This gentleman is also from Nanaimo. Amazing!

"I am writing to you concerning the ramifications of Bill 71, presently before the House. The hard global cap on the MSP budget will mean longer waiting-lists for appointments to see specialists for surgery, and the doctors of British Columbia will not continue to provide the same level or quality of care and be paid prorated fees. We will simply work less hours to stay within the budget. The NDP may then achieve their budgetary goals, but only by rationing health care or forcing us to do it for them."

As I spoke to the previous amendment, I mentioned some of the concerns that the doctors in my riding have. There's a group of 150 practitioners who will be closing their offices tomorrow. Emergency services will be left intact, but this will be a one-day walkout in protest of this bill. These doctors, many of whom I know personally, find this unconscionable. It's a move they sincerely regret, but they feel forced to participate. As many of the members on the opposition side have reiterated, Bill 71 should be set aside and brought back at a later date for further debate. I will be voting in favour of the amendment to do that.

R. Chisholm: I rise in support of amendment No. 3. I'm appalled that this government is so bent on ramming such an important bill as the Medical and Health Care Services Act through this House. This House received Bill 71 for first reading only last week. Bill 71 will permanently change medicare, as British Columbians....

[ Page 3157 ]

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. I have on my speakers' list for the reasoned amendment that you have spoken on the amendment already.

R. Chisholm: I've not spoken on the amendment, hon. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, hon. member. Continue.

R. Chisholm: Unfortunately, I'm back.

Bill 71 will permanently change medicare as British Columbians have known it for the past 24 years. British Columbians deserve the opportunity to review this bill in the clear light of dawn. If this bill is as good as the NDP say it is, then they will have nothing to fear as the bill will eventually become law in its current form. If this bill is as flawed as much as the opposition feels it is, the public will be afforded the opportunity to provide input without destroying the current system in an irreversible way.

I can remember....

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Just for clarification, was it the hon. member for Chilliwack who moved the amendment?

R. Chisholm: That is correct.

Deputy Speaker: Then that would constitute speaking to the reasoned amendment.

The hon. member for Richmond East on the reasoned amendment.

L. Reid: No, a point of clarification. He had indeed not spoken in second reading. Does that negate him speaking to the amendment?

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. Moving the amendment constitutes speaking on the amendment. He spoke to it in moving it.

The hon. member for Vancouver-Quilchena on the reasoned amendment.

A. Cowie: I have just come from the Lieutenant-Governor's awards dinner. It was delightful. I had New York steak. I don't know how hungry you are....

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. member. On the reasoned amendment to Bill 71.

A. Cowie: Yes. It's important to keep in a very healthy state when giving a statement.

I've got letters here too.

Interjections.

A. Cowie: Oh boy! I'm appalled....

An Hon. Member: We've heard that part.

A. Cowie: Oh, you've heard that part. Okay, I'll go down to the second paragraph.

An Hon. Member: The third paragraph.

A. Cowie: The third paragraph, okay. I've got more amendments here too, if you're interested.

British Columbians deserve the opportunity to review this bill in the clear light of dawn -- I know it's only 10:15. If this bill is as good as the NDP says it is, then they have nothing to fear. That's better, isn't it?

An Hon. Member: One more paragraph.

A. Cowie: Do you want me to go to the next paragraph?

If this bill is flawed as much as the opposition feels it is, then the public will be afforded the opportunity to provide input without destroying the current system in the irreversible way that's being undertaken at this time.

I have to admit this. I introduced the member from Port Moody to a plant today, didn't I? Remember? I showed you that plant.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, could you address your remarks through the Chair, please.

A. Cowie: Well, I think that was important, because I think it's important to use the proper medicinal plants. I've got asthma; your friend had asthma. And I offered to give your friend some plants to help with his asthma. That doesn't cost anything. And that's what we should be doing in the medical health field: helping people out.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: Back to 71. Right.

I remember how the current Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, promised that the NDP would open the Legislature process to public input.

Interjections.

A. Cowie: I'm reading this.

In fact, there have been bills brought before this Legislature this session that will not be passed into law.

[10:15]

Hon. E. Cull: Have you seen this material before?

A. Cowie: I've never seen this material before. I wrote it this afternoon.

An Hon. Member: Mr. Cowie, read.

A. Cowie: Read. I think that's a good idea.

It is my strongly held view that this Medical and Health Care Services Act is a bill which probably deserves public input more than any other bill. I can't read the next sentence, but at least.... [Laughter.] Quite seriously, though, the problem with this bill is that the public hasn't been given the opportunity to have the proper input, and quite honestly, it's not going to hurt the Minister of Health to take a bit of time.

[ Page 3158 ]

I'll tell you what happened this afternoon. After going to the Lieutenant-Governor's awards this afternoon, I visited a dear friend in the minister's riding. I'm not going to tell you the name, because you'd know the person. She said it's really important that we take time with such an important bill. It's not going to hurt to defer this; it's not going to hurt at all. There's no reason. The doctors are quite prepared to lower their fees on particular things that they have to do. There's no problem with that at all.

The people want to be involved, and that's what is important about this amendment. I think the government should recognize that. I can go on and talk here all night long. But really, quite sincerely....

Interjections.

A. Cowie: Do you know what I had for dessert tonight?

Deputy Speaker: Order, hon. members.

A. Cowie: Hon. Speaker, I'm going to revert to the speech I wrote this afternoon. Medical care is far too important to modify in such a cavalier manner. We've heard the hon. Minister of Health tell us that the tax meter is running. We heard the hon. member for Burnaby North wax eloquently about how much the costs.... We heard that earlier tonight. I know I was at dinner, but we heard it earlier tonight. What a manipulation of a situation! This distortion has been correctly set straight by the hon. member for Richmond East, who told us that the doctors don't mind taking a lower fee. They're looking at the long-term interests of the medical profession. That's what is important. I've met with many doctors in my riding, and that's what they're concerned about.

Interjection.

A. Cowie: You can't tell me about self-interest. I come from a medical family. I know that doctors don't make a great deal of money. They put a great deal of effort into their profession, and they work for years. We know that.

It is my duty as an opposition MLA to ensure that whatever legislation is brought before this House is of the greatest benefit to the majority of British Columbians. I wish to be clearly on the record as one who stood up in defence of medicare. I spoke about that last night. The Liberals brought in medicare, and it's very important that we defend it. As one who stood up for the democratic wishes of the public, it's very important that we support medicare.

Stuffing something down the throats of doctors will not engender a system that's in the best interests of British Columbians. Why won't the government stand back from the Legislature hammer and sit down and negotiate in good faith with the doctors? That's what it's all about. I very much encourage you in government to sit down over the weekend, negotiate with the doctors and come back with a very sensible approach. Take time. Let the public of British Columbia participate in this. Then we can carry on.

I'm going to leave it at that. It's your conscience. The public deserves proper participation, and that's the main message that I have tonight.

J. Tyabji: I stand to speak in favour of this amendment, as I have for the past two amendments that the official opposition put forward to the House, and I look forward to speaking on future amendments that the opposition will introduce to Bill 71. We all realize that the weather is not conducive to staying in this House any longer to continue to debate the bill that is before us. There's nothing that we would like more than to be able to adjourn the House, to end debate and to go home. However, this bill is of such critical importance to the future of the province that we of the opposition are prepared to sit here as long as it takes to try to convince the government to reconsider the course of action that they have chosen to take with regard to Bill 71.

As with the past amendments, the points that we would like to make are specifically that this bill needs consideration and that we must have public input and due process in taking into account all the items that are in a bill of this magnitude.

An Hon. Member: What is due process?

J. Tyabji: He may well ask. There are several ways in which we could follow due process. As one of our previous amendments -- which the members probably weren't here to attend the debate on -- suggested, we could send it to a select standing committee so that we have all-party participation in going over the subject matter of the bill. The other aspect of due process that we feel is essential in dealing with this bill is allowing for public input on the subject matter, so that people throughout British Columbia would be able to have some kind of input and participation. People from all walks of life and from every aspect of the health care profession would be able to have input into the content of Bill 71.

It is for these reasons that we put forward our third amendment on the bill. The concerns that we have and which we have stated in the third amendment on the bill are basically -- I mean, there are so many -- the time sensitivity and the fact that there are critical issues in the bill, like government inspectors who would be allowed to scrutinize patient files at any reasonable time. This is a provision that we feel should have some kind of discussion, particularly since it will affect every person who lives in British Columbia. Anyone who has any recourse to going to a doctor -- that would involve every one of us -- no doubt has things in their files that they don't want anyone to see, or that they don't feel are anyone's right or privilege to see.

I would put to the government that even if they feel this provision to allow government inspectors to scrutinize patient files is not a contentious one, they should allow public input to at least affirm that. If they honestly think that the people of B.C. don't feel this would require any kind of discussion, they should put

[ Page 3159 ]

it forward to the people of B.C. The bill gives extensive powers to subcommittees in the Medical Services Commission. We feel there should definitely be some discussion as to the mandate of the subcommittees, as to the people who would be appointed and who would be eligible, and as to the nature of their function with respect to the overall umbrella commission -- the new nine-member Medical Services Commission.

There are many things that I would like to discuss with regard to why we put forward this amendment. For example, according to the Medical Services Plan staff, they talk about a sufficient increase to accommodate expected population growth, but not sufficient funds to accommodate increased utilization. That's obviously a contradiction in terms. How can you, on the one hand, accommodate increased population growth and yet not accommodate increased utilization? These are the kinds of things we feel we should have a chance to talk to the minister about over the summer.

In addition to that, we see from the Medical Services Plan staff that if utilization of services increases, then all physicians' payments will be prorated. However, there will not be a good picture of the projected overutilization until September 1992. That is exactly why we should have some time to consult over this bill, so that we actually have some kind of idea as to what the overutilization will be before we start arbitrarily pushing it off onto another group to be responsible for.

The more we examine this bill and the implications of this bill for the people of B.C., the more those of us on the opposition side feel it is fundamental to providing good government to the province to allow debate on the bill prior to it becoming an act.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I feel that some of the comments coming from the other side are very insensitive. "The closer to the bill, the more you cry -- just like an onion." That is exactly the nature of the bill: the more you examine it, the more you realize the implications.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I can't hear myself speaking.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, as I was saying, we find that this is such an enormous bill and has such great implications, and the resources necessary to do justice to dissecting and examining the implications of this bill require such a great amount of time and effort, that as we take more and more time with the bill, we find more and more that we would like to bring up about it. It is for that reason alone that we must have more time to examine the bill.

Why are we seeing this bill being rammed through the House? Why are we contravening the ability of the public to have input into the subject matter of the bill?

[E. Barnes in the chair.]

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, it's difficult to hear the speaker. Please keep your voices down.

J. Tyabji: Thank you, hon. Speaker.

As we on the opposition side have said with previous amendments, we feel very strongly that it really goes to the heart of why government exists. Why do we have government in B.C.? One of the overriding concerns is to provide good medical services to the people of B.C.

An Hon. Member: One-third of the budget.

J. Tyabji: As one member points out, it's a third of the budget.

If we are going to redraft how we provide medical services to the people of B.C., we owe the bill more justice than ramming it through the House in a week. We are trying our best to show the government that this is an undemocratic way of dealing with a bill. We cannot do justice to something of this magnitude that rewrites our medical and health care services in this short space of time.

It calls into question the whole issue of Bill 13 and Bill 14. If we had treated Bill 13 and Bill 14 in the same manner that we're treating Bill 71, they would already be acts.

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, please refer to the bill before us. Any other bills that are on the order paper would be out of order, as the member appreciates.

[10:30]

J. Tyabji: What I should say is that if we follow a policy with every bill that it be pushed through the House within a week or less of being introduced, we would consequently have current acts that we would probably want to change our minds on. We need a lot of time to spend on bills, especially something with regard to medical and health care services. If we are going to do justice to the items that are in it, if we are going to thoroughly examine them, if we are going to allow discussion on them, then obviously one thing that we have to do is allow time. We cannot allow any actions of this House to lose credibility within the House, and to allow the public to perceive what's happening here as not doing credit to the bill that's before us.

I have some letters here that have been written specifically with regard to this bill, and I think that the content has direct bearing on why the opposition is introducing amendments to the bill. We have a letter from Castlegar. This goes to the point I made that we really need input from around the province. It's very easy for us here. People refer to Victoria as an "ivory tower", as a place where we're so far removed from the people that we lose touch.

Hon. Speaker, I'm having a hard time....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I realize it's getting late. I don't wish to admonish anyone for losing

[ Page 3160 ]

their composure at this late hour. I think we can all appreciate how difficult it is to stand in one's place and attempt to make points when members are commenting on other matters. I would ask all members to show the respect for the speaker that they would expect were they in their place making a speech.

Interjections.

J. Tyabji: I hear one member repeatedly saying: "There's nothing to be said." I think that's very unfair. The opposition is obviously trying very hard to make....

Deputy Speaker: Hon. member, please carry on.

J. Tyabji: What I was going to say is that we in the opposition have received letters from many NDP ridings around the province, from people who are extremely concerned with Bill 71. As I was saying, in Victoria we're often accused of being removed from the people of B.C. and removed from the people who are being affected by the very legislation that goes through the House. We know it's an inaccessible place; we know it's hard to get to. It is for that reason that I would like to read a letter from Castlegar; otherwise we won't be hearing from the constituents of that area. This is with regard to the amendment and Bill 71. They talk about extreme concerns in that the hard global cap will no longer work, and that patients will suffer as a result of this.

This is also to the point that I was making on the past amendment, where I was saying that in my own riding.... The member for Langley was bringing up about the doctors' meeting tomorrow. We're also having a meeting tomorrow in my own riding, and this is the second meeting of doctors. In fact, we've got an urgent press release that Kelowna doctors are to close offices and meet to protest the NDP health-care-rationing bill. It talks about how tomorrow, as I was saying.... And unfortunately I cannot be there because the House is sitting. I would very much like to hear what they have to say. They're not being very generous in the way they're referring to this bill, and they're certainly.... They've got a term that I'm sure the minister has heard. They're calling it the double-cross bill with regard to it being LXXI. They're taking care of the full emergency coverage and hospital in-patient coverage and the basics, but the rest of it.... They're getting together because they feel it's a matter of such pressing importance that they want to talk about it as a whole, and as a committee.

I was saying that the last time I was at a meeting of the doctors in Kelowna, many of them had filled out the opting-out forms from medicare. They were so concerned that they felt they had to send the strongest message possible. We on the opposition side would also like to send the strongest message possible in terms of what this bill represents: a fundamental shift, and some of the things within that fundamental shift are not things that are going over well with the health care community.

What happens to the patients who are going to be affected? If we have doctors who opt out, and patients who aren't even aware of Bill 71 go to their doctors for service and all of a sudden they have to pay for the service because the doctors feel that the government hasn't been talking to them, then we have people who can least afford to be paying for the services being directly affected by the legislation that goes through the House here. The unfortunate thing about the reality of what we do here is that often the implications of what we do here don't get to the people until they actually have to pay for it, until the day it comes home to them because it's come to their pocketbook.

The letter from Castlegar continues. It's from six doctors, and they're saying:

"Once the yearly sum is used up, there will be no money left over for tests or patients once the funds are gone, and this is a province whose health care system was once the best in the world. We are also concerned that the new Bill 71 gives government the right to enter physicians' offices and look into individual files without the permission of either the patient or the doctor."

This goes to why we would like to have some discussion on this, because if this minister has something to say to the people of B.C. as to why she feels it is very necessary for government inspectors to be able to look into the files of a patient, the people of B.C. would like to hear her now, not after the fact, not after a government inspector has gone through a file and the person then finds out about it. They want to know about it now. This is the time for discussion.

We know that very little of what we do here ever reaches the people in the remote regions of the province. Unfortunately they're only going to be hit by it once the legislation is in place, once they're already acting on it, and by then it's always too late. Then it becomes reactive; they're reacting to legislation that's already in place -- rather than offering the opportunity for people in remote areas to have participation in the process.

To go back to the letter with regard to the government inspectors having the ability to look through individual files, those doctors go on to say: "This completely violates the physician-patient relationship...." That's absolutely true. There are so many times when a patient and a doctor have a close relationship, where the patient can talk to the doctor in a counselling kind of relationship and the doctor then acts as a father confessor, for those of us who have a Catholic background, or for those of you who don't.... It's a very close, very secure relationship. I think it's very unfortunate that if that doctor makes notes on the intimate talks so that he or she can later make reference to them, the government inspector can come and have access to them. I have great difficulty with that, because....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: I think that those are the kinds of things that have to be discussed before the bill becomes an act. They go to the very heart of the doctor-patient relationship.

[ Page 3161 ]

As we have mentioned in previous speeches on the amendment, the process we're following here is going to determine how we are perceived by the public in terms of how effective democracy can be. Is it enough that people cast a vote on election day and then no matter what happens you can pass whatever bill you like? This is one-third of the budget that we're talking about. This is a critical bill that's going to rewrite our medical and health care services. That deserves some attention and some time, and we have to spend some time on it.

An Hon. Member: We're giving you time.

J. Tyabji: The hon. member who, despite numerous requests for order, continues to have to have some input keeps saying that he's giving us some time. I would hate to see the day when a few days of debate in the House is justifiable discussion on a bill of this magnitude. If this member thinks that this is enough time for this kind of bill, then I don't think he understands how important the bill is.

This letter goes on to say:

"Even though the government is presenting this" -- the inspection process -- "as a way of preventing doctors from cheating on the system, there is certainly no guarantee that this alone will be the basis for inspecting patients' charts. If I knew this system was in place and the government had the right to invade my chart, I would never feel comfortable about seeing any physician in the province."

I think that gets to the heart of this legislation and why we have to discuss it. It would be really unfortunate if there was any misunderstanding as to the nature of that provision in the legislation. If we had, for example, a troubled teenager who wanted to go and talk to a doctor whom that teenager trusted, and if somehow they were told, "The government can go and take a look at your charts, you know," that's the kind of thing that undermines the physician-patient relationship. It is a very unfortunate thing.

If the minister feels that that provision does not undermine it, let's have some discussion on it. Let's have some debate on it. Let's spend the summer informing people about why that's there and what the limitations are that the government inspectors have with regard to the files.

Unfortunately, as this letter continues:

"This bill presents immense changes in the medicare system as it stands in B.C. The NDP has angered doctors to the point of most being willing to opt out immediately."

That is an extremely unfortunate situation. There's no question that that is the situation in Kelowna as well.

It's interesting that in Castlegar -- an NDP riding -- we're getting the letters to us in the opposition offices, because the NDP constituencies are not being represented in this House on this debate in this manner. It would be most gratifying to see the MLAs stand up on that side of the House and read out the letters that I know they are getting from their constituents, so that we could at least have input from that side of the House in terms of Bill 71.

An Hon. Member: Give us the numbers.

J. Tyabji: Hon. Speaker, we have received hundreds of letters.

The Chair: Hon. member, I would remind you that we do have an amendment before us: the third amendment, which is on Bill 71, and there are three points which are mentioned in the amendment. It would help if the speaker would refer to the amendment which is before us, and not the bill.

An Hon. Member: She's being distracted.

J. Tyabji: There's no question -- there's a lot of distraction on that side of the House.

Hon. Speaker, the three items that we've put in our third amendment.... It's unfortunate that we couldn't make more than one substantive amendment, or obviously there would have been three separate ones, and we would be going into our fifth. There will be more.

Hon. Speaker, the first one is: "...the powers of audit and inspection allowed for in the bill will seriously compromise every citizen's right to privacy." That, to me, is one of the points that is being driven home to us in most of the letters that are coming from around the province -- not just from physicians but from everyone who is affected in the health care community. Who isn't? That basically takes in everyone in the province. They are coming forward and saying: "Let's discuss the bill; let's discuss that provision of the bill particularly, and let's discuss the potential implications and what the limitations are of that provision." That hasn't been done.

One of the reasons for that amendment is that we would not read this a second time, specifically because of that provision. If only we could take sections of this bill.... This bill should probably have come in several different packages, so that at least if the government is so keen on it -- we could perhaps have passed the portions that it's keen on.

The second part of our amendment is: "...this bill will drive doctors, especially specialists, from the province." That to me is the whole point of tomorrow's meetings that will be going on around the province. We are seeing doctors who are feeling demoralized by the way in which the legislation has come before the House and has gone through in such a speedy manner. Hon. Speaker, whether or not you feel that the doctors are justified, surely you can understand how the patients of those doctors are going to feel if their own doctors, whom they trust, opt out of the system. Even if those who are currently heckling in the background have no sympathy for the doctors, they should at least recognize that those doctors all have patients. You also have doctors and patients in your ridings. When those doctors opt out and the patients can no longer get medical services and come to their MLAs, I hope they can get some kind of response in the House and some kind of representation.

The third provision of our amendment is that the proration and capping of fees allowed for in the bill amounts to a rationing of health care and the introduc-

[ Page 3162 ]

tion of a two-tiered system of health care in British Columbia. That, to me, is something we need some time to talk about. Do we want to have a two-tiered system of health care? Do we want to have a rationing of health care? If we do want a rationing of health care, do we want to pass the responsibility for the rationing on to the doctors? Certainly, in Bill 71, that's what happens. The responsibility for the rationing of health care goes to the doctors. I don't feel comfortable with that. We don't elect doctors to make decisions for us. We have elected representatives who should be making difficult decisions like how we approach the rationing of health care -- if we are to have it. How do we prioritize health care services? Which aspects of health care are we going to allow to become low priority? How are we going to deal with things? Are we going to deal with health care in the way that Oregon State does?

The last provision here is something that we definitely need some time on, so that the people of B.C. can be heard, can have time to discuss it and can hear from the minister and all the other members of the government who support Bill 71 and perhaps don't feel that the third provision in our amendment is justified. If they don't feel it's justified, let's have some time to talk about it. Let's hear from them. Let's hear the arguments and the debates so that when we get contacted by people in our riding who are saying, "I understand that the government inspectors can come and see our files, and that there's going to be rationing of health care and a two-tiered system," we can respond to our own constituents in that way. We can say: "Oh, the government says that's not the case. This is the case." If it is the case, let's be upfront about it. Let's talk about it now, so it's not something that people have to deal with somewhere down the road; so it's not a rude awakening for people around the province who suddenly realize that their own health care system, which is fundamental to the quality of life that we enjoy in B.C., has been drastically changed without any input from the public.

The reason that we continue to introduce amendments is that we don't feel there's been adequate process in terms of public consultation. How can there be adequate consultation, from this government's perspective? If the government is looking to the previous administration's consultation practices, then I would put to them: why did we have a change in government? Why did the people of B.C. elect a new government, if this government is constantly referring to the previous administration's consultation practices?

I would say that this government should have looked to their own agenda. They should have been straight with the people of B.C. and said: "This is our agenda. This is our assessment of the situation. This is what we're going to do about it, and this is how we're going to do it." We don't see that being done at all. We don't feel there's been adequate debate in this House. If this government and the back bench feel that they have something to say as to why these amendments are unreasonable and why the people of B.C. have been completely informed as to why these three concerns are not being met, then I would challenge them: please stand up and share it with us.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

There's no question that we can see that the provisions listed in the amendment with regard to Bill 71 are of great concern and need serious consideration. With regard to the three amendments that we have been discussing here.... There are three provisions within the amendment. There is a letter here as well from Duncan, B.C. As I was saying, it's interesting, because out in the regions of the province there are grave concerns. It's interesting to me how consistent the concerns are and how much they reflect the three provisions of our amendment.

It seems fundamental to this bill. There are so many items in this bill, and there are three main concerns. The three main concerns are the ones listed in the amendment, and it's unfortunate that we find ourselves dealing with an enormous bill that only has a few areas of concern, and we're having to do whatever we can to get enough time to gather the resources and try to convince the government to put this bill off till the fall. We're repeatedly trying, and I put to you, hon. Speaker, that we will try again. This will not be our last attempt. We will do whatever we can to get the message across that there are grave concerns out there, that they are consistent, that they are consistent with our amendments and that it is extremely important for all of us to take some time to look at this bill in detail with all of our constituents. And if it turns out that the 51 members of the government side of the House find that their constituents are completely happy with the bill, then obviously we will defer to democracy.

K. Jones: It's with pleasure that I rise to speak for this multiple amendment. It's unfortunate that we have a government that is not prepared to listen to constructive opportunities for change, and we've had to go through a whole series of amendments to try to bring some sense to the logic of this debate. This amendment is just a beginning for this side, to show that the people of British Columbia are not satisfied with this type of bill. It is totally inadequate.

I'd just like to wake up the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who is very interested in this campaign and, like the rest of us, is finding it a little difficult keeping awake. I think we all have a bit of a problem doing that right now. But I'd like to just remind her of an opportunity to....

B. Copping: She's not here.

K. Jones: Oh, she's not here. I'm sorry to hear that. The person who's sitting over in that direction there. My apologies.

I'd like to read this letter from a concerned doctor in Ladysmith, because I thought that that would be of interest to her. "Please attempt to stop passage of Bill 71." Now that's pretty clear. That's right to the point. "This will reduce patient services in Ladysmith, which are already being reduced by the NDP government." That's pretty clear too. "The hard global cap will result in longer waiting-lists for operations and test results. I object to government inspectors prying into the files of

[ Page 3163 ]

my patients." I think that's very clear. That's a message that I want members opposite to hear loud and clear. "I object to government inspectors prying into the files of my patients" -- just in case you didn't catch it. "There is no fair way to settle the inevitable dispute over fees. Seven other provinces have binding arbitration, including NDP-governed Ontario."

This gentleman has a great deal of concern for both his patients and his community of Ladysmith, represented by the NDP, no less -- and mostly less, I think, from the looks of this letter. I find it disappointing that the message isn't getting through to the opposite side. How many times do you have to be told?

Perhaps the member for Nanaimo would like to hear what the medical profession is having to say.

Some Hon. Members: Bingo!

K. Jones: Besides bingo. I hear that's the favourite game in Nanaimo.

I'd like to draw your attention to the message here from a doctor in Nanaimo. Actually, this one is a very long one. Would you like me to read all of it, or would you just like to have parts of it? I think I'll just give you parts of it right now. "In brief, I will introduce my major objections to the proposed medical services act and follow it with my thoughts about uninsured services and utilization. Number one. No contract with this government can ever be trusted again." Boy, that really puts it right where it is, doesn't it? They haven't honoured the last one, and you know what that means. We who have been in the labour moment know what dishonoured contracts are. That's a very, very serious situation. It's totally unacceptable to any person in the labour movement when a contract isn't honoured, yet this last government has actually done it to the people of British Columbia and to the doctors. They failed to honour the contract.

D. Lovick: We didn't done it.

K. Jones: The hon. member for Nanaimo says they didn't done it. You're absolutely right, they didn't done it. If only they had done something.

Number two from the letter: "The government talks about improving medical services, while they cut the budget under historical growth" -- less money than they've ever had before. This is a government that says it's concerned about health care, and yet it's dropping the budget below what the growth rate is.

I'll skip a couple here. Number five: "The government has refused to bargain in good faith." Now that is a serious one. I think the former Premier was having some difficulty with that. The government has refused to bargain in good faith. The only things government is willing to bargain on are how doctors can work harder for less, take greater legal risks and alienate their own patients by refusing services patients want and expect. This is what you call a universal health plan. That's what this government opposite claimed they were in favour of; they have for many years. Yet they have done everything to destroy probably one of the best health plans in the country. That's the type of direction we're going in here.

There's another section that I'd like to read from this letter in support of this amendment that's going to ask that there be a change to this bill: "The powers of audit and inspection allowed for in the bill will seriously compromise every citizen's right to privacy. This bill will drive doctors, especially specialists, from the province." There's no question about that. You can't argue against that. "The proration and capping of fees allowed for in the bill amounts to a rationing of health care and the introduction of a two-tiered system of health care in British Columbia, something that the NDP has said they would never do." Yet this government is bringing that forward.

Reading once again from the letter from the doctor from Nanaimo: "Provincial and federal governments have been increasing the budget for medicare at a rate that is below what population, inflation and increased utilization would require."

In view of the time, Madam Speaker, I move that the debate be adjourned and that we continue at a later date.

Motion approved.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada