1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page 2793 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Ministerial Statement

Photodegradability of plastic bags. Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2793

Ms. Smallwood

Health Statutes Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 34). Third reading –– 2793

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987 (Bill 59). Second reading

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2793

Mr. Cashore –– 2794

Mr. G. Hanson –– 2797

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2799

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 63). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2799

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1987 (Bill 62). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 2799

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

Ministerial Statement

PHOTODEGRADABILITY OF PLASTIC BAGS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I have been advised that Canada

Safeway Ltd. will be announcing at 10:30 today in Delta that

they will be introducing a new type of plastic bag in their

retail grocery stores. This new bag will be manufactured using

a new additive in the polyethylene plastic that will cause the

plastic to become photodegradable. This means that when the

plastic is exposed to the ultraviolet light in sunlight, a slow

chemical reaction is initiated which causes the plastic to

break down. The speed with which the plastic will break down

depends upon the amount of special additive incorporated into

the original plastic.

I want to stress that this is a very important initiative by

Canada Safeway and the distributor of the plastic additive,

Sunbag International Ltd. of Vancouver. While it is not a total

answer to the growing volume of plastics in our municipal waste

streams and litter, it is definitely a step in the right

direction. In terms of the impact on the volume of municipal

refuse disposal, it is not clear how significant an impact this

and similar initiatives might have. Obviously the

photodegradation process will not occur on plastics that have

been landfilled, since exposure to sunlight is precluded.

However, it could be very significant in reducing plastic

litter, particularly along our highways and in our parks. The

real importance of this initiative is that it is a positive

step in the direction of environmental sensitivity by the

packaging and retailing sector, which has generally been prone

to consider buyer appeal before environmental protection when

they consider product packaging.

For this move I commend Canada Safeway and Sunbag

International Ltd., and I would commend this initiative to all

other British Columbia and Canadian distributors of plastic

packaged goods.

MS. SMALLWOOD: In response to the minister's

statement, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House also

welcome such an initiative. We congratulate the two companies

for taking on this excellent project and would encourage the

government to bring in legislation which would encourage the

minimization of waste flow in our system. This is a very

positive initiative by the private sector and we would look

forward to the government's complementing their initiative and

assisting other corporations in doing the same.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I call report on Bill 34.

HEALTH STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

Bill 34 read a third time and passed.

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, regretfully I rise on a

point of privilege. The point of privilege refers to the

response of the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) to a

question put to him regarding Surrey Memorial Hospital on

Tuesday, at the last sitting of the House.

At that time, the minister indicated that he had not

received a letter from the doctor. My question had to do with a

letter sent by the chief of staff, Dr. T.S. Wong, regarding the

report the government has initiated — a mental health

consultative report dealing with Riverview Hospital and its

implications on Surrey.

Mr. Speaker, I have documentation indicating that not only

did the Minister of Health receive this letter dated November

24. but copies have been sent to his ministry, with supporting

documentation by Dr. Luke from the department of psychiatry of

that hospital, as well as from the president and the CEO. In

addition, copies have been sent to the members representing

both Surrey–Newton (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) and Surrey–White

Rock–Cloverdale (Hon. Mr. Reid).

If the Speaker should rule that the House's privilege has

been violated. I have presented a motion to you and would be

prepared to read it at that time.

[10:15]

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for her presentation;

I'll reserve decision until later.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading

of Bill 59.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

(continued)

MR. D'ARCY: Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to

resume my remarks regarding the so-called decentralization

program and direct them towards the parliamentary secretary and

the regional minister of state. I want to get on the record in

the House and to those two individuals some of the concerns

that I and my constituents have, particularly regarding the

maintenance of our transportation links throughout the

region.

The West Kootenay area has the highest mountain passes in

British Columbia and some of the heaviest snowfalls. In fact,

the pass between Salmo and Creston — frequently called Kootenay

Pass — is the only highway in British Columbia that is

frequently closed due to winter conditions. I want to talk

briefly about the quality of avalanche control and the

competence that Highways crews have developed over the last few

years in handling snowfalls on that particular pass.

As recently as five years ago the average closure on that

stretch of highway during the winter was nearly five hours

long. While the number of closures has remained the same — up to

last winter, in the neighbourhood of 45 or 46 closures a year —

the average closure is now down to two hours, and that is about

the same time that someone would have to wait for a ferry if

they missed one down on the coast here. When you consider that

this pass goes to nearly 6,000 feet and has extremely heavy

snowfalls, this is a significant improvement and indicates that

the avalanche control officers, with their gunsheds and their

howitzers, have extremely good management skills, and also

indicates that the snow-clearing crews have great skills. I

think we also must acknowledge the dangerous nature of this

particular work.

Mr. Speaker, we're getting into regional management of many

of these resources in this bill, and we're getting into

regional control and probably private control of what I

consider to be an essential public service — that is, operating

the

[ Page 2794 ]

roads and ferries throughout the region. I touched briefly

on Tuesday on the stated intent of the government to consider,

in their contracting-out program, service levels and user fees

on the inland ferries as well. Because on those 45 to 50

occasions a year that this major pass is closed, which I just

mentioned, the population of British Columbia depends on the

Kootenay Lake ferry to bypass this particular stretch of

highway until it is reopened. There is a major concern here

that with the intent to contract out the operation of these

ferries and put user fees on them, these vital highway links

will not operate as efficiently or as frequently as they have

over the past 40 or 50 years.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about some of the qualities of

the highways maintenance people in my own constituency. There

is a major pass in my riding going over to the west, and about

three-quarters of that pass is in my constituency. The

Christina Lake quarter . . . roughly that amount is in

Boundary–Similkameen or the Grand Forks highway district.

On numerous occasions over the past 26 years that this road

has been opened, snow-clearing and sanding crews from the

Rossland highways district will be going down to Christina Lake

and will reach the turnaround point of the boundary of the

highways district and note that the road is impassable on the

lower slopes of the pass in the Grand Forks district. This is

no criticism of the Grand Forks district crews but only a

recognition that, because of the generally lower rain and snow

fall in the area, they simply don't have the budget — and don't

need the budget — to maintain the highways to the same extent

as they do in the interior wetbelt, which encompasses

Rossland–Trail.

The crews from the Rossland highways district on these

occasions will, without being supervised or told to do it,

simply go beyond their regular district boundaries for as much

as 15 to 20 miles, clearing road, getting traffic moving,

plowing, sanding and making sure the highway is not only

passable but safe to move on.

Mr. Speaker, numerous people — and I would say this is a

non-partisan issue and crosses party lines; certainly in my

area it does — have expressed by direct word, by letter and by

phone call, a concern to me that under this regional program of

contracting out this essential service, the private sector

contractors are not going to exert that extra effort of going

beyond what they are required to do into areas that do not fall

into their district because they see a need to maintain the

highway.

I also want to talk about something that has come to my

attention, that under the existing management there is very

intensive driver training. I'm talking about the people who

handle the graders and the trucks in the winter. Driver

training is done by experienced Highways personnel to make sure

that the temporary workers hired in the winter or indeed any

permanent drivers not only can handle their trucks properly

from the point of view of maintaining those vehicles in a

dependable state, but also show considerable courtesy and

responsibility to the traveling public, particularly in urban

areas where there is pedestrian traffic on the sidewalks along

the highway through the centre of town.

I also want to note that we have some concerns with this

essential service being contracted out under this regionalized

program, that the ministry operations will not be quite so

self-sufficient. They do not have the capability at the local

level to quickly rebuild an entire truck engine, but they do

have the capability to quickly remove and quickly reinstall the

major power-train components of their trucks and graders,

making use of the Cloverdale shop of the Highways ministry. We

like to think that we're as self-sufficient as possible within

the region right now, so that in the event of a major period of

really inclement weather and heavy snowfalls, breakdowns and

maintenance can be handled at the local level.

We also have major concerns under this regionalized program

regarding the likelihood that a contractor is going to go

through the process of changing, for instance, 300 to 500

cutting edges on the plows of the trucks and graders in the

region. This is necessary to clean the highways right down to

the sealcoat or the blacktop, and to make sure that the heavy

trucks and cars have adequate traction right down to the

asphalt, and can see the safety lines — the lane markings and

so forth. People in the lower mainland and Vancouver Island

take for granted, I think, that even in bad visibility they can

see the centre yellow lines and the white lane and shoulder

markings. If the road crews, however, end up with packed snow

and ice after a snowfall, a great many motorists cannot know

where they are. They'll know they're on the highway, but they

won't know whether they're in a multi-lane situation, or

whether two lanes are approaching them of traffic going the

other way, or exactly what is happening.

So it's very important to us in that part of the interior — and, I think, throughout the entire interior and north — that

the standards, and the ability of the trucks to continue to

maintain those standards, be allowed. Quite frankly, if you're

talking 300 to 500 blade changes a year in one Highways yard —

and I have three in my riding — we have major concerns that the

contracting out of this essential public service will not allow

that sort of thing.

Mr. Speaker, just before I sit down, I want — if it's not

out of order; I realize the time is going on this particular

bill — to make a comment on the ministerial statement and the

reply we just heard. I just want to put on the record that the

biodegradable plastic bags are not a new invention; they've

been around for years and years. The problem has been that

packaging companies were not prepared to assume the fractional,

tiny cost that these were in excess of the non-biodegradable

plastic bags — although some cosmetic companies, I think, have

been using these for years and years. I think Body Shop

International is one of them, for instance. But the food

companies that produce most of the plastic materials have

adamantly refused until now. That's why I'm very glad to hear

that Safeway is going to use these bags. It's not because they

were massively more expensive; they were just a tiny fraction

more expensive than the non-biodegradable bags. I too would

have liked to have seen federal and provincial legislation to

enforce the use of these years ago. They are not a cost factor

to the consumer. They were a very minor cost factor to the

manufacturer, however; hence the resistance until now. Thank

you for your tolerance, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CASHORE: As I rise to speak on Bill 59, I am

acutely aware of the differences of opinion that have been

expressed with regard to the amount of breadth that may taken

with the subject matter of this bill. It's my opinion — given

the

section very early on in the bill that enables raising the

number of parliamentary secretaries, and some other sections

later on in the bill — that taken on the whole, while it is a

miscellaneous bill, there is nevertheless a thread connecting

the government's plans for a new form of centralization within

the province, and the government's plans to

[ Page 2795 ]

privatize without fair process for the people of British

Columbia. While not all of my comments relating to matters in

this bill deal with those two issues, some of them do, and I

will try very hard to connect what I say to the substance of

this bill.

First, with regard to the issue of the parliamentary

secretaries, that certainly opens up the whole issue of a new

reality which this government is imposing on the people of

British Columbia, a reality that fails to understand our

parliamentary traditions or the significance of the MLA elected

in various areas throughout the province, and seeks to

circumvent a process that is now able to work well.

Had the intent been to more effectively deliver services to

the regions of the province, we might have looked at the

infrastructure there now through the regional districts and

through the process that could have been followed and would

have involved prior consultation with the members of municipal

councils, people in the regional districts, members of the B.C.

School Trustees' Association, people who function within the

diverse length and breadth of British Columbia and who would be

able to advise the government on how to deliver more effective

regional services. What we have instead is a gradually

unveiling plan for a new form of centralization that will

involve these eight regional heads appointed by political

appointment, people who already have cabinet responsibility and

who, in turn, will have their additional parliamentary

secretaries.

[10:30]

It wasn't too many years ago that the number of

parliamentary secretaries was increased as members of the

caucus of the previous Socred government were assigned to

various ministries in the role of parliamentary secretary. It

was quite obvious at that time that that too was open to

question. Was it, for instance, a means of trying to deal with

the fact that there were back-benchers who found that they

wanted to have an opportunity to have input into the kinds of

decisions that were made in cabinet; that they were frustrated

in their role as government back-benchers because they often

found that they did not agree with the procedures that were

taking place, and this was a way of kind of bringing them on

board?

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the group dynamics involved in

this process of hiring these new parliamentary secretaries to

service the areas that are part of this plan, we have to ask:

what are the criteria? When we recognize that this is a

political process, that really it's no different from the type

of thing that so upset Canadians in the ways Mr. Trudeau, Mr.

Turner and Mr. Mulroney have issued patronage.... It's the same

type of thing. It's a means of taking a person and making a

political appointment where it is totally unnecessary in terms

of the stated goal.

Mr. Speaker, as this plan has unfolded, it has seemed to be

a kind of stream-of-consciousness unfolding. It has become

quite apparent to the people of British Columbia that the plan

was not well thought out. In fact, my recollection is that when

the Premier first announced this program, he said that there

would be $1 million going to each of these regions to help set

up an infrastructure. But at the same time, the Premier has

said that this is going to reduce bureaucracy, that it's not

going to increase bureaucracy. At the same time, he announced

the loss of many civil service jobs in the Victoria area and in

other areas of the province. Then when the feedback started to

come to the Premier on that set of comments, he started to

adjust what he was saying: he said no, that it would not be

used for setting up this new bureaucracy, that it would be used

for helping with economic development in these regions.

So the public found, much to its chagrin, a sense of

uncertainty which is a blight upon the land at this time. The

public found that the comments of the Premier, the stream-of-consciousness planning, were contributing to a feeling of

uncertainty and tension, which certainly is not conducive to

the kinds of promises that the Premier made during the time

that he was seeking a mandate in the recent election.

When we start to look at this from the perspective of my

constituency, for instance, we find that a new process is being

superimposed at great cost.... Yes, it is a costly bureaucracy.

Yes, it is a way in which not only this $8 million is going to

be spent in each of these regions, but in which the rules

whereby regional fairness is achieved are being altered. It's a

step towards it being not what you know but who you know.

Let's face it, within the cabinet and the back bench of the

Social Credit government, there is a pecking order: there are

those who have more experience and those who have more

influence. That pecking order will be brought to bear in the

delivery of unfairness, as this process is imposed upon the

people of British Columbia.

In my riding, for instance, we find that the Provincial

Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch) — who, I think, has sufficient

responsibility in that capacity — is now being given the

responsibility of governing the entire lower mainland. He's the

governor of the lower mainland. I have to ask myself: with him

living in Burnaby, and with Burnaby having SkyTrain, and with

the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston) being

from Surrey and being now in charge of the Kootenays region,

given that that's a political process, how is that going to

contribute to fairness for my constituency and others in the

Coquitlam area? How is that going to contribute to fairness,

when there's this attempt to co-opt fair-minded people into

playing this kind of game?

Mr. Speaker, it's highly inappropriate. It is grossly

unfair. What interest do these people have in seeing, for

instance, SkyTrain coming into my municipality? It's more

likely that we'll see SkyTrain going from Surrey over to

Creston, given the present circumstances, than that we will see

SkyTrain coming into Coquitlam, which was a commitment made by

this government in the election campaign.

We have the issue of the special warrant, Mr. Speaker: a

grave process of ignoring parliamentary responsibility, an

example encapsulated within the process that this government is

using that either indicates a failure to understand the meaning

of our parliamentary democracy in British Columbia or — I hope

this is not the case — is done out of ignorance and a lack of

understanding of our traditions and values. It does not bode

well for the people of British Columbia that this process would

be set in motion through special warrant, which may at some

future time come into this Legislature to be debated, after the

decisions have been made and the plan is underway, without

letting the elected representatives of the people have an

opportunity to speak to it and to present their views on it.

What kind of message — the medium being the message — is that

sending to the people of British Columbia? Why would you want

to increase the uncertainty and doubt that is out there

already?

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

Let's consider the field of mental health, for instance,

under this new process. Given that this is a very delicate

issue

[ Page 2796 ]

in which the government has committed itself to a

comprehensive plan that includes the entire province, how is

this new level of bureaucracy going to enhance that plan? Not

at all. What it is going to do is move new players, at great

expense, into the milieu, and they will be expected to have a

part to play in making decisions that should be made on the

basis of the present infrastructure that we have in this

province, based on the elected representation that we have and

the input that we could be having from our regional districts

and from other areas.

I'd like to come at this in a more particular sense, Mr.

Speaker. It seems to me that as parliamentary secretaries are

appointed, we could look at this from a number of different

perspectives. For instance, let's assume for a moment that I

was to set aside my personal feelings and bias about this

situation, and to say: "Okay, for the sake of argument I'll go

along with this plan." One of the new parliamentary secretaries

who catches my eye is the hon. member for Chilliwack (Mr.

Jansen). If it were the case that I favoured this plan — and I

don't — I would have to say that that hon. gentleman is a

worthy candidate for such responsibility. For instance, he has

a strong record of municipal service in his community, and he

is well spoken of and well thought of. I would go a step

further and say that during the time that that member shared

the recent hearings on the sale of alcohol in British Columbia,

he worked very hard at that task. He went throughout the length

and breadth of this province, along with commissioners, and he

listened to people, heard their concerns, took those concerns

seriously and filed his report. This would seem to be the kind

of person that we would want appointed to positions of

responsibility in our society and in the way we govern

ourselves.

I make no apology for extolling the obvious virtues of the

hon. MLA from Chilliwack. But part of the process that we are

involved in is a process of public trust, and during the time

that that MLA went throughout the province conducting these

hearings, the public trusted him; and to the extent that they

came and spoke to his commission, they trusted this government.

They took seriously the implication that this study, after a

great deal of taxpayer expense, would lead to findings that

would be read, learned and inwardly digested by this government

and then applied to the future with regard to that kind of a

process.

I feel that there is a thin line among the members of the

government side of the House, the back-benchers. I think it's a

thin line between dissatisfaction with what the government is

doing and going along with the party line. I think it's a thin

line and we've seen evidence of it. We've seen that some MLAs

have had the courage of their convictions and have spoken out

against privatization. We've seen that.

We've seen that a recent cabinet minister has walked across

the floor of the House and now he speaks quite freely in

criticism of this government. Had circumstances been otherwise

and had he not walked across the floor of the House, one could

assume that he would still be trying very, very hard to follow

the party line. So it's a thin line between those MLAs on the

government side of the House who follow the party line and

those who express their dissatisfaction.

Sometimes, much to the benefit of democracy, some of them

have the courage of their convictions and do so. For instance,

the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant), who is one of the new

parliamentary secretaries, has spoken out with regard to his

opposition to user fees at the provincial museums. I wonder if

he will continue to speak out in his new capacity, or is this a

means of bringing some of the members of the government side of

the House back into the fold? We'll never know, and tragically

we'll never know with regard to the member for Chilliwack

because we will always wonder if this is a means to shut him up

because of brooding over the Premier's unwillingness to take

his recommendations seriously.

[10:45]

The commission recommended that there was no need for

further privatization of liquor sales within this province. The

people who spoke to that commission from time to time had the

opportunity to speak to the commissioner, and in discussing

with him they found that he had not found evidence that would

suggest an expansion of the privatized distribution of beverage

alcohol. And now we find that that member who was brooding for

the non-respect that his very good report received from this

government is now in a position of becoming a parliamentary

secretary within the lower mainland.

Can we count on this person who has had the benefit of the

excellent input of people throughout this province to speak out

for them? Can we count on that with regard to this government's

position on privatization and phase two of liquor distribution?

Can we count on that now that this person has been brought more

closely into the field? It's a serious question. It's a

question that deals with the kind of abuse that we can see

coming into the way in which this government is functioning not

only within this House but throughout this province.

The sad and tragic thing is that while I am very sincere

about the positive statements that I have made about this

member, we will never know if he was appointed because of his

merits or whether he was appointed because he was brooding.

It's a grave concern for the people of British Columbia.

It's a startling new direction that we are being taken in,

and I think it's about time this government started to

recognize that this plan, given the way in which it ties into

the government's plans to privatize without adequate

consultation, is causing a great deal of upset among the people

of this province — a great deal of concern and uncertainty.

Also in this bill we have the sections dealing with the

Hospital Insurance Act. I won't spend a lot of time on this

section, but I wish to say that the

section of the Hospital

Insurance Act amendment that enables the minister or a

designated person to determine, on a review of medical

evidence, whether or not a person requires a certain procedure

is really interesting. It assumes a kind of expertise that I do

not see anybody on the government side of the House qualified

to have. I find that very disturbing.

When we go a little further with regard to the amendments to

that act, we find the issue of the payment of hospital fees for

people who have to go out of province. It states: ". . . the amount and

method of payment to hospitals and other institutions referred

to in

section 25 for hospital services rendered outside British

Columbia to beneficiaries under this Act and the number of days

of care for which payment will be made to those hospitals and

other institutions."

Mr. Speaker, that sounds quite frightening in view of the

lack of availability of treatment services for children that

we've recently experienced in this province; people have had to

go to such places as Calgary to get the treatment that this

government was not able to provide in British Columbia. In this

bill we find that the government is taking on the power to

limit the number of days that people may be in the

treatment

[ Page 2797 ]

that they are forced to be in by having to go out of

province for services not available here.

Mr. Speaker, when we look at sections 16 and 18 of this

bill, we're dealing with a process designed to bring under the

public trustee some consolidation of the functions of the

public trustee. I can see the point in that. But we find one

disturbing thing happening here; the ceiling of 5 percent that

can be charged by the public trustee from the estate of a child

or an adult is being lifted. Here is one place where the

possibility of privatization rears its head. Are we looking at

a scenario where possibly the public trustee of this province

is being considered for privatization? Are we considering a

situation where it is going to be possible for this government — either through its own devices or through some service that

it would set up through a private process — to reach into the

often-meagre funds in trust belonging to unfortunate people,

either children or adults in some form of care in our province,

and take additional amounts of money for the costs of that

administration?

As chairman of a B.C. mental health review panel, I have had

dealings with the public trustee. In going through the files of

many mental patients, I have been aware that, even with the

minimal 5 percent fee, often that has resulted in a whittling

away of the funds those patients had in their account. Having

said that, the process that was functioning was working as well

as could be expected. There was a nominal amount there for

administration. This new change in the act is quite a concern

because of the way it is taking the ceiling off the amount of

money that can be taken out of those funds and those accounts.

This is increasingly upsetting if this leads to further

privatization. The very thought of the privatization of the

public trustee sends a shudder down my spine, and it should be

very frightening to many other people.

Just to make that point more clear, it states in the bill:

"... or for services rendered by or on behalf of the Public

Trustee...." Mr. Speaker, why would those words "or on behalf

of the Public Trustee" be in there, if this were not an intent

to privatize the public trustee service? This is a very

interesting, possible indication of intended privatization in

this process.

I would like to come to an intended change in this act

that's under the Vital Statistics Act. I don't have too much to

say on that, but if you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I am a

person who has had quite a bit to do with the Vital Statistics

Act, having conducted a number of funerals in my day and having

buried a number of people, and I would like to point out that I

think this is a fitting time under this

section to bury this

government's helter-skelter approach to privatization.

MR. G. HANSON: It's a pleasure to take my place in

opposing this miscellaneous statutes act, Bill 59. It runs

contrary to everything we were led to believe this government

was going to stand for. They try, in incremental stages, to

abuse this process of miscellaneous statutes, which is supposed

to be there as a way of dealing with a number of small,

technical details. Instead, major policy shifts of the

government are present in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, our party has long indicated that we are

opposed to a non-elected senate in Canada, and now this

government is embarking upon having a non-elected senate of

back-benchers in the province of British Columbia. When the

people went to the polls last October, they made their choices

of the parties that had presented themselves and the candidates

that had been brought forward. Through the election campaign,

there was not one single word of restructuring the basic

decision-making system in this province, of setting up a

network of what I call a senate back bench — people who were

not elected in that overall region. They may have been elected

in one portion of the region, but they are not the people of

choice for the citizens residing in those regions.

There are essentially three or four principles contained in

this bill. One of them is a total adherence to

non-consultation, contrary to what the Premier said during the

election campaign. This was going to be a different style of

government: it would be open. It would have ears, it would

listen to the wishes of the citizens in a fresh way. Of course,

this is absolutely contrary to every proclamation made during

that campaign.

Another central principle running through this bill — and as

Erskine May says, second reading deals with the principles

contained within a bill; it's plural, not a principle — is a

centralization feature where the government establishes eight

regions and non-elected parliamentary assistants, not elected

in the entire region. They are to oversee, in a kind of ward

boss approach to politics. The government is trying to

establish a political bypass, where they are trying to overlay,

it seems to me, the Social Credit Party structure with the

apparatus of government. The Social Credit Party is divided

into regions. It has regional directors; it has a kind of a

pyramid sales approach to politics. What we see reflected in

this miscellaneous statutes bill with the eight zones and the

parliamentary secretaries is this kind of pyramid sales

approach. It's sort of the overlay of the Social Credit Party

structure with its regional directors and regions, and the blur

has been occurring over the last number of years — the blur

between legitimate government business and party business. That

perceptual fusion is taking place, and now we see the United

States of British Columbia developing with their superministers

and their appointed-but-not-paid parliamentary secretaries.

They've got too many here; they need to pay them.

Interjection.

MR. G. HANSON: You're not going to kill the tooth

fairy. That's coming in miscellaneous statutes number 5, I

think.

[11:00]

What I'm saying, Mr. Speaker, is that there are negative

principles contained in miscellaneous 4: non-consultation and

extreme centralization, which is contrary to the Canadian and

the British Columbia experience. I don't know what Classics

comic book the Premier read in his childhood, but somehow he

has a sense of what he would like to see governmental apparatus.... When he was previously a minister in this House.... There

are not many members now present when the current Premier was a

minister in this House. If you look through the 69 members here

today and count up the number that actually were present and

had firsthand experience of the Premier's philosophy and his

approach to governance, there are not many. I was here. I saw

him as Education minister. I saw him as Municipal Affairs

minister. Some of his approaches are not surprising to me

because I feel there are fairly strong common threads in terms

of his ideological framework, and this miscellaneous statutes

bill flows from it.

[ Page 2798 ]

We are very opposed to parliamentary assistants,

parliamentary secretaries.... It's different if one serves a

minister, say the Minister of Health or the Minister of

Education. They have a large portfolio. We can understand that

an undersecretary or a parliamentary secretary position can

exist and would have some legitimacy. In fact, parliamentary

secretaries did come about in the rules changes, and that has

been raised in this House.

But that's not what we're talking about, Mr. Speaker. We're

talking about when new political divisions are created in the

province. This has been tried federally and has failed. It's

been tried in other jurisdictions and has failed, because line

ministers and superpolitical ministers cross swords; they bump

into each other. There are unclear lines of jurisdiction.

The citizens in the local councils, village councils, city

councils, regional districts — they don't know who to go to. Do

they go to the line minister? Do they go to the regional ward

boss? Do they go to the senate back-benchers as parliamentary

secretaries? Many serious concerns are raised.

Certainly when this was outlined and the Premier said that

he wanted a re-examination, for example, of the agricultural

land reserve and its importance region by region, that flagged

a very important subject. Mr. Speaker, you come from an area

much of which is agricultural land. We have very little

agricultural land in the province. We keep using the number 5

percent; but not all of that has the capacity to grow the range

of food crops and so on. Class 1 and 2 lands — the very best

lands — are not in great abundance. We happen to be a province

that is topographically mountains and narrow valleys, estuaries

and so on. Those fertile estuaries are where the competition

is. In the interior of the province, along some of those bottom

lands — those early lakeshores that formed when the glaciation

subsided and the water levels dropped.... Okanagan Lake was

once a part of Shuswap Lake, and Shuswap Lake was once a part

of Kamloops Lake. They were all one lake. As the water level

dropped, it left some fertile bottom lands which are so

precious to us. We look enviously at our neighbours to the

south around the Puget lowlands, which should have been a part

of British Columbia; but that's another debate, Mr.

Speaker.

What I'm saying is that it raises all the red flags in our

minds when the Premier raises some concern about the sanctity

of the preservation of farmland in our province. To allow

farmland to be whipsawed into development region by region by

having the little back-bench senators out there carving up

their little fiefdoms and deciding that this bit of farmland

shouldn't be in the ALR, etc. — we've had enough of that. We

want to depoliticize the protection of our farmland. That's

why we set up an Agricultural Land Commission — to remove it

from politicians and from cabinet so that the best possible

decisions about the preservation of that land would be made,

not by the little senate back-benchers or by the superministers

holding hearings, being carried from region to region on those

sticks with the little capes and silk things, people feeding

them hot hors d'oeuvres, and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Veitch) with the welcome wagon running along, making sure that

drinks are hot and there's plenty of ice. What kind of province

is this?

Here we are at a policy crossroads where the government is

embarking on these things, and where do they put them? Do they

put them in a bill which they bring to this House outlining the

program and the mandate, and what the mission is? No; they hide

these things in a miscellaneous statutes bill which is a

disgrace and an abuse of the rules of this House.

Another interesting feature of this bill that we object to

is that the government.... Prior to the commencement of this

session, we heard an ongoing debate between the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and the Minister of Health (Hon.

Mr. Dueck) about the costs of medicare and the cost of

delivering health services in this province. We heard the

Minister of Finance talk about wanting to do some serious

cutting. He doesn't talk about beefing up preventive programs

to allow people to have better health and better health care in

a community-based system, as we had in the community resource

boards' integration of Health and Human Resources, so that we

would have good-quality preventive services. No, the government

chopped that. Do you know what they're looking at now? To cut

health costs, the cabinet's going to make more decisions on

whether cataracts are to be covered in hospital surgery;

whether adenoids will be there; what the drip will be in the

intravenous; what sort of organs are going to come under

schedules A, B and C. What kind of nonsense is this, Mr.

Speaker? When you want to cut health costs, you embark on

modern preventive programs: more paramedical services; more

community-based programs; more nutritional programs for poorer

families and children who are going to school hungry,

malnourished, with no proper nutrition, etc. No, what we get

here is that the cabinet is going to make decisions on what

hospital services are going to be covered and paid for by the

Medical Services Plan and the Hospital Insurance Act. We object

to that; we oppose that.

There's another principle: centralization of hospital

services. What's behind that? Are therapeutic abortions no

longer going to be covered at all or provided in hospitals?

Will that be an order-in-council we see come down the pike at a

later date, dealing with this particular section?

What we are dealing with here, Mr. Speaker, are major policy

changes without any proper debate. We've had a one-hour debate,

thanks to the Speaker's office and recognition that the motion

put forward by our leader was urgent and important. We thank

the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker's office for that

opportunity.

We feel there should be a full debate around all

implications, because the concerns do exist in the community.

There are concerns about highways and their maintenance and

safety, and about the sale of Crown assets, which are the

legacy of this province. We heard the Premier speaking. He was

very ill-prepared, by the way, in his debate. He was in error

in many of his suggestions and in many of the examples he used

about private/public — in terms of Air Canada, Canadian

Pacific, etc. There are no provincial analogues for that. If a

service goes outside the government domain, there is no other

government competitor to ensure that things are at a high

standard.

So, Mr. Speaker, we object to his bill. We feel it's been a

non-consultative process. The cabinet ministers opposite — those

present at the moment for example, the Minister of

Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) and the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) — are trying to achieve through

the back door what they didn't.... There should have been some

courage around the cabinet table. If they really believe in

their program, those cabinet ministers should have had the

courage to bring that program into the full light of day in

this House — outline it; debate it in second reading on its

principle, through the committee stage of this House — rather

than have these little incremental changes

[ Page 2799 ]

that achieve what they want without any proper public

debate.

So, Mr. Speaker, I oppose it. My party opposes this. We're

going to be voting against this upon the conclusion of my

remarks in second reading. We have more detail with respect to

our objections on individual sections.

In July of last year, when we watched on television the

hoopla in the Howe Sound area, we thought the province was in

for a change, but a change for the better as opposed to a

massive alteration of the way the citizens relate to their

government and their locally elected officials. We didn't

expect a back-bench senate. We didn't expect the cabinet to be

moving on services that should be determined by health care

professionals. And we certainly didn't anticipate at all this

massive centralization now.... The Premier's office is like

a massive vacuum cleaner: it just goes around and vacuums up

every available authority that seems to be sitting in cabinet

offices. We've seen whole ministries disappear with the suction

of that power.

This doesn't bode well for the citizens of this province.

They wanted to relate on a more authentic basis with their

elected officials through their local councils, through their

regional districts and through proper debate and discussion on

the floor of this House, not the political bypass contained in

this act.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want to advise the House that I

will be moving the second reading motion, and therefore I am

closing debate, but will defer to any other members who wish to

speak to this bill.

I move that this closes debate, and the question is second

reading.

[11:15]

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 30

Brummet

Rogers

L. Hanson

Reid

Dueck

Parker

Michael

Pelton

Loenen

De Jong

Dirks

Long

Veitch

McCarthy

S. Hagen

Strachan

Vander Zalm

Couvelier

R. Fraser

Jansen

Gran

Mowat

Ree

Serwa

Vant

Peterson

Huberts

Davidson

Jacobsen

S.D. Smith

NAYS — 18

G. Hanson

Barnes

Marzari

Rose

Skelly

Boone

D'Arcy

Kempf

Cashore

Guno

Smallwood

Lovick

Williams

Sihota

Miller

A. Hagen

Jones

Edwards

Bill 59, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4), 1987,

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. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading

of Bill 63, in the charge of the Minister of Transportation

and Highways.

MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

HON. MR. ROGERS: When I introduced this bill a couple

of days ago, I said it was minor, and some people have

misinterpreted it to be something other than minor, but perhaps

with my second reading notes today I can clarify any

misunderstanding that may exist among certain members. I have

the honour to move second reading of Bill 63.

The significant amendments in this bill relate to crucial

operational and legal issues that make enforcement of this act

more efficient. These issues will allow the public more

protection and clarify some of the more confusing sections of

the existing act.

Other aspects include provisions for the introduction of the

new National Safety Code and for regulation-making powers

providing authority for implementation of the National Safety

Code. It allows for the adoption of codes and regulations

respecting road safety in the National Safety Code for motor

carriers — and I think that's where the confusion has existed

for some people. It allows for the issuance of safety

certificates and for the exemption of a licence or a permit

where a vehicle fails to meet these standards, which gives that

option to the superintendent of motor vehicles. It requires

that a vehicle owner allow for inspection of his records. It

allows the minister to enter into an agreement with other

provinces pertaining to such matters. It authorizes the

superintendent of motor vehicles to compile information and

profiles on drivers and on motor vehicles. It requires the

inspection of commercial motor vehicles at prescribed

intervals. It restricts the number of hours that a driver may

operate a motor vehicle in a commercial state. It authorizes

the superintendent of motor vehicles to cancel licences and

permits.

Other amendments include the clarification of the use of

demonstration plates and the additional reference to the

Commercial Transport Act. Insurance requirements for towing

vehicles are also required, to ensure that the vehicle that is

being towed is also covered by the insurance of the vehicle

that is doing the towing.

Many of these amendments, although minor in nature, are

important in ensuring the traffic safety of the citizens of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move adjournment of this debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Second reading of Bill 62, Mr.

Speaker.

PENSION (PUBLIC SERVICE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1987

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's my pleasure to move second

reading of Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act, 1987.

This bill proposes to establish the authority for the

pension portion of the early retirement incentive plan. Two

benefits are being offered through this plan: a lump sum

cash

[ Page 2800 ]

payment and a waiver of the early retirement pension

reduction. The lump sum payment is equal to up to six months of

pay if an employee retires at age 60 or over, or eight months

of pay if the employee is under age 60.

The second benefit is a waiver of the early retirement

reduction. Under the superannuation plan's normal rules for

early retirement, employees retiring before age 60 with less

than 35 years of contributory service have their pensions

reduced by 5 percent for each year their age is below 60. For

example, if one retired at age 57, the pension would be reduced

by three times 5 percent, or 15 percent. The maximum reduction

in the formula is 25 percent.

As I mentioned when I introduced this bill, the reduction

for early retirement tends to discourage retirements between

ages 55 and 60. For example, if an employee leaves work on or

after October 20, 1987, but before April 1, 1988, under the

early retirement incentive plan the pension will be calculated

on a non-reduced basis if it is paid immediately upon

retirement. Any pre-retirement leave may be taken following the

last day of work during the open period.

When an employee has service with one or more of the B.C.

family of plans, the early retirement reduction will be waived

under the other plans. The B.C. family of plans includes

service under the Pension (Teachers) Act, Pension (College)

Act, Pension (Municipal) Act and the Workers' Compensation

Board superannuation plan.

As you are no doubt aware, Mr. Speaker, the public service

superannuation plan provides for cost-of-living adjustments to

pensions in payment. Where employees are eligible for the

waiver of the early retirement reduction under ERIP, any

payments for the annual cost-of-living adjustment will be

delayed to age 60, when there will be a catchup of the

percentages missed from the date of retirement.

In order to ensure that there are sufficient funds to cover

the cost of the waiver of the early retirement reduction,

special contributions are being made to the public service

superannuation fund from the consolidated revenue fund to

ensure that it is actually sound at all times.

The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may also extend the early

retirement incentive plan to other public sector employees who

participate in the public service superannuation plan. These

employees would be responsible for paying any funds required to

provide the benefit under the public service superannuation

fund.

The remarks that I have made so far pertain to employees at

the maximum retirement age of 65, which, by the way, includes

most public service employees. In addition, similar provisions

will be put into place for employees such as correctional

centre employees who at present have a maximum retirement age

of 60.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the waiver of the early retirement

reduction, which forms the second benefit of the early

retirement incentive plan, is identical to the early retirement

program that was introduced earlier this year for British

Columbia's teachers. As a result of this initiative, those

public service employees who wish to retire may do so on

substantially improved pension benefits, thus providing the

government with an opportunity to facilitate this restructuring

program.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to emphasize that this program is

entirely optional, and therefore will be provided only to those

public service employees who wish to take advantage of it.

Others who wish to remain in government will be encouraged to

do so.

On the issue of pension options for privatized employees,

the second part of this bill provides special pension options

in connection with the privatization component of the

government restructuring program. The options are designed to

make it possible for privatized employees to be treated fairly

and to make their pension as portable as possible. The three

options are: (1) a privatized employee can receive a refund of

his or her own contribution plus interest; (2) a person who has

been privatized can leave contributions on deposit in the

public service superannuation fund, and will be entitled to

receive a pension at retirement, regardless of the employee's

length of service — normally an employee would be required to

contribute to the plan for ten years to be eligible for such

pension benefits; (3) a privatized employee can transfer the

greater of (

a) the value of the employee's pension entitlement,

or (

b) double the value of the employer's contribution with

accumulated interest, to a locked-in retirement savings plan or

to the registered pension plan of the new employer. That will

be their option. The second part of this option is to ensure

that younger employees are treated in a meaningful way and a

fair way as far as the pension entitlement is concerned. Mr.

Speaker, the lump sum refund option and the deposit option,

where an employee has at least ten years of contributions in

the public service superannuation plan, are already available

to employees. In addition to these benefits, which are already

provided — that is, the deposit option regardless of the length

of contributory service and the transfer option — this will

provide privatized employees with the opportunity to receive

proportionate pensions based on their period of public service

employment.

Mr. Speaker, these new programs will be used to help reduce

the size of government service, and in addition, through the

early retirement incentive plan, will help to rejuvenate the

public service and deal with all people in a fair and just and

equitable manner.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I move adjournment of this debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, out of courtesy to

ministers who couldn't be here this morning, and some critics

who couldn't be here this morning, I move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:31 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1987, 2001, 2008: Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada