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)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2765 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Ms. Smallwood –– 2765

Mr. Sihota –– 2766

Mr. Loenen –– 2770

Mr. Guno –– 2770

Ms. Edwards –– 2772

Hon. Mr. Brummet –– 2774

Mr. Rose –– 2776

The House met at 10:07 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the precincts this morning we have two

gentlemen from Surrey: former mayor Bill Vogel, who is now the chairman

of the Fraser port commission; and Rick Pearce, manager of the Fraser

port commission of the Fraser-Surrey docks. I would ask the House to

please make them welcome.

MR. BLENCOE: In the House today are a group of students from

Victoria High School with their teacher Mr. Johl. I would like the

House to make them welcome. They're here today to watch the debate.

They're fascinated by the goings-on in this Legislature; of course,

living in Victoria they're very close to the action. Would the House

please make them all welcome this morning.

MR. SERWA: I have a good-news item for the House this

morning. It's taken from the Kelowna General's "Hospital Notes":

"During the past 12 months Kelowna provided 11 percent of all organ

donations in British Columbia, ranking it second in the province."

British Columbia has the third-highest transplant rate in Canada and

enjoys the fastest growth rate in Canada. Will the House please join

with me in commending the citizens of Kelowna, and indeed the citizens

of British Columbia, for their commitment to their fellow man in

supporting the organ donor program.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call adjourned debate on

second reading of Bill 59. The hon. member for Surrey-Guildford-Whalley

adjourned debate.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

(continued)

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could advise me as to the time left in the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: You spoke for 13 minutes yesterday — 17 to go.

MS. SMALLWOOD: There are many serious issues that are covered

in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and we just began to

touch on those last night, dealing with the issue of additional

parliamentary secretaries for the purpose of the government's

decentralization program. As I outlined last night just before the

House adjourned, there are many concerns throughout the province with

regard to the lack of consultation on the government's proposal with

the local regions, the people who have been working on the issues — the

councils, chambers of commerce and economic development officers. There

was clearly a lack of discussion prior to coming forward with this

proposal.

To remind some of the members of the House. I was outlining some of the concerns

of the people in the Terrace-Smithers area where the economic development officers

that I was speaking to did not have an opportunity to consult, nor did they

understand what the government was doing when it brought down its proposal for

decentralization. I'm hoping that the government and the new czar for that

area has at least by this time had the opportunity to sit down with these people.

reinstate the funding that seemed to dry up about the same time for the economic

development officers and enable the people to have their agenda heard by this

government.

I again express concern about the government's proposal and its

effect on social services and the delivery of services in the province.

Our constituency office had some very serious problems addressing

concerns of our constituents during that time because the people who

were delivering services not only did not have some input into how the

government's proposals would affect the delivery of services, but were

in a mode of catch-up. trying to plug into the government's new plans.

Therefore it left our constituents vulnerable. Issues that I considered

emergent were stalled and delayed because of the government's radical

plans of restructuring the delivery of these services. Again, it's

going to take some time to work the bugs out of those plans. I am

confident that the government employees, because of their dedication to

serving the people of B.C., will expedite that process as fast and as

efficiently as possible. However, I feel that it is unnecessary for the

government to impose such a radical change in the system at this time,

especially without a long planning process and a process of

consultation with the front-line workers.

In the debate yesterday many different back-benchers referred to

fear of change, and the fear expressed by the opposition to the

government's radical moves. I'd like to take this opportunity to tell

this government that not only is the opposition fearful of the change,

not only do we have well documented evidence to back up our concern,

but we are fearful that this radical change is not rational, nor is it

well thought out, nor does it reflect a good planning process.

The proposals flown as kites and now backed up by legislation in

this province are ideas once rejected by previous Social Credit

governments. Clearly, the Premier's ideas of a county system or

decentralization were soundly rejected by the government and are now

being soundly rejected by the province as well.

We reiterate that this government should stop, look and listen. What

the government is doing is a subversion and abuse of its powers, and we

want it to stop.

The minister responsible for the decentralization.... can only

assume that it is the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Veitch), because

of some of the comments he made during his opportunity to speak to this

miscellaneous statute. He condemned the opposition for not

participating in the regional committees that are being set up. As many

of my colleagues have already pointed out to the minister, there is a

time honoured democratic process in place in this province and in

Canada. It is called the parliamentary process. This is the House, this

is where the decisions should be made, and this is our forum for

representing our constituencies.

[10:15]

My constituency of Surrey-Guildford-Whalley. for the very first time

in history, has its own representative. I've had a great deal of

pleasure representing the constituency over the past year, for many

different reasons. One of those reasons is that I felt for the first

time that this House heard who lived in north Surrey and clearly

understood that the north Surrey constituency had unique problems, that

it was a densely populated constituency with working-class people who

[ Page 2766 ]

needed specific services to deal with the stress

that it had experienced over the last few years because of increased

population. Clearly, our services have not kept up with the growth in

the constituencies. The Provincial Secretary's new boundaries for these

regions do not respect some of the stresses and strains in the lower

mainland; they do not do anything to address those inequities but

instead lump us into a huge, huge area where our voice will be but one

of some municipalities which have a great deal more power than Surrey

virtually just by age and population.

It seems clear tome in my very limited time as a politician that if

a government does not know what to do, does not know how to put

together a program to deal with the problems they are hearing from

their constituents, what they do is shuffle. In years gone by what

government used to do is shuffle cabinet. This has given a whole new

meaning to a government initiative. Rather than shuffling the cabinet

this government has decided to shuffle the whole system. The whole

parliamentary system is being shuffled, reorganized and generally

eroded. This is not only an indication of how this government is unable

to deal with the problems facing it, but it again shows a total

disrespect for the democratic process.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

There are many different issues in this miscellaneous statute and I

look forward to dealing with those when we get into the

clause-by-clause, but I want to talk a little about the incredible

powers the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) has sought in the

amendments in this bill. The minister has sought the power not only to

make decisions for which he is not trained, decisions that have

implications for the health of the people of this province, but I feel

he is putting his nose not only where it is not welcome but is

infringing on the rights of individuals to have some respect paid to

their own personal health and care.

I have a clipping here from the Kelowna newspaper of August '87

where the Minister of Health is quoted, and I might read what he said

into the record:

"I don't think you'll ever see the day again when

hospitals have enough beds for everyone at all times. It is a problem

all over the world. People are living longer because they are taking

care of themselves better. People are abusing the system."

If people are abusing the system by living longer,

Mr. Minister, I question what you feel your mandate is. "This can't go

on," he says.

"Should we be preserving the life of someone who is 90

years old and wants to die, and his family want him to die, and care

for premature babies? The weights are getting lower and lower for

babies we are trying to save. Should we be saving someone whose quality

of life will be absolutely non-existent?"

This gives you some insight into the minister's thinking. The

minister now has brought legislation into this House that gives him the

power to make those decisions: about whether a 90-year-old should live,

about whether or not a premature baby's weight is too low and its

health should not be supported, or about the quality of life in this

province. I find it astounding. I find the power that the minister has

requested from this House to be incredible and verging on frightening.

I read the quote from the minister into the record not only because it

reflects the legislation brought before the House, but because it gives

the House some indication of the minister's thinking. It is

frightening. It will be opposed by members on this side, and I am

assured that it will be opposed by people throughout the province.

The Minister of Health himself has put forward a blueribbon

committee, and I will continue to bring that up to the House, because

the minister again has not provided any information on the work this

committee has been doing. This committee on the ethics of the health

care system supposedly has been working for some time, but it has not

been working in the public eye, so no one in the public knows what it

is doing. I would ask the minister if this committee is indeed working

as we have heard. Is this legislation and are the sentiments quoted in

this

article of the Kelowna newspaper a reflection of the work done by

this committee? If so, what accountability does this committee have?

What accountability is the Minister of Health prepared to assure this

House that he will have for these awesome powers he has sought?

There are many concerns in this miscellaneous statute, and time does

not provide us an opportunity to explore them, when we are dealing with

the principles of the bill. I'm sure that everyone in the opposition

will look at this legislation clause by clause and sentence by

sentence, because this government has not instilled in this House the

confidence that we can indeed trust them. That is what this government

is asking us to do.

I will leave the rest of my comments to the clause-by-clause debate

and allow the next member of the opposition to commence his statement.

MR. SIHOTA: This is the first opportunity I've had since the

Legislature reconvened to talk about the government's plans as they

were announced in September and October, both at the Union of B.C.

Municipalities with respect to the government's decentralization plan,

and at the Social Credit Party convention with respect to privatization.

The legislation that is before us here today — and I don't want to

mince words about it at all — is certainly legislation that is all

about privatization and decentralization, in my view.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Or centralization, as I call it, Mr. Speaker. It

is evident throughout. If you start with

section 1 of the legislation

that's before us, it talks about an unlimited number of appointments as

parliamentary secretaries, and it goes right on through to

section 19,

which talks about changes to the Railway Act and is clearly a

forerunner of the government's sale of B.C. Rail.

I I want to talk a little bit about the reaction in my own riding to

the announcement made by the one-man government we have in this

province with respect to privatization and decentralization plans. If I

may say right at the outset, both of those plans — I call them

profitization and centralization — sent shock waves throughout my

riding, largely because those of us who reside in the greater Victoria

area are very sensitive to changes that government makes.

Those people who work in the public sector have made a commitment in

terms of lifestyle to that public sector. They work within the public

sector because they have a feeling and a desire to act within the

public good — a sense of public duty. They take a lot of pride in the

work they perform on behalf of the public in this province,

particularly in this area.

[ Page 2767 ]

It is frustrating when they begin to hear the type

of programs this government has outlined, and they begin to question

not the necessity for their programs but whether anybody pays attention

to what they do and whether or not government attaches any significance

to their hard work.

I want to say right at the outset — whether it's probation officers,

highway maintenance crews, or people working at the health unit on

Blanshard Street — I can tell you that people who work in those fields

are absolutely demoralized because of the action that the government is

taking and the lack of consultation and lack of listening that is

occurring on the part of the government with respect to the work these

people perform. It appears that seldom, if ever, are their

recommendations taken into account or their views ever listened to; and

seldom, if ever, is action initiated at the upper levels of government

in reaction to the recommendations they make. It's not always true, but

there is this sense of demoralization among the civil service.

Nonetheless, I indicated at the outset that I wanted to talk about

the reaction in my riding. Shortly after the announcement by the

Premier with respect to privatization of highways facilities on the

Island, I took the opportunity to visit the fabrication shop at the

Langford worksite in my riding. The fabrication shop, for those members

of the House who may not be aware, employs 14 people.

The people at the fabrication shop had listened very carefully to

the government's announcement with respect to privatization. Having

listened to those plans, they were assured that no jobs would be lost.

Yet shortly after the announcement, they were given notices telling

them their jobs would be eliminated somewhere between the next four and

nine months.

It had an absolutely devastating effect upon those people, who

thought there was some security in their lifestyle, who thought they

were performing a valuable function for government and who felt that

there was some assurance to be placed in the Premier's promise that no

jobs would be lost. They reacted as one would expect them to react to

the breach of promise that occurred when it became evident that they

would be laid off in the next four to nine months.

[10:30]

MR. LOENEN: Is this relevant?

MR. SIHOTA: The member asks if it is relevant....

MS. CAMPBELL: Are we talking about Bill 59?

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, it seems as if the members opposite

are a little concerned about my comments with respect to the reaction

of workers. I guess they don't want to hear what's happening out there.

MR. LOENEN: You're just out of order.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To continue then, for

those members listening with anticipation, as I did at the beginning,

and to tie it back in to sections I right through to 19 of this

legislation, if they want to bear me out....

The maintenance shop at the same Langford site in my riding — in the

garage facility — was another unit that I paid a visit to. Again. I can

tell members of this House that there was an incredible sense of shock

on the part of the workers at those sites. Again. there was the

perception that there was a breach of promise, and they felt that their

jobs would be eliminated. Again, there was frustration with the

assurances given in the brochures handed out by the government — not

making a lot of sense.

There are employees there who have worked for 32 years for the

provincial government, and because of the quirks in the severance

packet issued to those workers, they now find themselves ineligible to

receive the severance funds that are promised in the brochure. If the

government had sensitivity to their plans, there ought to have been in

this legislation some amendments to the superannuation act to make sure

that those people being laid off as a result of privatization would

receive the benefits promised to them in the government brochures.

But if you take the case of someone who has worked for 32 years for

the government and who happens to be at age 53, they're not going to be

eligible to receive the packet that the government has promised in the

brochures in terms of privatization. So that ought to have been

included within the miscellaneous legislation before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, adjacent to the maintenance and garage facilities at

the Ministry of Highways in Langford is the sign shop. A lot has been

made as to the viability of privatizing that sign shop. If you go down

and talk to the employees — and I have been down there at least four or

five times since the government announcement was made — there is a

sense of blackmail. I think that's the best way of putting it — a sense

of economic blackmail at play. It's not as if they were ever given a

choice as to whether they wish to remain in the public sector or go out

into the private sector. They were just told that their shop would be

privatized and that they would be released out to the private sector,

without any consultation.

That aspect is of concern to those people; they don't have a choice

at all. It's economic blackmail in respect to those workers. Where was

the consultation? They had a vote this week, and of the 14 workers

there to vote, 13 of them indicated that they would prefer to remain in

the public sector as opposed to the private sector. Surely if there is

to be....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not correct.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says that's not correct. I would

encourage him to go out there with me or on his own to take a look and

to listen to what the people are saying. But 13 of the 14 indicated

that if they were given a choice, they would prefer to remain within

the public sector.

MR. LOENEN: On a point of order, we had an emergency debate

on privatization. I don't understand why the House has to listen to

this when, in my view, it has no relevancy to the matter before us.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew might

pursue relevancy as part of his speaking on Bill 59. It's certainly one

of the requirements of the orders of the House. If he will be more

relevant, it would be appreciated.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to lay out some

material at the forefront so that I could tie it back particularly to

section 1 of the legislation before us. I know that the

[ Page 2768 ]

second member for Richmond (Mr. Loenen), much like

the Premier, does not want us to engage in an extensive debate on the

government's privatization plans. From the objections raised to date,

there is obviously a concerted attempt by members opposite to block any

discussion of privatization. That's not consistent with promises of

open government. But I'll speed up my comments and then tie it back

into sections I and 19 in particular so that members will understand

exactly how this is relevant, in my view.

MR. LOENEN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I totally fail to

see what the member is leading to, and I wish he would explain to me

how his speech is relevant to

section 1. He has failed to do that so

far.

MR. SIHOTA: I will continue to proceed and ask the indulgence

of the objecting member for Richmond who, as I say, just doesn't want

to hear this stuff. He doesn't want to hear how people are reacting to

the government plans; he doesn't want to listen to the people affected

by the government plans, whether it be privatization or

decentralization. Certainly the member would appreciate that

section 1

of this legislation is fully intended to implement a component of the

government's decentralization plans. This is a debate on principle, and

the principle in

section 1 — if the member would understand — is to

further the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was just going to ask that you please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry. The principle within

section 1 is to try

to further the government's decentralization plans. Like I say, we'll

get to the decentralization plans, but I just want to make some

concluding comments about how employees feel — whether the member wants

to hear them or not.

There are liquor stores in my riding, Mr. Speaker — and all the

liquor stores in my riding are scheduled to be privatized. There's a

sense of despondency, particularly among the middle-aged workers, who

have left one job and come on to work for the government in the liquor

stores, and are very worried about their future. They certainly are not

comforted by the platitudes that have come from the Premier since the

announcement.

I have many workers in my riding who work at the health unit on

Blanshard Street. They are concerned, when they pick up the paper and

read that 114 to 117 jobs will be eliminated from that as part of the

government's decentralization and privatization plans. That's just

phase one. They're worried about phase two, the capping of education

and health costs and GAIN costs as a consequence of that.

MS. CAMPBELL: I rise under standing order 43 concerning

irrelevance and repetition in debate. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the

hon. member's failure to deal with anything to do with the statute

under discussion this morning is an affront to the standing orders of

this House and the dignity of this House. I respectfully request Mr.

Speaker to so rule.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Once again the Chair will ask the member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew if he will make his remarks more relevant to the

various sections of bill 59 that we are dealing with. I must say that

over the past five minutes or so I've had some difficulty myself with

finding any relevancy to any particular

section of this omnibus bill.

The member, bearing in mind the requirements of rule 43, will please be

relevant in his comments.

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly tie it into

section

1 of the act now, although it's increasingly evident to me that members

from the government side simply do not want to hear from us who have

been out consulting our people about their reaction to and concerns

about the government's privatization and decentralization plans.

To tie it back in with

section 1 of the act, dealing with the

establishment of these parliamentary secretaries, as I understand the

program....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Excuse me;

section 2 of the legislation. I'm glad

to know the members opposite are well aware of the

section that will

increase their stipend, and can correct me as to

section 2 of the

legislation.

As I understand the government's program, Mr. Speaker, the

government's decentralization and privatization programs that I

referred to earlier are to be administered by these various

parliamentary secretaries and ministers of state. I take it that it's a

matter of debate as to whether or not that will happen.

As we all know, I'm sure, the Minister of State for Vancouver Island

is the Minister of Advanced Education and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen),

and the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) is the parliamentary secretary

for Vancouver Island. There is a feeling among the people in greater

Victoria that they're being left out. There is a feeling that by

appointing.... I'm not picking upon a particular chap, because I do

have a lot of respect for the member for Mackenzie; in fact, just the

other day we were together at a chamber of commerce annual general

meeting in my riding. But there is a feeling that the Victoria region

has been left out, through the nature of the appointments that have

been made. So there's a feeling among the people that I've talked to

that they're not being listened to. Assurances are coming from the

other side of the House that indeed their concerns will be attended to,

yet the signal, through the nature of the appointments made to date, is

that nobody from greater Victoria has been appointed to address the

concerns, though this is the capital of the province.

There is a feeling out there that the capital is being removed from

Victoria. We've seen, over the years, a loss of personnel from the

Victoria area to the Vancouver area, in terms of government employees.

We've seen the downsizing and the shrinking of government. Clearly the

government's decentralization plans are to do that: to further that

type of shrinking. Clearly, the individuals appointed under the

section

here have been accorded the responsibility of bringing about that type

of shrinking. That has a demoralizing effect upon people in government.

It also has a negative effect on the economy.

I don't want to go into any depth in those arguments, because

they've been repeated in the House by several of my colleagues,

particularly by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Blencoe), who

talked on Friday, I believe, about how the decentralization program in

this city has the effect of curbing expenditures on the part of civil

servants until they know exactly where they stand. The employees at the

fabrication shop are certainly going to cut back on their expenditures,

because they know they're not going to have a job after the

[ Page 2769 ]

next four to nine months. The employees in the sign

shop are cutting back on their expenditures, because they have no idea

what the future holds for them.

If I may digress a bit with respect to the sign shop, a lot of the

employees have come to the conclusion that they're going to have to

purchase their own jobs. The discussion down there is that, given the

fact that they have to move with respect to privatization, the only way

to preserve their jobs is to go out and acquire the sign shop. To each

one of them, that means borrowing about $10,000. That's $10,000 that

they don't have. That's $250 a month that they will now have to spend

on that.

[10:45]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm sorry to interrupt you, but

your relevancy.... You were doing very well for quite some time there,

and then the latter remarks certainly were not relevant to the part of

Bill 59 that you've been talking about. Perhaps you'd get back on track

with the relevancy, please.

MR. SIHOTA: If I was allowed to go on for one more sentence,

Mr. Speaker: that's $250 that they're not going to be injecting back

into the economy. That is the effect that the government's

decentralization plan has on the people here in the Victoria area,

particularly people in my riding.

To bring it back to the principle embodied in the

section that talks

about the appointment of these people, it's not a principle about

appointments, or not even necessarily.... I may at this point disagree

with some of the comments that some of my colleagues have made. The

principle here simply isn't a tiering of the types of MLAs. The thrust

and purpose of the

section 1'm talking about now is clearly to allow

for the government to implement its decentralization plans, and it's in

that context and with that thrust in mind that I would urge all

members, if they disagree, to point out to me how they could disagree

with me that what we're really talking about here is the government's

decentralization plans. Obviously, without this section, the

decentralization program as laid out by the government could not be

carried forward.

Let's talk a little bit about that program — if I've now set out the

basis upon which the section, as I read it, comes to us: the

government's decentralization plan. I talked about the fear, and it's

interesting to go back and take a look at the method by which the

government has tried, with respect to decentralization, to reduce the

level of fear. There was originally an indication that 10,000 jobs

would be lost from the greater Victoria area. We then had the

government telling us that there would only be a few hundred jobs lost

from the greater Victoria area. After that, we had an announcement from

the Premier that there would simply be an increase in travel budgets of

civil servants; there was nothing to worry about; the government

decentralization program would not result in a net transfer of jobs

from the greater Victoria area. You have to wonder how much planning

has gone into the program, in light of how quickly those statements

changed from 10,000 jobs to an increase in travel budgets. That change

happened as a result of public outcry over a period of about two to

three weeks. You have to wonder how much there was behind the program

in the first place, and you have to ask yourself how much there is in

the program now. In terms of guidelines, specifics and direction, given

the fact that we are now moving towards the appointment of new

parliamentary secretaries to implement that decentralization program.

You also have to ask yourself how much thought is behind the

government's decentralization program when you take into account that

there has been an $8 million expenditure allocated for that program. I

don't want to go into depth on this issue, because I know it has been

raised — at least by me — in question period. But it is clear that that

$8 million.... First of all, who knows where it came from? But it came

from somewhere, and you then have to wonder what is being cut back as a

result of the $8 million. Nonetheless, once that money showed up. It

was transferred on the basis of special warrants of emergency powers,

and you have to ask yourself what emergency existed in September. when

the Premier made his comment about decentralization. and what emergency

will exist that warrants the expenditure of that money now and that

warrants the appointment of these people to expend that amount of

money. The other day when I asked in the House, it was evident from the

answers of both the Premier and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) that there was no emergency involved. As a consequence, it's

evident that that money was allocated in violation of principles that

have governed this House for quite some time. In other words,

expenditures and allocation of money ought to be debated before the

fact, not after the fact, and clearly there was a violation of that

trust, because all taxpayer money, certainly in my view, is trust money.

So we have this expenditure. We ask what guidelines are there for this expenditure,

and we're not given any guidelines. We've asked that those guidelines

be tabled, and we're not provided with those guidelines. It makes you wonder

why we're appointing these parliamentary secretaries to implement the government's

decentralization plans when (

a) the money was secured in contradiction to the

powers that allow for that money to be secured — i.e., that no emergency existed:

(

b) there are no guidelines for the expenditure of that money; and (

c) the government

hasn't even outlined its decentralization program with enough specific detail

to tell us which ministries are going to be affected, when they're going

to be affected, how many jobs are going to be affected, which travel budgets

are going to be increased, and which are going to be the loss areas in terms

of government revenue in light of the fact that this $8 million had to come

from somewhere.

So you have to ask yourself: how much planning has gone into this

decentralization program? It's evident to me that there's been no

planning — or nominal planning; let me put it that way. We're asked to

appoint these people, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with this bill, with

no understanding as to what they're going to be doing.

On top of that, in the past few weeks we've seen, apart from the

appointments of these new parliamentary secretaries, the appointments

of individuals elsewhere in the province as economic development

officers who. Interestingly enough, have direct ties to the government.

A former campaign manager of the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Parker)

is now appointed as the economic development officer at $45,000 a year.

plus a car and expenses, to carry out this program that has no plan —

this program for expenditure of money that has no guidelines. So we

have a parliamentary secretary appointed under this legislation. and

it's difficult to understand what he's going to be doing: and now we

have economic development officers who interestingly — in my

[ Page 2770 ]

view — are being appointed solely because of their

background and linkage to the Social Credit Party. As one of the other

members mentioned before, it's really the worst kind of patronage one

can expect. And once again we have no guidelines being offered to them.

If nothing else, the legislation before us ought to have addressed that

matter — to give some comfort to those workers who are affected by the

government program, to understand exactly how the plan is to work.

In the past few weeks we've had conflicting reports of how the money

is to be expended. We've had one minister who has used it to have a

party in Vancouver at some $5,000 or $6,000 expense to the taxpayer.

We've had other ministers who've come out and said, "Well, we don't

know exactly how to spend it, so we're not going to spend any of it,"

which I think is somewhat reasonable. And then we've had other

ministers who say: "We'll be developing guidelines for that money, and

we've just spent some now to hire people and set up offices."

What it really does from the taxpayer's point of view, Mr. Speaker,

is create.... The appointment of these secretaries and the

infrastructure that comes with them simply create another level of

bureaucracy, a fifth tier of bureaucracy. No longer will MLAs have to

deal with ministers who are responsible for resolving problems. I

notice that both the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) and the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) are here. If I have a problem

in my riding as it relates to health or education or social services,

am I now first to go to the line minister, and then second go to the

minister of state or the parliamentary secretary in order to get a

green light for a much needed project in my riding? Of course I am, and

that adds another step, another level of bureaucracy into the system,

which is unnecessary, in terms of a new parliamentary secretary and in

terms of the new minister of state. So we have this new layer of fat,

as I see it, which again adds to the taxpayers' expenses, and makes it

far more difficult for MLAs to do their job. It invites a system of

patronage and pork-barrelling.

As a consequence, Mr. Speaker, it's my conclusion that the plans

that have been put forward by the government are lacking in specifics,

and in terms of privatization we're asking: where's the evidence with

respect to the government's privatization plans? We've had studies with

respect to B.C. Hydro gas which say that you ought not to privatize it

— the only studies provided to the government to date. We've had one

minister and three deputy ministers who have said that you don't

privatize the highways. We've had studies by a government committee

that said: "Don't privatize the liquor facilities." We've had

milk-testing laboratories which now can be handed to individuals in

other areas. From the privatization point of view, Mr. Speaker, there

are no plans; from the decentralization point of view, there are no

plans.

MR. LOENEN: For the record, if I may, I'd just like to

correct a few errors that were read into the record by the hon. member

across the way who spoke before me.

I was at the so-called party that was held last week, Saturday, at

the B.C. Enterprise Centre, for $5,000. It was referred to as a

"party," as though we were just blowing money. Some 300 community

leaders were invited to a luncheon followed by a business session. I

can tell you that it was a great success, because what was happening

there is that we were pooling the best minds and resources that our

communities can offer. We were drawing on them....

MR. SIHOTA: On a point of order, could the member please explain how this ties into Bill 59? I'm at a loss to understand that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue, hon. member.

MR. LOENEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I simply want to let the

public know that we on the government side are not guilty of the

charges that were levelled against us; and when it comes to

section 2

of Bill 59, what we're doing there is making sure that the resources

available to us will be deployed for the benefit of our communities.

Are we to understand from the member opposite that the NDP is

against bringing government to the people? Are we to understand that we

should not use the talents that are available within this Legislature

for the benefit of our community, to bring greater involvement, to

bring greater economic development, to bring better delivery of social

services to our regions? That is what is behind this particular

section, I think we ought to recognize and applaud that and not fall

for the distortions that continually come to us from across the way.

We're told that this is nothing but pork-barrelling and political

patronage. We know that there is a great convention taking place in

Vancouver, and I just wonder if some of these remarks are simply made

in order to get on good terms with the labour bosses of our province.

Is that why we're hearing all this political talk from across the way

and the rhetoric that comes to us?

In closing, I just want the people of this province to know that the

government is concerned to bring government close to the people and to

fulfil the promises that were made during the campaign, and that is

what this

section 1s all about.

MR. GUNO: I'm glad to be able to speak on this bill today and

to focus particularly on

section 2. It justifiably has attracted the

attention of many speakers since the bill was up for second reading. In

effect,

section 2 removes the ceiling on how many MLAs can be appointed

parliamentary secretaries. It is really an after-the-fact sort of thing

because the parliamentary secretaries have, indeed, been named and been

appointed. But what we're talking about — and I think that my

colleague, the last speaker from this side of the House, is right — is

really the government's own particular plans for decentralization. So I

will spend a little time speaking on that.

[11:00]

My colleagues have, I think, very clearly exposed this whole

exercise as one, in terms of process, circumventing the parliamentary

system of government by trying to introduce such a fundamental change

in our government through this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

Secondly, I think my colleagues are correct in calling the so-called

decentralization scheme one that is really putting into place a whole

new layer of bureaucracy in the province. Government members have tried

to minimize the impact of this section, but I don't think there is any

doubt that this

section has far-reaching and disturbing ramifications

for British Columbia. It is, as the second member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Ms. Marzari) characterized it yesterday, an affront to our

parliamentary traditions of government.

There is widespread concern about the direction that this government

is taking us. In my travels through my riding in the last month, I have

attempted to canvass the views of a fair cross-section of the people in

Atlin, from various regions of

[ Page 2771 ]

that vast riding, There seems to be a consensus

that there is very little information about this whole scheme, that it

has come right out of the blue. No one recalls being consulted. No one

in the various local governments or authorities has any recollection of

being asked about this kind of decentralization scheme.

Northerners by and large are for decentralization, are for real

decentralization — not only for a greater access of government

services, but for a greater say on decisions that affect them. For

example, the devastation of the forest resources in the Nass Valley,

which is well documented, probably would not have happened if the

people there had a greater say in the management of that resource. And

that is only one example, Mr. Speaker.

When this government talks about decentralization, it really is not

about giving real powers to regional and local authorities. If you look

up the definition of "decentralization" in any authoritative

dictionary, it says "the dispersement or distribution of functions and

powers from a central authority to regional and local authorities."

The ministers of state — or superministers or czars, as my

colleagues have characterized them — are not accountable to local

people. How can they be? They were not elected; certainly in Atlin they

weren't elected. Actually, we have two in Atlin: the Nechako region and

also the North Coast. So I have to contend with two ministers of state.

Because they're not accountable to the local people, I can only

conclude that they are accountable to only one person, which is the

Premier in Victoria. I share my colleagues' concern that although this

is seemingly innocuous looking, it sets and represents a stupendous

assault on our democratic system of government. As the member for

Burnaby said, it is a clear perversion of our parliamentary process.

Mr. Speaker, this appointment of the parliamentary secretaries

represents a blatant attempt to usurp the role of the opposition MLAs.

This is the government who campaigned in the last election about less

government, more openness and more consultation.

As I say, we have two ministers of state to contend with in Atlin.

The Minister of State for Nechako demonstrated his knowledge of the

nuances of the conditions of the north in his answer to a question in

question period last week by suggesting that the winter conditions are

the same throughout B.C. I'm sure the people of Stewart and Cassiar

would appreciate that kind of lumping the south with the north in terms

of dealing with the winter conditions.

The other concern I have, Mr. Speaker, is the government's attempt

to co-opt opposition MLAs by inviting them to participate in these

regional boards. Given my fundamental opposition to this kind of setup,

given the fact that such a fundamental restructuring of government is

being done without due legislation, given the fact that this government

is bypassing the parliamentary process by establishing this extra layer

of bureaucratic fat, there is simply no way that I can see

participating until this government has the courage of its convictions

and has this matter debated in full in this House.

I am fundamentally opposed to this new system. In making this stand,

Mr. Speaker, I am not being derelict in my duty to my constituents, as

was suggested by the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) the

other day. In fact, Mr. Speaker, were I to uncritically jump on the

government's bandwagon, I think I would be doing a greater disservice

to my constituents. The Premier has made various public announcements

that have acknowledged that his decentralization and privatization

programs represent a fundamental restructuring of government, and yet

he refuses still to consent to open debate. He refuses still to

consult. He refuses to give the people of B.C. the opportunity to see

what he is basing these changes on. I think it's almost trite to say

that surely the people have a right to know.

I want to just focus on my riding and some of the ramifications

relating to this bill. As I said. I've just recently travelled

extensively through Atlin, and I am more convinced than ever that I am

one of the luckiest MLAs. Not only is the area one of the most

beautiful parts of B.C. but I think the people there are the greatest.

They're resilient and straightforward. Because of the kind of sparse

environment that they have to contend with, they're very interdependent

and patient.

I wonder, Mr. Speaker, just how long they will remain patient. The

services that are often taken for granted elsewhere are simply

non-existent in many parts of Atlin. Our highways, for instance, are

adequate but that is not enough in the harsh winter months when they

are lifelines for many of the remote communities in the north. Medical

services are less than adequate. Counselling services dealing with

child abuse, alcohol and drug abuse and battered wives are simply not

there. In fact, the only ray of light is in Cassiar where the Yukon

government has been kind enough to provide a counselling service one

week a month.

In the field of education, we see in Atlin and Dease Lake a few

property owners who have to bear a disproportionate load of school

taxes to pay for the shortfall of an already impoverished Stikine

School District.

Mr. Speaker, my point is this: the $1 million dollars — the incredible resource

that we're piling onto this scheme, or even part of it — could go a long

way in alleviating some of these problems. By dispensing sufficient funds and

the authority to administer them locally, the government could provide the northern

people the means and the authority to design and implement services and functions

that will not only be effective. but be relevant to the local conditions.

For example — and this is what I mean about "real" decentralization

— in Dease Lake, where they often have to deal with inadequate health

services, they have a clinic. But the clinic is staffed by a doctor who

is administered by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. They are

contracted by the government to provide that, but they do it on a

monthly rotational basis. So the people in Dease Lake have to contend

with dealing with 12 doctors throughout the year. I've spoken to many

people in Dease Lake, and I believe that there are people there who can

form a local health authority and administer that program and. given

the funds, can hire a doctor who can stay there all year round. That

would not only upgrade the health services for the people of Dease

Lake. but they would have a tremendous say in how their health services

are being provided. I suggest that is real decentralization; not the

appointment of some nabob of Nechako.

My comments are going to be brief, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues have

made a sufficient case for the concerns about this section. I don't

think they have overstated the concerns about this whole exercise of

circumventing our parliamentary process. There is always a risk when a

government will bypass the normal process of parliament in order to get

things done. In Italy before the second World War. the trains were on

[ Page 2772 ]

time, but at the expense of people losing control of a government bent on megalomania.

In Canada we have a long tradition of democratic institutions of

government based on respect for human rights and the rule of law. But

the freedoms that we enjoy, as Thomas Berger reported in his book Fragile Freedoms ,

is a precious commodity as well as a fragile one. We would be derelict

in our duties if we were not vigilant in protecting the democratic

rights of our citizens against the zeal of those who would remake our

society today.

I also have a concern about

section 5 which purports to change the

First Citizens' Fund, which provides practically the only source of

provincial funding for native people. Until now, these funds have been

disbursed as grants and have been the only source for many of the poor

communities in the north for upgrading recreational facilities, staging

cultural events — a whole array of different community activities that

are generally not available to them. I'm concerned that this fund is

now being turned into a type of lending institution. I think that is a

requirement, but I don't think it should be done at the expense of

depriving people of this kind of source for cultural, educational or

recreational facilities.

Those are my general remarks on the two sections of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act.

MS. EDWARDS: In this bill, which is the Miscellaneous

Statutes Amendment Act, there are so many things involved that the

principles often seem to be going against each other. I guess the best

thing to do is to deal with it in serial order, so I will begin my

remarks about the principles of Bill 59 by referring to the whole

business of

section 2, which allows the government to appoint any

number of parliamentary secretaries that it chooses.

[11:15]

The whole business of parliamentary secretaries brings one to the

question of who is representing the areas. In researching this and

trying to find out just exactly who was going to be representing my

area, whether there were going to be parliamentary secretaries

appointed — any number of them — it appears that obviously this

amendment is dealing with what the government has called its

decentralization move. So one looks in the Constitution Act beyond

section 12(l), which is the one proposed to be amended, to

section 18,

the

section which talks about MLAs. It says: "The Legislative Assembly

consists of 69 members, elected in the manner provided by the Election

Act," and then the key words are "to represent the electoral districts

constituted and defined in this act."

That seems to make it very clear to me that the representative for

each of the electoral districts is to be the MLA. Under the

Constitution Act, that MLA is the person who should represent the views

of that area.

[Mrs. Gran in the chair.]

That was fine until I visited the Fisher commission and heard a

representation from the Social Credit Party. The executive director of

that party made a representation to the commission which ultimately

would have led to the recommendation of no increase in the numbers of

MLAs, and it recognized the amount of evidence that had been put

forward by MLAs saying that they were very busy, had a lot to do and so

on.

The executive director of the Social Credit Party, which is the same

party as the government, of course, said that MLAs should be confining

their work to speaking in the Legislature; that they shouldn't be

running around trying to do the work that the ministries, the

bureaucrats or the ombudsman were supposed to do. In other words, the

representative of the government party said MLAs should leave out all

the work they do on workers' compensation, welfare problems, health and

hospital and all the problems that we all deal with in such great

abundance; that in fact MLAs shouldn't be bothered trying to get into

all areas of their constituencies very often, because their function

was somehow or other to divine what the people in the constituency

meant, and to take what they had divined and put together and the whole

business of what they got by not travelling through the constituency to

the Legislature — and that was the function of an MLA. You put that

together with the statement by the Premier's principal secretary who

said that MLAs were overrated, and at least there's some consistency.

Perhaps the government would prefer that MLAs limit their activities

because they're not really worth what a lot of people have said they're

worth.

I examined all this and said, all right, maybe that's what the

government wants of its MLAs. Maybe this fits into the principle of

this bill, who knows? But then we go onto yesterday's debate on

privatization during which the Premier commented on the duties of MLAs.

When the opposition suggested that we needed some major, formal debate

in the forum designed to debate legislative issues, that we should have

some debate on the proposed privatization of government services — the

contracting out of the public service — our Premier said that debate

should be carried out in the media and that in fact you should go back

to your constituencies and do your debate, because you're not to debate

in the Legislature. I find this to be a major contradiction. The

executive director of the party is saying that MLAs are only there to

walk into the Legislature and conduct debate. The Premier says we're

not going to debate in the Legislature, please go home to your

constituencies and use the phone-in programs, and do your business

there. I think this leads one to wonder if the government knows exactly

what it does want its representatives to do.

What it seems to want to do — it's in

section 2 of Bill 59 — is for

many of the MLAs to please just go and get lost, because now we're

going to have enough parliamentary secretaries to deal with the United

States of British Columbia, where we have the ministers of state making

all the decisions. The actual ministers of state are there to provide a

more direct pipeline into cabinet. Therefore anybody who wants to talk

to government should go directly to cabinet and not bother to go with

the poor functionaries left to work through the old ministerial system

and go through bureaucracy. Of course nobody likes red tape, so nobody

likes bureaucracy. Now you've got a straight pipeline into government

to use funds that didn't have to go through the Legislature, so

everything is just fine, and we have escaped the whole system as it was

set up.

The senior government official has been quoted as saying, about

these parliamentary secretaries and ministers of state, that if he as a

person in a region was going to get something done — and he was

identified as the Premier's principal secretary — "I would be going to

the parliamentary secretaries assigned to the region." To the question,

"More than to my MLA?" he said yes.

[ Page 2773 ]

I think the reason that

section 2 is in Bill 59 is that this

government has decided to strictly go around the traditional democratic

system as it has been set up in British Columbia. In fact, it's

designed to have parliamentary secretaries working.... As this same

principal secretary said, they "will be full-time involved in regional

issues." If in fact this isn't another level of government, another way

to circumvent the whole system as it's been set up, I think that there

should be some explanation, because it's very clear that that's what's

happening.

MR. LOENEN: To you.

MS. EDWARDS: It's certainly very clear to me. It seems very

obvious, and for the very reasons I've just gone through. Shall I

describe it again?

MR. RABBITT: One more time.

MS. EDWARDS: The question is: who ultimately is supposed,

under our Constitution Act, to represent the people in my riding? If in

the electoral district, which is defined, by the way, also in the

Constitution Act in

section 19, where it says: "For the returning of

members of the Legislative Assembly there shall be electoral districts,

the name and boundaries of which are described and defined in

Schedule

1, and which shall severally return to the Legislative Assembly the

number of members prescribed in

Schedule I...."

As I said, they are to represent the people in the riding. If in

fact the government says it doesn't want to follow that act, but wants

to put somebody else in to represent the people in that riding, the

government is clearly saying that it wants to circumvent the system as

it exists. That is not acceptable to the people who have worked,

historically and traditionally, to find a way in our democratic system

to give a voice to every person in the province.

It has been recognized in the history of developing the democratic

system that not only should the party in power have a voice, but also

the party that is Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. The people in every

area, whether or not they elect.... I mean, it isn't a one-party

system, after all. You elect someone from one party or another party,

and the system has very carefully been designed to give a voice to

every elected representative. Part of that design has been legislative

committees, the committees on which both parties have a voice. The

government doesn't have those legislative committees sit. They prefer

to have appointees of the government do any investigations that are

done — nobody from the opposition side; nobody from the side which is

there to create the balance needed for fair government. None of the

issues are related to committees.

Now the government proposes that we have the United States of

British Columbia, so that you don't have to deal again with any of the

difficult parts: those terrible MLAs who may represent a different

party, or, in fact, the bureaucracy.

When we talk about bureaucracy, we talk about something that my

colleague from Atlin (Mr. Guno) has just talked about when he was

referring to Italy and to the trains that at one time ran on time. We

are talking about whether government should be highly efficient or

highly representative — because it can't be both at the same time; we

recognize that. Democracy, as we've all heard many times, is certainly

not the most efficient system in the world; in fact, it's relatively

inefficient of time. But what it does well — and the reason we accept

it, and the reason we have all these safeguards to the democratic

system — is be efficient in providing representation for all the

members of that democratic unit that should be represented, which in

this case is all of British Columbia.

You can't do it both ways. You can't have a system that depends on

ministries and on the rule of law, if you like, where in fact a

ministry lays down and a minister makes very clear, under the acts that

he or she administers.... And it's very clearly laid out what the law

is and what the regulations are — although they can be changed more

easily than the laws. the acts, themselves — and it's for everybody in

the province. A minister must do his administration within the confines

of the law as it is laid out. That has been established, and

historically developed, as a fair way, so that every citizen knows the

law and knows what can and can't be done. If you decide that you are

going to have a superminister who can tell the ministers whether or not

they can administer that law the way they choose, you've got a number

of problems.

One is the issue of whether or not the law still exists, because

politically you can go around it. That's what the government is saying:

go around our system, go directly — pipeline into cabinet — and get a

political decision. When in fact most of the decisions that would

probably be fair and be seen to be fair could come through the law as

it exists already.

We have an example of that kind of thing happening already, and the

Premier and various of his ministers have said that one of the issues

for the superministers is to see whether or not the agricultural land

reserve should be there. This is not to go to the Legislature; it's not

to go to a committee of the Legislature. It is to be decided by the

superminister. If the superminister decides it should go one way, and

the ministers — there are many ministers involved in the kinds of rules

that the agricultural land reserve requires — don't agree with the

superminister, do we simply ignore the fact that the ministers believe

that the agricultural land reserve should do something?

What is the proposal here, Madam Speaker? Does the government know

what it's asking everybody to do, or is it a straight politicization of

the system? Is it a way to get around the requirements of

administration and the horrors of bureaucracy that we still have?

Because we recognize that you have to have bureaucracy once you write

the rules down. That's why we all tolerate bureaucracy.

[11:30]

But you're going to try to be more efficient in terms of time and

getting there — political decisions, not decisions based on the pattern

of administrative.... carrying on from day to day as it has gone on in

our system and in all the democratic systems we know about, the ones on

which we model ourselves, which do not encourage more and more

direction and funnelling and pointing decisions in a single place.

Under these circumstances, it seems that we are headed for major

problems, mixups and foul-ups in knowing who makes the decision, which

way a decision is going to be made, and which way to go when you do

have a legitimate demand or need. If you are a municipal politician,

you have a way right now to make your needs known. You work through the

ministry — three ministries, perhaps — but at least you know that the

rules are written down. You know how you are to get it. If you are

going to prove your need, you know that it's going to be a fair

approach — at least you hope it will be a fair approach — because these

laws apply right across the

[ Page 2774 ]

province. They are there in an attempt to

distribute the rewards of our system as equally as possible. What

happens now is that we'll have an eight-team scramble to see which of

the superministers gets to order the other ministers around first, so

that his particular region gets the benefits he has decided they can

have.

In my region in particular, the regionalization is offensive to many

of the people because the superminister doesn't represent a single

member in any of the four ridings included. I say four, but I'm not

sure yet whether the government has even decided where the edges of the

Kootenay region go or whether there would be bits of another riding —

and there could be more. However, the superminister for the-Kootenays

does not represent one single voter in that area. That is a major

constitutional problem. It's a major contradiction as the Constitution

Act is laid out. I object strenuously to this change which allows the

appointment of parliamentary secretaries for this particular move.

It's fair to suggest that taking out a number altogether and leaving

it open is a principle that is not necessarily the best in the world.

Why is it that we no longer have a limit on the number of parliamentary

secretaries? Does the government expect to appoint unlimited numbers?

The government doesn't say. Parliamentary secretaries who may in fact

spend all their time.... As I say, they'll be involved full-time in

regional issues. Poor souls, how are they going to do their MLA duties

in their own ridings? All of these issues need to be discussed and put

forward.

Certainly the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, which means cabinet,

has every right to appoint any number of ministers. I guess it's a

little less costly to appoint any number of parliamentary secretaries.

These issues have not been discussed or put forward to this assembly

until now. This principle — it has not been said what you want to do

with it. I don't want to get caught in the bind of saying you didn't

bring it forth here, but we don't have the plan of all of this in

principle, and I haven't heard or read in Hansard any answers to these concerns.

I want to go ahead to endorse the comment of my colleague from Atlin

about

section 5 and the proposal on the First Citizens' Fund. This fund

has been inadequate until now, for a couple of reasons. One is that it

simply hasn't had enough resources and another is that when some of the

native people in my riding have applied for it, they have found that

they fall between the chairs far too often. Far more is needed. If

that's the principle and if in fact it's an extension and an expansion,

that would be good. It needs attention and needs to be looked at some

more.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 work fairly well together.

AN HON. MEMBER: That belongs in committee.

MS. EDWARDS: I'm sorry. Let me talk then. If I'm not allowed to speak about sections, I won't speak about sections.

What I will say is that there is in these amendments the new

requirement that some of the services under the Hospital Insurance Act

can be excluded, and that now, even though there is a list of what can

be covered by the act, the minister has the right to exclude besides.

It seems that the minister or someone appointed by him may determine

that a certain billing not be done. That's how I read the amendment.

If the principle is different, I don't know.... I think we're going

at the same principle again. The changes are not going to be laid out;

we're going to depend on a political decision, which would come later.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is shaking his head. I don't

know whether or not he is saying that he is also going to lay out what

he is going to exclude in a set of regulations, but the principle here

is that the minister or his designate has power that used to be in the

hands of cabinet. As I understand it, that's what it is.

I think, Madam Speaker, the principle should be that these kinds of

regulations, which are difficult, but not too difficult, to define and

lay out, have to be laid out so that every citizen knows what he's

dealing with. I make this comment partly because of a constituent of

mine who has had some major difficulties getting an ambulance bill

approved. He was injured in the north and had to be flown out by

helicopter. Without going into the details, the point was that there

was nobody there to approve the flight out. There was a doctor

available who put him in, but that doctor was unable to approve....

Whether it was a warden or some government official....

What I'm saying is that the problem for that person was a major one,

because the bill was a major one. It took a lot of time and effort to

get that billing approved. That kind of thing will multiply if

ministerial approval has to come for some of those services. It makes

it extremely difficult for people who are in a situation where they

don't have medical choices. If they have to go for a medical approval,

that would be the wrong principle.

I think that here we are again dealing with this proposed Bill 59

and some of the issues that have just been thrown out. I don't know how

much discussion.... I haven't heard any discussion on this particular

issue, but how does one decide in British Columbia how many judges

there should be? Does one just throw it in a miscellaneous statutes

amendment act or, in fact, is this the kind of issue that should go to

a legislative committee so that both sides of the Legislature can have

some input on it, so that you can get some facts and figures and some

degree of recognition that the kinds of appointments that we would make

would attack the problem that we're trying to attack, that it is a

reasonable thing to appoint two extra judges, or three or seven, or to

cut the number by two? This kind of thing should be referred to a

legislative committee so that we could have a good look at it before

it's thrown into a miscellaneous statutes amendment act. There are too

many things in this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It addresses

a lot of things, all of which indicate the government's propensity to

centralize power and to set it up so they can make rulings without

having those rulings laid out clearly ahead of time.

In that sense, I object to many things in the bill, and I would pray

that the government look to those ideas and look to the long-held

democratic principles of this House and remember that the opposition

and other levels of government have the right to input and that these

rights could be contravened by the kinds of things that are proposed in

Bill 59.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: It is certainly an interesting debate here

on a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, which somehow or other gets

translated entirely and completely into a privatization move. Before

this bill came up for debate, I believe the opposition said that they

were going to use this bill to debate privatization even if it didn't

refer to privatization, and they're certainly keeping their word in

that regard.

[ Page 2775 ]

I would commend the member who just spoke, the member for Kootenay,

who at least made periodic references to

section 2, the one referring

to the parliamentary secretaries, and so I guess has some relevance. I

was somewhat astounded by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr.

Sihota), who prides himself on his legal training, who spent a good

deal of time on relating how

section 1 relates to the privatization

moves of this government. I suppose that, because of his legal training

and because of how the legislation works, he can bafflegab or dazzle

most people with it.

Taking a look at how that

section works, we see that

section 1 of

this Bill 59 amends

section 3 of the Commercial Transport Act and says

that it shall include

section 55(1. 1) as well as

section 55(

l) of the

Motor Vehicle Act. Then you check the Motor Vehicle Act, and

section

55(

l) says that a licence issued to a motor vehicle shall be issued for

a 12-month period. Then, in a miscellaneous statutes amendment act

earlier this year,

section 55(l. 1) was added....

MR. ROSE: Just on a point of order, I'd like to inquire of

the Chair whether the minister is making his speech on Bill 59 and

discussing privatization, or whether he's just standing on a point of

order so he won't lose his place in the debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It's my understanding that the minister is speaking on the debate on Bill 59.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, certainly I am. And I was referring to

the continual references made by the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

on how he was relating

section 1 to privatization, and I'm exploding

that myth. I know the opposition House Leader knew that I had a good

thing going here in a very detailed step-by-step way, and an

interruption has served his purpose. But I will not be deterred that

easily.

[11:45]

MR. ROSE: On a point of order, I have no desire, Madam

Speaker, to impede the minister in any way when he's in full flight and

out of control, but I do wish to have the clarification made that,

since he is excoriating the opposition for being out of order on

certain portions of their debate, how can he be in order when he refers

to this? That is my problem with the rule of order. If he's speaking on

a point of order, he certainly has our permission; we would grant him

leave to do whatever he wishes. But if he's speaking in the debate,

then I have to warn him that he loses his place in the debate. He won't

be able to speak again in this debate, and we'll miss his contribution.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Would the Minister of Education, taking into consideration the comments just made, please continue.

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Oh, yes, I'm definitely taking them into

consideration, Madam Speaker. If the only way one can comment on the

opposition's comments on this bill is to be on the verge of being out

of order, it's because the total debate from the other side is

virtually out of order, and so that's the only comment a person can

make. Yes, I would be chagrined if I were to lose my place in the

debate because this was translated as a point of order.

Getting back to the point I was making of how ludicrous the

association with privatization is made. When

section 1 of this

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, through the process I was

describing, simply creates the situation where a motor vehicle licence

can be issued for a period of less than 12 months, by going through the

amendments to the sections. I guess I was really groping as to how that

is a mysterious move by the government in the direction of

privatization. As a matter of fact. the member for Esquimalt-Port

Renfrew did say that all of sections 1 to 19 dealt with privatization.

I'm sure that he's read the bill; I would hope that he's read the bill.

I don't really want to go through them

section by section, but in

the one referred to as the First Citizens' Fund, as I understand it.

the people who get the money from the First Citizens' Fund — only the

interest is available — have said that the money might go further if it

were done in the form of loans as well as grants, so that the money

could really be repaid and the fund could be topped up or not used up

as quickly. That suggestion has been taken by the government.

There are sections in here that allow the Finance minister to set

fees for certain functions. I don't know how that relates to

privatization.

As for the references to hospitals, there are two sections that deal

with the Minister of Health. The one about the possible exclusion of

some services is based on medical advice. Strangely enough, the

opposition makes absolutely no reference.... Certainly the member for

Kootenay (Ms. Edwards), you would think, would commend the government

for specifying that they can make medical payments to hospitals outside

the province for services rendered. In my riding and that member's

riding that's a fairly significant point. I notice, though, that you

concentrated on the previous

section so that you could b negative.

There's no way there's any possible reference to saying: "Hey, there is

at least one good point in this legislation." I guess, getting back to

that, that seems to be the problem: if the government is doing it, then

it must be attacked. That's the approach we have from the opposition.

They say that there's no input being provided for MLAs. MLAs will

continue to function. The democratic process under the Constitution Act

continues to function. The regionalization program provides additional

input that the MLAs may have — additional representation on behalf of

their constituents. As I understand it, that has been turned down. The

MLAs have simply said: "Oh no, we are just going to be between here and

Victoria. If there's anything else in the works, a coordinated effort

to see what would benefit the people in our region, because the

government suggested it we are not going to participate."

That coordinated effort through the ministers of state can be with

municipally elected people, school board people. All elected bodies

will have input into a coordinated effort to see what can create better

services in the service ministries for that area, and what could create

better economic development, which is jobs. Yet those people who say,

"We are the elected representatives," given the opportunity to work

with other elected representatives in a coordinated effort to benefit

the region, are saying: "Nope, that's a government plan: we will not

participate in that." That is sad.

Then, as the previous speaker did, to take a quote from something

here and take a quote from something there — being very selective,

taking portions of quotations and juxtaposing them in order to make an

argument. That's a good debating tactic, I guess, if that's what this

exercise is all about. I thought this exercise was all about

representing your people and my people each representative to the best

of his ability, to try to create the best possible climate for them in

terms of economic development and services. Yet that seems

[ Page 2776 ]

to be the last thing that the members want. They've got to be negative.

The member from Surrey was talking about inability to represent.

There are a lot of schools in Surrey, and a lot of school problems in

Surrey. I have yet to have that member come to me and say: "We have a

growing population in Surrey. Can you do anything for additional

schools in Surrey?" All I've heard is her speaking in this House with

complaints, but she's never talked to me about it. The elected

representatives there, the municipal councils and the school boards,

have all come to me repeatedly, we have been able to respond, and they

have come up with positive suggestions. I've never heard a positive

suggestion from the "representative" of those people. Is representation

by opposition members limited to criticizing every move the government

makes, or should it do something in favour of the people they represent?

Madam Speaker, much of this legislation has been used as a vehicle

for the privatization debate — after the complaints they only had one

hour. Ever since this House opened last Tuesday, in every bill, in

every section, in everything they have been talking and debating

privatization, trying to create their version of it. As I think

somebody pointed out, it's an affront to this House because it's using

the flexibility of the rules and regulations in this House and the

goodwill of the members on this side to be repeatedly and continually

out of order, in order to debate what they want to debate instead of

the legislation that is before them.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The democratic process continues. MLAs can and should represent

their areas. Being given an opportunity to expand on that

representation should surely be to their advantage. The type of people

that have been asked to add to that representation — municipal elected

people, school board elected people, labour representatives,

organizational representatives, individuals, whatever — can help say:

"This is peculiar to our region. This makes better sense. This will

provide a better climate. This will provide better economic development

and better services for the people in my region."

I was at Cabinet Committee on Social Policy hearings in Fort St.

John, in my own region, last Friday. Their people were bringing forth

suggestions about services that could be improved, how they could be

helped. I see the minister of state, the resources available through

that, as a possibility to improve those services to them. Those people

were making positive suggestions, and their suggestions were listened

to. A great deal can be done to help the people who are making

suggestions about the things that stand in the way of economic

development and the general provincial policies that may or may not

make specific sense in the north. They want to be heard, and they will

have an opportunity to be heard. In having that opportunity to be heard

by their colleagues, their own people from the region and the minister

of state and others, they will have a greater opportunity for input

than they would if they always have to come to Victoria to make their

point.

MR. JONES: Do they talk to their MLA before?

HON. MR. BRUMMET: Yes, they have been to their MLA on many

occasions, and their MLA represents them very well, as indicated by the

votes in the last three elections.

But I think that, through this, we can have resources and further

assistance available that the MLA does not have available, and we can

do a great deal more for those people. Certainly I represent my people

with what can be done, what might be done, what economic development

can be done and what services are improved.

I don't see any advantage, as members of the opposition do, in

representing their people by coming here and carping and complaining

and criticizing and attacking the government on every possible move

that it makes. We get a lot done.

This legislation, as little as it has to do with privatization —

probably

section 2 is the only reference — has been used as a

privatization debate and will continue to be used by the opposition as

a privatization debate. We'll have the continual distortions to raise

concerns that people don't have now, which will be to the advantage of

the opposition to raise. With the use of selective quotes, distortion,

all of those things.... They are trying to say that allowing motor

vehicle licences to be issued for recreational vehicles for six months

instead of twelve months is somehow a dastardly deed on the part of the

government, which is very hard to comprehend.

Madam Speaker, I would hope.... You've changed, Madam Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I'll close my remarks when I start mistaking the Speaker's

gender.

MR. ROSE: I always enjoy listening to the minister, and I am

pleased that he has taken

part in this debate. I certainly hope he is

not accused of dragging it out and prolonging the agony. As a matter of

fact, I wish that more of the government members would get up and take

part in the debate, even if they may be slightly out of order on

occasion, as the minister was.

We're very tolerant here, and I don't think the Speaker's ruling and

her or his judgment needs to be questioned. I think that tends to be an

abuse of the rules, and I would caution the minister not to proceed

with that attack on the Chair, because it defies all our parliamentary

traditions and offends some of us.

I would just like to tell the minister that I think the offer of

coordinating and participating in these regional committees might have

been a genuine offer and might have been acceptable under certain

conditions. Our problem is that we've dealt with the government so long

that we don't know whether we're being asked to participate or being

asked to submit to cooping. In other words, we don't know whether

regions are going to be dealing with hot potatoes that this Legislature

should be dealing with and that by inviting us this is a method to

share the guilt. That's why we're more than reluctant to say yes, we

accept your kind invitation. Especially when we get the Minister of

Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid) speaking in Esquimalt recently. I can get you

the precise dates and times. It's not a quote, but he gave us to

understand that if you want any consideration from government you vote

Socred. What are our people doing on a committee in a region with an

attitude like that? The opposition members better be getting up pretty

early in the morning if they don't want to be shut out. That isn't

comforting. Neither is getting up early in the morning, for some of us,

but

[ Page 2777 ]

to be shut out when we get up early in the morning is something we can't tolerate.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to carry on and enlarge upon my remarks and

continue my introduction to my main speech after the question period.

Mr. Rose moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Strachan moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12 noon.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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