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)

MONDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2739 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Conflict-of-interest committee. Mr.

Harcourt –– 2739

Funding for ministers of state. Mr. Sihota

–– 2741

Role of MLAs. Mr. Kempf –– 2741

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No.

4), 1987 (Bill 59). Second reading

Hon. Mr. Strachan –– 2742

Mrs. Boone –– 2742

Hon. Mr. Veitch –– 2745

Mr. Jones –– 2746

Mr. Williams –– 2749

Ms. A. Hagen –– 2752

Debate under Standing Order 35:

Privatization

Mr. Harcourt –– 2754

Hon. Mr. Couvelier –– 2756

Ms. Edwards –– 2757

Mr. Kempf –– 2758

Mr. Lovick –– 2759

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2759

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1987

(Bill 59). Second reading

Ms. A. Hagen –– 2761

Ms. Smallwood –– 2762

Pension (Public Service) Amendment Act,

1987 (Bill 62). Hon. Mr. Veitch

Introduction and first reading –– 2763

The House met at 2:09 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the gallery today are

Rev. and Mrs.

Ernest Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy recently moved to Victoria as pastor of

Central Baptist Church and is the son of Orvis Kennedy, a pioneer in

the Social Credit movement in Alberta. I would ask this House to bid

them welcome.

MR. JONES: I have the privilege of

introducing in the gallery

today two of the many bright new faces on the municipal political scene

following the recent municipal elections: from the riding of Burnaby

North, school trustee-elect Ron Burton and mayor-elect Bill Copeland.

Would you please make them welcome.

HON. MR. SAVAGE: It's my pleasure today to

introduce, from

the great constituency of Delta, students from Seaquam Senior

Secondary, and a very dedicated teacher, Mr. John Kelly. Would this

assembly please make them welcome.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, I notice directly

across from me, in

the gallery above, two dear friends from the constituency of Nanaimo,

Dr. Jim Slater and Mr. Herb Bibbs. I would ask my colleagues to please

join me in welcoming them here.

HON. L. HANSON: In the gallery today are

two prominent

citizens of the riding of Okanagan North, and personal friends of mine,

Mr. Doug Gee and Miss Sheena Lornie. Would the House please make them

welcome.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery

this afternoon are

two residents of my constituency, Arnold and Ethel Plumridge, who are

paying their first visit to the Legislature. Will you all join me in

welcoming them to the House.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the

House to pay special

recognition to a special day in British Columbia yesterday, and offer

congratulations to the Edmonton Eskimos for their success and the

tourism aspects which they created for British Columbia. Thank you.

MR. SIHOTA: I was delighted to go to the

football game myself, and I certainly would like to wish the Eskimos

great success.

In any event, joining us in the gallery today....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I wasn't in the booth, though,

if you're

wondering. The Minister of Tourism and Sports reminds me that he'll

remedy that in the future.

In the gallery today is a good friend of mine, Mr. Danny

Robideau.

Mr. Robideau has been active in many NDP campaigns over the years, and

has been responsible for the success of many of us, including working

in my previous election campaign. He's now in Ontario and visiting us

today from Toronto, and he's working the same type of magic for our

party in Ontario now. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr.

Robideau.

HON. MR. PARKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

introduce to you

and through you to the House today two folks from Skeena constituency:

Randy Trombley from Terrace, who joins the staff of the Minister of

State for North Coast as government liaison officer, and Elmer Derrick

of Kitwancool, who joins the staff of the Minister of State for North

Coast as liaison officer, native affairs. Would the House make him

welcome.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd also like to pass on

congratulations to the

Edmonton Eskimos for that splendid game that is going to go a long way

towards restoring the health and well-being of the Canadian Football

League. And I don't just say that as someone who was born in Edmonton;

I also say it as the MLA for Vancouver Centre, where all those tourist

dollars were generated in the hotel rooms, restaurants and streets of

Vancouver for the province of British Columbia. I would like to

congratulate the organizing committee that has, for the third year,

brought a successful Grey Cup to British Columbia. I particularly wish

to congratulate the police of Vancouver for doing such a splendid job,

and lastly the celebrants, who were sober and good citizens in their

celebrations.

[2:15]

MR. SERWA: In your gallery today, Mr.

Speaker, is an

outstanding member of my constituency of Okanagan South, a personal

friend of long standing and a strong advocate of free enterprise. Would

the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Al Stober.

HON. MR. RICHMOND: Mr. Speaker, I would

like to take this

opportunity to introduce my wife, Patricia, who is visiting the capital

from the great city of Kamloops. She's in the members' gallery, and I

would like everyone to make her welcome.

Oral Questions

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST COMMITTEE

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Premier.

First of all, I'd like to welcome the Premier back from Toronto. It's

always great to return from Toronto.

I'd also like to have the Premier return to August 6, 1987,

when

the Deputy Attorney-General's report on the Minister of Advanced

Education (Hon. S. Hagen) was filed. The Premier said at that time: "I

will support a referral of this particular issue under

section 27 of

the Constitution Act to a committee of the Legislature for an

examination and review when the House sits this fall." Well, last

Thursday the Premier's government defeated the motion put forward to

set up that committee. Did you authorize this reversal, or were you

bushwhacked by your caucus?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I think

the most important

thing we've always got to remember in the proceedings of this House and

how we deal with one another is that we approach all things as fairly

as possible, even given the difficult circumstances that sometimes

exist here. I think there needs to be fairness.

Before I left for Toronto I consulted with some of my

colleagues and

I said: "Look. If the motion by the NDP opposition is presented in the

spirit of what I intended and what I stated ought to or could be

referred to the committee

[ Page 2740 ]

— that is, the matter of whether what occurred then was

contrary to

the Constitution Act — then by all means give it your support. But if

it's somehow presented in a broader scope where it could be abused and

becomes more a game of politics and grandstanding and in effect abusing

what this House ought to be considering, then by all means vote it

down." Because if we do that, we set a very dangerous precedent whereby

a fair and honest commitment.... Someone other, such as the opposition

in this particular instance, could pick up on that and create an issue

for an individual which is totally unfair and not at all called for and

wasn't something to be considered or to be debated.

I'm grateful to the House for dealing with the motion as they

did,

and I hope that perhaps in part this should be a lesson to all members

of the House that we should look at what was presented and intended,

and not attempt to expand upon it for political purposes.

MR. HARCOURT: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, it's

your credibility that's on the line here. If you dislike the motion,

would you be willing to phrase and put forward a new motion that would

investigate this particular matter, and make some genuine

recommendations on conflict-of-interest legislation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I'm certainly not

concerned about my credibility. I will look after my credibility in all

aspects.

The question here is: would I, in effect, take on what should

have

been the job of the opposition in the first place? I can only say again

that that would establish a precedent that I can't be supportive of.

It's the role of the opposition to present these motions fairly before

the House, not to ask the Premier or the leader of government to draft

or to somehow prepare a motion for the opposition.

MR. HARCOURT: Well, if you'd been here to

hear the dispirited

defense of that weak argument by your Attorney-General (Hon. B.R.

Smith), you wouldn't be quite as confident as you are here today.

Without a great deal of vigour, he was trying to defend a bushwhacking

of this Legislature. If you will not bring it before the Legislature,

Mr. Premier.... You've had four conflicts of interest, and more to

come, from your cabinet. Are you prepared to have a justice of the

Supreme Court make recommendations and finally bring into this

Legislature some decent conflict-of-interest legislation?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: What we have today is

ultimately

superior to what was brought to this Legislature and became law under

the NDP government back in 1973. Keep in mind that the legislation that

the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about, and claims to be so

inadequate and so terrible, is NDP legislation.

I, as Premier, have expanded upon this to provide conflict-of-

interest guidelines for the Premier in assuring the people of this

province that the Premier will run a tight ship, and that when there's

any question, there's cooperation from all or any of the parties

involved. That's how it's been. Frankly, we've dealt with it fairly,

honestly, upfront and openly from day one. As long as I'm the Premier

and as long as we're the government, we're going to stay on that,

regardless of what the opposition says. We'll continue to deal with it

fairly and squarely and upfront. If it is four, it is unfortunate; but

if it had to be five or six people affected by this, it wouldn't bother

me or the government. We'll continue to deal with these matters upfront

and in a straightforward manner for the citizens and will not

make politics of it, Mr. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, supplemental.

It's not a question

of politics, Mr. Premier; it's a question of right and wrong, of

honesty. I want you to give a very simple yes or no: are you prepared

to bring in some decent conflict-of-interest legislation? Yes or no?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: It's almost comical,

Mr. Speaker, to

hear a request like this come from the Leader of the Opposition, who

has never been able to answer anything with a yes or no. But as I've

said before and will say again, since obviously all of us are concerned

about these matters: if there are any suggestions from members on the

opposite side or our side or out there — whether in Smithers,

Cranbrook, Prince George, Prince Rupert, anywhere in the province — who

wish to provide some suggestions about how legislation may possibly be

changed, amended or introduced to deal with this whole matter more

equitably or fairly, then by all means, my office is always ready to

listen and consider such information.

If there's one thing I want to continue to stress, it's that

we're

available to the people out there. We'll certainly accept whatever the

suggestions are, and we'll consider all these, including, Mr. Leader of

the Opposition, any suggestions that you or members on your side wish

to make.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased

to hear that

because we happen to have tabled some conflict-of-interest legislation;

the hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) has tabled that

legislation. We will see if it's in your office, and we will see it

back before this House. I take it that's your undertaking.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I am

certainly not giving

up to the opposition the role of governing the province. Obviously that

is a matter for government to decide, and I cannot, as the Leader of

the Opposition should know — though he's new to the House — simply

accept something presented by the opposition and say we'll bring it

back. Frankly, I have some considerable reservations, considering the

source. But it will be considered, I can assure you.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the Premier.

Firstly, a fact to the

Premier: the reason why no conflict-of-interest legislation was

introduced during the NDP regime in this province was because the NDP

never had any problems with conflict of interest. There were no

incidents. You've had four. Given the plethora of problems this

government has had, will the Premier answer yes or no. Will he

introduce conflict-of-interest legislation in this House?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this

government will be

considering all matters in due course, and they'll be considered duly.

In response to the member, to suggest that somehow the NDP never has

any problems in this regard, you know, that's a bit "I'm holier than

thou," sort of thing. Frankly, I don't believe that's really a credible

statement to put before the House — that whatever the legislation, it

[ Page 2741 ]

would only be for somebody other than me. If that's the sort

legislation the member who just spoke is hoping to provide me with —

that it's for you and for everybody else but not for me because I don't

need it — then, frankly, I think I could already state to that member

that the legislation will be very shortcoming.

FUNDING FOR MINISTERS OF STATE

MR. SIHOTA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I take

it the answer from the Premier is no.

I want to deal with another issue. The Premier may have a

little bit

more ease handling another issue, so a new question to the Premier. The

Premier knows that special warrants in this province are issued when

there is an urgent and pressing need for funding for the public good.

Some time ago a special warrant was issued for about $8 million for the

Premier's ministers of state for decentralization. Could the Premier

tell the House exactly what emergency was used to justify the issuing

of those special warrants?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I will

defer to the

Minister of Finance to provide further information if required, but let

me say that there has been a great deal of talk — certainly from the

opposition but also out there throughout the province — about

decentralization. There has been talk, not only now but certainly over

the years, as to the benefits that could accrue to citizens throughout

the province, particularly those in the north country, who often find

themselves alienated from the process of government because government

tends to be far removed. We now have a means whereby people will have

an opportunity to provide input to the government, ensuring that all

affected bodies, be they local governments, school boards or other

individuals in groups, have a chance to participate to make sure

consideration is given by government to matters that relate to the

Peace country and perhaps may not relate in the same way to greater

Vancouver or some other region of the province.

It's very important. Frankly, I'm 100 percent convinced that

the

people of this province are very supportive of that process and do not

in any way wish to see the funds withheld to make that process

effective for people everywhere.

[2:30]

MR. SIHOTA: Those kinds of glib comments

don't deal with the

question that was posed to the Premier. So that the Premier may

understand, I'll repeat the question.

I'm sure the Premier understands the rules. There was a

Premier in

this province who once argued that not a dime should be expended

without debate. We're simply asking the Premier this: there was no

debate on this issue and you've got authority to do it if an emergency

exists. Could you tell us, Mr. Premier, what emergency existed at that

time?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I realize it's rather

difficult for the

opposition, but the member from Esquimalt is not the critic for

Finance. I thought the opposition would have that question come through

their Finance critic and therefore I took it initially, but in the

hopes that the Finance critic would perhaps add to this, I now defer to

the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Clearly, the questioner

failed to understand the very first precept of this whole program of

regionalization, which is that it must be designed in the regions

affected. The whole idea is to break down government, the rigidity, the

bureaucracy and the centralized authority here in Victoria. As a

consequence of that, we would have been severely criticized if we had

provided the framework for this sort of regional decision-making to

take place without at the same time having available, for instant use

if needed, a sum of money so that the program could be instituted at

the community level.

It is not the intention of this government to autocratically

determine how these various regional programs will be developed; it

must come from the regions affected. If we expect some meaningful

action to ensue at the local level they must have instant access to

funding to get the process started — if that is their desire. So the

whole purpose of providing some interim financing and funding was to

ensure that there were no handicaps or inhibitions imposed on those

regional areas, so that they could get off to a fast start if that was

their desire.

The members of the opposition cannot have it both ways, Mr.

Speaker.

They cannot both criticize us for putting in place the enabling dollars

to allow a quick start and come back in the House to criticize us for

not providing any meaningful support to get us started in the first

place. They cannot have both sides of the argument.

Quite clearly, this government exhibited its firm intention to

proceed post-haste, at the rate that the regions themselves wished to

proceed, and that required that some immediate funding be made

available.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, I must rise on a

point of order. There

have been a number of occasions here, notably the most recent one, when

the minister offended not only the rule of brevity — he has filled it

with air and bombast, and I found it offensive.... But that isn't my

main concern here, because we're accustomed to his Couvelier treatment

of the House. What we on this side of the House are concerned about is

something which, I think, goes more to the fundamentals of why we have

parliament. Parliament was invented, if you like, to control the King

and the spending of money. It is not an issue, as the minister tried to

point out, of whether or not the money was needed, or a justification

of whether the money was needed. The question really before us is:

where is the legislation entitling the minister to spend the money? We

on this side of the House see no reason for money to be advanced, to be

spent on parties, invitations or anything else, that cannot come before

this Legislature, especially when the Legislature is sitting.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his

point of order, but I

think it was more a point of debate than a point of order. I will

recognize the member for Omineca for one question.

ROLE OF MLAS

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, my question is also

to the Premier,

and it's along the same lines. Recently Mr. David Poole, the Premier's

principal secretary, suggested that MLAs, the 69 duly elected members

of this assembly, with the exception perhaps of the superministers,

were overrated. In fact, he went on to say: "We could do some

examination of what the MLA actually does." Does the Premier — and it

would appear he does, by his so-called regionalization plan — agree

with Mr. Poole's philosophy with respect to the role of MLAs in this

chamber?

[ Page 2742 ]

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: We should not be

offended by little

things like this. I hear this often said. As I travel through the

province, people will say,"You're the Premier, and you don't do this or

don't do that," or "We don't agree," or "What about your ministers?" or

"What about the MLAs? They're just sitting there" — this sort of thing. I

think we all know for one another what it is we do. Frankly, I don't

need people — whether they're people here or elsewhere — to tell me how

worthy we are, or whether we work hard enough. I'm satisfied that I . .

I'm sure most members here would agree that they too work very hard.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call

adjourned debate on the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 4),

1987, second reading. The debate was adjourned by the member for Prince

George South, a fine fellow.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (NO. 4), 1987

(continued)

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, the members

will recall that

in debate leading up to my comments on Friday, arguments were advanced

by the hon. member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), by the hon. member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly) and by many other members that because of the

proviso in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that allows for

unlimited numbers of parliamentary secretaries, this would, for

whatever reason, give ministers of state a greater opportunity to act

in those ridings, and would in fact subvert the duties of the duly

elected Members of the Legislative Assembly. I can't agree with that,

Mr. Speaker. Clearly, the decentralization restructuring that the

Premier and the government of British Columbia have put in place is to

allow for more and better representation by all Members of the

Legislative Assembly. It has been stated clearly by the government, by

the Premier, and by me now again that all Members of the Legislative

Assembly will be invited to sit on various committees struck by the

regional ministers of state, in order that all members can better

contribute to the working of those regions. That is clear.

What I find most surprising is the argument advanced by some

that

the restructuring of government takes away from the effectiveness of

locally elected MLAs; yet we learn that those MLAs, particularly

members of the opposition, have declined to sit when requested by

regional ministers — declined to sit on any committees or declined to

take

part in any activities that those regional ministers of state may

embark upon. That I find very curious indeed. Here we have, on one

hand, people saying that their responsibility to be an elected member

in their electoral district is eroded, yet when given the opportunity

to take a greater part and have more participation in the affairs being

carried out in their electoral area, they decline. I find that most

curious.

I want to stress again that the invitation is open to all

members. In my particular region, the second member for Cariboo (Mr.

Vant) is my parliamentary secretary. The first member for Cariboo (Mr.

A. Fraser) is cordially invited to discuss with me any issues he wishes

that affect his region, and I extend the same invitation to the member

for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone) to sit on any committees or take

part in any activities that I, as minister of state, will be embarking

upon. That offer is clear. It is stated here in the Legislative

Assembly, and I'll be more than pleased to restate it at any given time.

I was thinking of a few examples the other day.... As a matter of

fact,

I drove up to McLeod Lake on behalf of the First Citizens' Fund to

bring greetings to the McLeod Lake Indian band on a project that the

First Citizens' Fund had assisted in. I did this representing my

colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Rogers), who still has responsibility for that fund, and I also did it

because a number of the McLeod Lake Indian Band are good friends of

mine from the time I was in that ministry. As I drove up, I thought

about the activity in that area, which is in the riding of the member

for Prince George North (Mrs. Boone), and I thought about my

responsibility as a line minister. As a line minister of Environment

and Parks, if I wished to institute a study into, say, better

utilization of Crooked River Park site at Bear Lake, I would, by

course, as Minister of Environment and Parks, invite the Bear Lake

community to assist me — the businessmen in that area. I would no doubt

involve the McLeod Lake Indian band, because they are employed in that

park. It's close to their reserve, and they've made a great

contribution to government in that park. And I would no doubt involve

the regional district director. I could, or I may not wish to, involve

the member for Prince George North. As Minister of Environment I would

have that prerogative.

However, if I put a different title on — for the same purpose:

better utilization of the Crooked River Park at Bear Lake — and I said

I was undergoing this as minister of state for the area, then I would

be obligated by the government's promise to involve the member for

Prince George North. So if I were going to do a utilization study at

Bear Lake, it would all depend on the title under which I was

initiating this study — as Minister of Environment and Parks or as

minister of state — whether or not the member for Prince George North

would decline or accept the responsibility to sit on that committee. I

find it curious that the participation of an MLA would hinge solely on

the title the minister was using at the time of a study that affected

that member's community. I'm sure the members will have some time to

sort that out and address how they would answer that request of mine.

In closing, I want to impress upon all members of the

Legislative

Assembly — the opposition, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), the

members of the government caucus — that ministers of state have a

responsibility. It's a stated responsibility by the Premier and the

government that, in any initiatives that take place in the riding, all

MLAs are to be considered, to be consulted and to be part of that

ministerial committee. That statement is there; it's clear. I'm

restating it, and I would think that an initiative for any member of

this House to decline to sit with the regional minister of state is a

dereliction of duty. I would request members, therefore, to stay with

us, to try to assist their riding in the best way they can.

MRS. BOONE: This

section was a little

further on in my

speech, but I would like to deal with it right now when it is still

fresh in your mind — that is, the areas that the member for Prince

George South has just mentioned, with regard to the opposition MLAs

participating in committees for the various states. I don't know

whether the member for Prince George South is aware of it, but in my

riding of Prince George North I would have to contend with two

ministers of state. Would I then be expected to sit on two sets of

committees,

[ Page 2743 ]

participate in two areas and deal with two different

parliamentary

secretaries? The member for Atlin (Mr. Guno) also has to deal with two

individual ministers of state and two separate parliamentary

secretaries.

I think this is something that obviously hasn't been thought

through. If you look at the map, you can see that although most of the

lower mainland areas are okay, that some of them are fine down in the

southern half of the province and they seem to have taken into

consideration boundaries with regard to their own constituency

boundaries, again it appears that nobody sees up north, and our own

constituency boundaries were never even considered when the states were

formed. Therefore we are divided up, we have to deal with two different

states, and in some cases I think it could even be three. To me, that's

an unworkable situation. It's an impossible creation of more

bureaucracy for me and for my constituents to deal with. How do they

know who to go to? It's an incredible situation, and one that is not

acceptable to us.

[2:45]

To get back to the beginning of my speech, Mr. Speaker, this

is the

fourth such bill that we have. We're supposed to be talking about the

principles of bills. However, when we are thrown four bills that

include such a wide variety of things, it is very difficult for us to

deal with the principle. There is a principle involved here, and that

principle seems to be that there appears to be some move on behalf of

the government to try to slip things through so that there isn't the

debate in second reading, which is the principle area.

To me that is the principle of this bill. We are dealing with

tremendous amount of legislation here that deals with finances,

restructuring the province, some privatization, health issues — and

it's all done under a miscellaneous bill. I believe that the principle

is intolerable; it is unacceptable, and we as the opposition believe

that the government ought to get back and do its work so that these

bills come through in their proper order and so they are not thrown

into a hodgepodge of things with which we have to deal in an

unacceptable manner.

Often these bills hold surprises, and I think they are done

that way

for a very simple reason: because you don't want us to address various

issues, and you don't want us to find things. Wouldn't it be nice if we

just allowed things to slide through without ever having acknowledged

these things? Sometimes there is radical and controversial legislation.

To me, there is a lack of planning. It shows that things are thrown in

because the government hasn't thought through the legislation as to how

these can be proposed. The fact that we have legislation putting in

your parliamentary secretaries here shows that it wasn't thought of

earlier. The fact that we have legislation that deals with health shows

that it wasn't thought of earlier in the summer when we were dealing

with a massive health amendment act. These things show a tremendous

lack of planning on behalf of the government. I suggest that it is time

for the government to get its act together and plan in advance, so that

we know what we are dealing with, and we can deal with the principles

of bills rather than dealing with this hodgepodge you give us all the

time.

There are many sections of this bill that make us very wary.

Although the intent is not often outright, the political climate in

this province and the Premier's agenda leads us to certain conclusions

about the amendments. There are some that are not hidden at all. The

one we are talking about — the removal of the ceiling on your

parliamentary secretaries — is not hidden at all. That's there for

everybody to see.

It is not even saying that you are allowing the government to

have

eight more parliamentary secretaries. You are saying that the

government may have as many parliamentary secretaries as the government

chooses.

AN HON. MEMBER: A blank cheque.

MRS. BOONE: A blank cheque. We may find

ourselves with

virtually every back-bencher on the government side — and I wouldn't

imagine any back-bencher would oppose this — with a nice little cushy

parliamentary secretary job.

The states. We've mentioned the states, and we have some

serious

problems with regard to the states. The main question is: why are we

dealing with states? Why are we putting in — and I don't care whether

the Premier or the member for Prince George South (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

says it is not — another level of bureaucracy?

It is another level of bureaucracy. We have a new level being

introduced that is creating more people, more employees, more money and

the very thing that the government has said — decentralization — is

happening because big governments cannot afford to have big

bureaucracies. And what is the first move this government makes when it

gets back in? It's to add more bureaucracy — not eliminate more

bureaucracy. So we have more bureaucrats out there. You've got people

all over the place there. You are taking away from the elected people;

you are putting the regional development of an area into the hands of

people who are not elected.

In my particular area we do have someone that was elected

there, but

there are areas where constituents are going to have ministers of state

who were not elected by them. This is undemocratic; it is not what we

do in this province; and it is not something that's been done in any

other province in this world.

We are eliminating the elected people. I am going to use some

examples. A constituent right now would come to an MLA — whether it's a

government MLA or an opposition MLA — with a particular problem. Right

now that MLA would take that problem and correspond with or contact or

phone the particular minister involved. That would be my immediate

input to the minister. I have that access to that minister, and I have

never had a minister refuse a phone call from me. Now a constituent

will come to.... What would a constituent do? A constituent right now

would say: "Well, there's no point in going to my MLA, because I have

been told that this minister of state has immediate access to the

cabinet. Therefore there's no point in going to my MLA; I might as well

go to that cabinet minister."

Or if you go to your MLA, what does the MLA do? Does the MLA

then

have to go through another level? Does the MLA go to the minister of

state, who then goes to the minister, or does the MLA simply carry on

as usual and proceed to the minister? That is by far the most

straightforward way, and that is what we intend to do. We intend to

deal with the ministers as we always have done, as we always will do,

because we as elected people have that obligation to our constituents.

There's a

section in the act that hasn't been mentioned. I am

going

to mention it just in passing, because again, I ask why. It's under the

Public Trustee Act. It's amending a

section that puts a ceiling on the

fees payable to the public trustee,

[ Page 2744 ]

and it covers wills, trusts, variations, the Mental Health

Act, and all kinds of different things.

I don't have a great deal to say about this, because I'm not

quite

sure what the intention is. Why are we putting something in legislation

that removes the ceiling on the fees payable to trustees if the

intention is not to raise the fees that trustees are paid? Is it the

intention, then, of the government to allow trustees to charge more?

Will we see more money coming out of trust funds for children? Will we

see more fees on trust funds, on wills? What is the reasoning for this?

I don't think we understand that; it doesn't make sense.

There's another thing here: again, why? Sweeping, massive

changes to

the Railway Act: "The minister may make regulations that he considers

necessary or advisable for achieving the objects and purposes of this

Act, or for which no express or only partial provision has been made,

including the regulations...." It is obvious that the minister can

change those regulations at any time, whether it has anything to do

with this act or anything else. This is the sort of thing that makes us

wary. Under normal circumstances we would say: "Well, that's not too

bad." However, under the climate we're in right now, one immediately

says: "This is set up for the privatization of B.C. Rail."

When we get into the privatization of B.C. Rail.... Look a

little

further down. It says in subsection (b): "fixing fees to be paid" and

"whether or not in the employ of the Crown." So obviously, once again,

there are people who are going to be paid. They're fixing the fees to

be paid to them whether or not they're in the employ of the Crown; once

again, it's set up for privatization.

Now when we get into B.C. Rail.... The whole privatization of

B.C.

Rail is a very touchy subject to me and to anybody that lives in the

north. It should be for anyone, because contrary to what the Premier

says, B.C. Rail has been absolutely instrumental in the development of

the north. The Premier may say that private enterprise built this

province and this country. But I'll tell you, it was not the private

sector that built that road into Tumbler Ridge. It was not private

enterprise that built that B.C. Rail road into Tumbler Ridge. It was

the B.C. government that did that, whether or not it's right or wrong.

The B.C. government has consistently used B.C. Rail to develop areas of

the province.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We hear the members saying that they want to privatize so

that

there's more competition. If you privatize B.C. Rail, what competition

is there going to be for B.C. Rail? We are going to have a monopoly

that is going to have total control of the access of products to and

from the northern half of this province, with no control whatsoever by

the government. There will be no competition. B.C. Rail will have an

absolute monopoly on the transportation of goods in the north, and that

is not in the best interests of our people or of our companies. Our

companies will certainly suffer as a result of this move here.

I've saved until last the

section that really upsets me the

most — and I'm glad that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) is in

here for this — and that has to do with changes that are taking place

with the Hospital Insurance Act. The

section says that it will be

amended to not include: "services or treatment that the minister, or a

person designated by him, determines, on a review of the medical

evidence, the qualified person does not require." Once again I have to

ask the question: why has this been instituted at this particular time?

What is involved? We've heard various things proposed. What immediately

came to the mind of some people was that, obviously, this is a move to

remove abortion. The minister says no, that's not possible, because

that's mandated by the Health Act. However, there are a lot of things

that are not mandated by the Health Act, and in Alberta, they have

already deinsured tubal ligations, IUD insertions, contraceptive

counselling, vasectomies — all of these things that took place in the

doctor's office — and annual eye examination. There are other areas

that have been changed – in Saskatchewan as well. I believe that the

people of British Columbia will be very upset if in fact these areas

are removed from the Medical Services Plan. If you are telling women

out there that you don't want them to have abortions, if you make

things difficult for them, and if, on the same hand, you put in their

way every obstacle to having safe birth control practices for all

people whether or not they can afford it, this is not what the province

is looking for, and yet this is what I fear we are aiming for.

It is obvious that much of the legislation that has come down

in the

last few months has been based on legislation from Britain. It has been

based on legislation in Saskatchewan, and if you go to Saskatchewan and

read a paper there, you'll see that Premier Grant Devine seems to be

working hand in hand with our Premier to bring about the dissolution of

many of our medical services.

I don't for one minute believe that the minister has a right

determine what are and what are not required medical services. Those

medical services must be determined by a doctor and his or her patient,

and the Minister of Health has no right to be in that room, making

decisions that are based on medical evidence that he or his designate

has as a non-professional.

[3:00]

We are seeing, slowly but surely, changes to our Health Act,

changes

to our health system, that are eroding what we have worked for, eroding

a perfectly sound system, and we are hearing from the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Couvelier) and from the Premier, at every possible

time, that our health care costs are totally out of control, even

though information from alternate sources says this is not true, that

our health care costs are not out of control, that they haven't been

out of line.

That does not mean to say that we should be throwing money out

the

back of a pick-up truck. I think we have to look at things very

carefully, and we must, as a society, come to grips with what is

required and what is not required in regards to our health care. But

those decisions are not decisions that can be made by the Minister of

Health or his designate; those are decisions that must come about as a

thorough review of our health care system. There are definite areas in

our health care system that can be reviewed; there are definite areas

that can be changed and revised and made better. But we are not doing

that. Every time something comes up, and the Minister of Finance says

health care costs are totally out of control, we suddenly come through

with something to cap costs at the present level to deteriorate our

services and eliminate various things. I don't believe that this is

what we must be looking for in our province. We must be sensible about

our money; we must make economically sound decisions; but they must be

decisions that come about from a thorough discussion with everybody in

the field and in the society as a whole.

[ Page 2745 ]

I believe that what we are looking to is a wide-open system,

and I

am very, very nervous that we could be seeing ourselves, in the next

couple of months or next few years, looking at a system that is either

like the U.S. system, with large corporations running medical services,

or similar to the British system, which now is a two-tiered system.

Those people who can afford it can obtain top-notch, first-rate

service, and those who can't afford it get the bare minimum. As British

Columbians, I don't think that's what we have striven for. I don't

believe this is what we've worked for in Canada.

In conclusion, I certainly hope we're not thrown a

Miscellaneous 4

or a Miscellaneous 5 in the future. I hope the government plans well

enough ahead so that the act we're dealing with deals with all the

amendments with regard to that certain service, with all sections of

the ministry, so that we're not thrown a hodge-podge like this and then

not expected to debate it because there's no principle involved. You're

right, there is no principle involved here, because the government has

no principles.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm very pleased to rise

today to speak to

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

section 2. This will amend

section 12.1 of the Constitution Act, which

deals with the number of parliamentary secretaries that the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may appoint. I believe this is a very

positive action, one that will enable the government to appoint

additional parliamentary secretaries as and when they are needed.

Parliamentary secretaries have come to play a very valuable

role in

our Canadian parliamentary system, a role that goes back to 1916 and

even beyond. Canada's first parliamentary secretary was Fleming

Blanchard McCurdy, who was appointed by Prime Minister Robert Borden on

July 19, 1916. He served as Parliamentary Secretary of Militia and

Defence...

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm glad the hon. member

finds this amusing.

...alongside his colleague, MP Bruce North, who served as

Parliamentary Undersecretary of State for External Affairs. These two

appointments were made by orders-in-council in 1914.

In 1921 Prime Minister Mackenzie King reintroduced the

position of

parliamentary secretary after being urged by Mr. Coldwell of the CCE,

when Lucien Turcotte Pacaud served for ten months as the Prime

Minister's Undersecretary of State for External Affairs. Mackenzie King

appointed a total of 20 parliamentary secretaries during the last five

years of his administration, and Prime Minister St. Laurent went on to

appoint 22 during his administration.

It was not until the enactment of the Parliamentary

Secretaries Act

in 1959, under the administration of Prime Minister Diefenbaker, that

the office of parliamentary secretary was legally established within

the federal parliament. This was after Prime Minister Diefenbaker had

already appointed 14 parliamentary secretaries in the first years of

his government. The Parliamentary Secretaries Act provided for the

appointment of not more than 16 parliamentary secretaries by the

governor-in-council from among the members of the House of Commons to

"assist the minister in such manner as the minister directs." The

reorganization of the federal government in 1971 did not substantially

change the functions of a parliamentary secretary.

In our province, the need for parliamentary secretaries was

examined

in detail in 1984 by the then Select Standing Committee on Standing

Orders and Private Bills, chaired by our distinguished Deputy Speaker,

the hon. member for Dewdney (Mr. Pelton). In 1985 that standing

committee recommended to this House that the position of parliamentary

secretary be established. The committee's recommendation resulted in

the passage of an amendment to the Constitution Act in 1985 which

provided for the appointment of ten members of the Legislative Assembly

to be parliamentary secretaries to members of the executive council.

Neither the federal nor provincial legislation provides a

detailed

description of the duties of a parliamentary secretary, and the role

varies with the demands of the minister whom they assist. These duties

include: carrying out routine tasks in relation to the House; answering

questions in the House; presenting the government position in

discussions of committee business; supporting the government position

in committee; meeting with members of the public, organizations and

other concerned bodies on behalf of their minister.

Mr. Speaker, I personally believe that one of the most

important

roles of a parliamentary secretary is that of facilitating

communication and the exchange of ideas. The more people we bring into

the decision-making process, the more our government's decisions will

reflect the needs and aspirations of all regions of this province.

The decentralization of government is a very positive step in

that

particular direction. It will widen the circle of decision-making,

bringing government much closer to the people. Each region is unique

and will approach problems from its own perspective. It will be the

role of appointed parliamentary secretaries to assist the minister of

state to be aware of the needs of a particular region. They will be

supported by a vast network of talent throughout the region, working

very closely with the MLAs in that region.

I would reiterate the words of the hon. House Leader, who said

that

he believes it's a dereliction of duty for members of this House not to

find out everything there is to find out about a government program,

and not to work closely with that program to find out what they can.

They are there to serve the needs of their constituents, and I consider

that they are doing less than that if they are not fully involved in

the process all the way.

Decentralization is a good idea, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Leader

of the

Opposition obviously agrees with me on this score. Didn't he say in his

September 29, 1987, report from the Legislature that "decentralization

in itself is a good idea"? Didn't he add that economic growth can

come for all of us from the participation of local and regional

governments in decision-making? That's what decision-making and

decentralization is all about.

Was he not also quoted in the Chilliwack Progress on September

1987, as saying that there is a need "to centralize the whole wave of

economic decisions” and to be able to respond to locally based economic

concerns with "regionally based economic strategies.”

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. VEITCH: He's right on; he's

absolutely correct. That's what decentralization is all about, Mr.

Speaker.

[ Page 2746 ]

Parliamentary secretaries will facilitate the very same

regionally

based strategies that the Leader of the Opposition has advocated. Or is

he advocating something else for political purposes this particular

month?

All regions of the province will benefit from the appointment

additional parliamentary secretaries. Our goal in this plan is to

improve access to government and to break down barriers, not to add

more levels of bureaucracy. I know that the hon. Leader of the

Opposition would agree with me, because that's what he said last March

in this House, Mr. Speaker.

He said that what we need is a will to develop regionally

based

economic strategies which are based on the wealth of talent and

opportunities at the local level throughout the province. I thought it

was a good idea then, and I think it's a good idea now.

Decentralization will work in spite of the opposition, Mr. Speaker.

The appointment of parliamentary secretaries who will be out

in the

regions speaking with representatives of local and regional government,

business, labour and community organizations, and, hopefully, MLAs will

provide a direct input to the minister of state and the cabinet. Mr.

Speaker, I have always found my parliamentary secretary to be an

invaluable asset in helping me to fulfil my duties as a minister of the

Crown. With my additional responsibilities as Minister of State for

Mainland-Southwest development region, I know that I will find the

knowledge and assistance of my parliamentary secretaries invaluable as

well.

MR. WILLIAMS: You need all the help you can

get.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You're right; we need all

the help that we

can get. We're not afraid to ask for it, because we don't think we have

all the answers, hon. member.

I look forward to working very closely with these

parliamentary

secretaries. I encourage all members of this House to get behind

decentralization, to support this amendment which will assist the

government of British Columbia in facilitating development for our

province and bringing decision-making — as the Leader of the opposition

said — out to the regional and local levels. With that I concur.

MR. JONES: It's a pleasure for me to follow

the hon.

Provincial Secretary, even if I'm a little surprised to see that he is

still using his training wheels. I too want to speak on

section 2 of

Bill 59. The hon. Provincial Secretary seemed to have the issue

confused here, because he was arguing that this

section deals with the

virtue of establishing an unlimited number of parliamentary

secretaries. That's not the issue. It's not the virtue of these

positions that's in question it's the establishment of parliamentary

secretaries to assist in restructuring government, to establish a

county system. This process, on which we are engaged in part of this

debate, is a perversion of the democratic, political and parliamentary

procedures that we've established in this province for many, many

years. To set up and to talk about a restructuring of government as if

it were just another minor initiative of the party that was elected in

the majority is a travesty of what this House stands for.

We were elected a little more than a year ago under the

Election Act according to certain constituency boundaries. We all came

here, many of us for the first time, and gave our maiden speeches. In

those speeches we spoke of our ridings, and of how proud we were to be

part of the traditions of this province and to enter this chamber with

its long tradition and history; and how proud we were to represent the

people in our constituencies, to speak on their behalf, to assist them,

to represent them to government. We wanted to serve all the people in

our ridings, regardless of political persuasion and interest.

Implied in that is the equality of each elected member in this

House. What we see in this is an attempt to bring the county system in

through the back door, a perversion of the parliamentary process in

this province, and to destroy the equality of MLAs. The previous

speaker, when he used the term "MLA," automatically implied opposition

MLA. The other MLAs will now be parliamentary secretaries. We have a

division. We even have two different kinds of parliamentary

secretaries. We have parliamentary secretaries who are going to be

serving ministers with portfolio, and we have parliamentary secretaries

who are going to be serving ministers of state. How many different

categories of MLAs are we going to end up with after this process?

The word on the role of the MLA, as alluded to by the previous

speaker, came from a non-elected official, who to my knowledge has

never been elected to anything in this province. He is the one who

suggested, on behalf of the Premier, I suppose, that the role of the

MLA has been overemphasized. I believe he was a shy official,

identified in question period by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) as

David Poole.

[3:15]

That same person also indicated that state ministers — we

could

substitute the term "ward bosses" — will have more power than portfolio

ministers. We're now going to have all kinds of different levels of

minister. We have different kinds of MLAs. We have different kinds of

parliamentary assistants, parliamentary secretaries, and now we have

different kinds of ministers — ministers of state and ministers with

portfolio. As the government House Leader indicated a few minutes ago,

he's going to have difficulty, when he has to solve a problem, deciding

which hat to wear and who is to be involved in solving the problem.

I don't know how members of the other side of the House feel

about

this erosion of the role of the MLA. I don't know whether they see this

process as helping their aspirations to become a minister. Let's face

it, we're reducing the number of ministers in this province to eight.

We're going to have ministers of state, and ministries with portfolio

aren't going to be jobs you want to aspire to. We're going to see the

power established in those ministers of state.

Just before adjournment on Friday, the second member for

Richmond

(Mr. Loenen) said the purpose of this process was to bring government

closer to the people; and the Provincial Secretary just indicated that

the purpose was to improve access to government. This plan isn't new.

We've seen the county proposal before. In the paper written by the now

Premier in 1979, entitled "Regional Government Reform," he said: "The

assumption by the province of virtually all regional and rural planning

responsibilities implies massive increases in manpower and costs. It

So we see it's not a matter of bringing government closer to the

people. It's not a matter of improving access. It's a matter of setting

up another layer of government.

So we have these assignments of these parliamentary

secretaries. We

have the assignment of the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Long) to Vancouver

Island-Coast. I wonder who

[ Page 2747 ]

somebody in Port Hardy in the North Island riding would see

about a

problem they had. Would they see their MLA, the member for North Island

(Mr. Gabelmann), or would they go to the Minister of Advanced Education

and Job Training (Hon. S. Hagen), or would they go to the member for

Mackenzie? It's very confusing. Rather than a member from the Island

serving as parliamentary secretary — to suggest the possibility of

perhaps the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) — no, the member

for Cowichan-Malahat is going to be the parliamentary secretary for the

North Coast. So somebody from Prince Rupert has the choice of seeing

their MLA from Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller), or the minister of state —

which is also the Minister of Forest and Lands (Hon. Mr. Parker) — or

the member for Cowichan-Malahat. I mean, it's a tremendous choice that

the people have in terms of this process of bringing them closer to the

people. I suppose somebody in Smithers probably would like to see the

member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), because he certainly stood up in this

House and spoke on behalf of those people with force and with vigour,

but he has the choice of seeing the minister of state — who was also

the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations and I think has had a new

assignment since this sheet was printed; I think he's now the Minister

of Highways (Hon. Mr. Rogers) — or he has the choice of seeing the

member for Okanagan South. I'm sure the MLA from Okanagan South has a

really good understanding of the problems in Nechako.

This plan, as indicated by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr.

Reid)

on one occasion recently, is clearly a perversion of the parliamentary

process. The government House Leader and the Provincial Secretary

invite members opposite — on this side of the House — to get involved

in the process, to buy into this county system. Well, it was the

Minister of Tourism, as reported not that long ago — October 15 — in

the Times Colonist , who said: "While decentralization will improve

access to government, the only way to secure funds for your area will

be to vote Socred. It will allow the government to freeze out

opposition MLAs." These are the words of the Minister of Tourism

approximately a month ago. It will also require that an MLA "will have

to get up pretty early in the morning to beat out a parliamentary

secretary." So we don't see an inclusive process here; we see an

exclusive process. We see a political pork-barrelling process. We don't

see the kind of gracious invitation issued by the government House

Leader or the Provincial Secretary. It was the Minister of Tourism who

spoke the truth about this government and their plans for

decentralization — and I suppose that's why the Minister of Tourism

wasn't made a minister of state.

If that wasn't the only indication of truth, I heard another

indication of truth reported to me the other day — and I'm sorry the

Provincial Secretary has just stepped out.

HON. MR. REID: There is no Minister of

Tourism.

MR. JONES: I've noticed that.

HON. MR. REID: There's a Minister of

Tourism, Recreation and Culture. Get it right.

MR. JONES: And particularly Culture.

It was a close relative of the hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mr. Veitch), who happened to lose her seat in a recent municipal

election who said to another alderman who had been returned — and

because a majority had been returned to that council that were probably

not particular enthusiasts of the party in government: "Don't expect

any help from the provincial government." Don't expect any help from a

provincial government whose members just exuded graciousness in

inviting members opposite to participate in the $5,000 luncheons and to

participate in the plans to develop the economy. Well, I think the real

truth has come from the Minister of Tourism and Culture and not

minister of state.

What we see here is a difficulty on the part of this

government, and

it's going to be very difficult particularly for the Provincial

Secretary, because the vast majority of mayors in his

Mainland-Southwest state are not particular supporters of his

government. This kind of attitude in government — the truth in

government that has been indicated — is a repugnant view of politics.

It’s a government that cannot separate governance from politics. It's a

government that does not recognize the difference between the role of

state and pork-barrel politics. It's a perversion of the parliamentary

process to sneak this proposal through the miscellaneous statutes. I

use the word that has been made famous by the President — I mean

Premier — of this province, and that word is gutless. I suggest that

it's gutless to sneak in this proposal in a mild, meek way to make it

appear that very little is being changed. What's being changed here is

an entire restructuring of government.

Perhaps the Speaker does not agree with the use of that term

in this

House, and I respect that because I think it's important to respect the

traditions of this House. We take great exception to using people's

names rather than their positions in this House, and we rule certain

words as unparliamentary. What's unparliamentary that is happening

right now in this Legislature is an entire restructuring of government

without any reference to a bill, to the traditions of this House, or to

an opportunity for true legislative debate. We're stuck here debating a

very small

section of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This is

gutless, and it's a perversion of parliamentary procedure.

It's a perversion of the parliamentary process to create eight

new

millionaires without reference to the Legislature, to bypass the normal

legislative and parliamentary procedure and to grant that $8 million by

special warrant for supposed "unforeseen and emergency procedures."

The reason it was done by this method, rather than waiting

three and

a half weeks until the Legislature sat, was to avoid the scrutiny of

members on this side of the House. It was bad enough that an end run

was done around the Legislature in creating these eight new

millionaires; it was bad enough that the government was too gutless

to....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I've heard the

word four times

now. Would you take your seat please. The hon. member himself stated

that it was probably not in the very best traditions of parliamentary

language. I won't ask that it be withdrawn, but perhaps the member

could try to avoid offending the Chair by using that terminology again.

MR. JONES: Mr. Speaker, because of my

respect for the Chair and respect for this House, I certainly will not

use that term again.

It's because of the government's lack of respect for this

House that

we're facing these kinds of legislation in the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act. What we see is a fundamental and radical change without

a mandate. It is arrogant, and it is a perversion of the parliamentary

process.

[ Page 2748 ]

We see this at the federal level and at the provincial level,

where

drastic, radical changes are being brought forth. The response of the

federal government and the provincial government is: "We can go ahead

with this; we don't need anybody's approval."

I don't recall any mandate being given to this government to

pursue

this kind of radical restructuring. I remember what that election a

year ago was about. It was about an end to confrontation. It was about

open government. That election was about reducing the price of beer and

introducing television into the Legislature. It wasn't about

restructuring government. Even in Poland — not renowned for its

democratic process — the government is willing to put forward to the

people their plans for economic development and have it voted on by

voters in that country.

What we have — snuck in the back door — is a county system of

government. It's not decentralization; it's not economic development

regions — it's counties. It was quite clearly indicated, in the British

Columbia Newsletter sent out by the office of the agent-general: "The

Premier told the UBCM delegates that the regionalization initiative

will not be confined to economic issues, important though they are. 'We

intend to apply the same principles to health care, education, social

services, agriculture, environment, the justice system, highways and

consumer services."' In that same meeting, he also said he favoured the

county system.

What do education, social services, environment and justice

have to

do with economic development? There may be some tenuous connection, but

this proposal is not an economic development proposal. These are not

economic development zones. They are states or they are counties.

We know the history of this province. We don't have to go that

far

back; we can go back less than ten years and find a newly appointed

Minister of Municipal Affairs who said: "Regional districts have a

fifty-fifty chance of surviving the year."

[3:30]

We know that same author produced a report called "Regional

Government Reform" and said that existing regional districts will be

replaced by a county system. That same paper in 1979 indicated regional

districts have been "too accountable." They tend to "overplan and

overregulate" land use. That same paper also mentioned the provincial

government would assume responsibility for regional planning, removing

this "burdensome" task from regional government.

We know that following that there was tremendous uproar by an

organization that I was involved in, the B.C. School Trustees'

Association. They produced this paper called "Background Information

and Brief on" — and I guess I should substitute the word Premier's —

"County System Proposal." The B.C. School Trustees' Association, which

has certainly taken a generally neutral role in the politics of this

province, suggested at that time:

"This proposal has been undermined by the

preliminary

report suggesting that fully autonomous local school boards would be

eliminated under a county system. It is school boards which ensure that

the family, not the central government authority, retains ultimate

control over the education of young minds.

"While it is difficult to

believe that Mr. Vander Zalm" — I should say the Premier — "would

actually wish to revoke this fundamental principle of democracy, it

nevertheless behooves all trustees to familiarize themselves with this

proposal, irrespective of whether or not it is a viable option for them

and their electorate."

This report also suggests that under the proposed county

system

"most local school boards and regulatory bodies responsible for such

diverse functions as local roads, sewers, police, fire protection,

libraries and recreation, hospitals and education would be dissolved"

and replaced by a new structure of government that we see slowly being

slipped in. Evidence is

section 2 of Bill 59.

In 1982 the Premier introduced Bill 9, the Land Use Act, which

suggested that the planning function be removed from regional districts

and that B.C. be divided into seven super regions. The Premier has come

a long way since 1982. He has increased the number of regions from

seven to eight. Fortunately that bill was withdrawn and the now Premier

resigned his portfolio, suggesting to his cabinet colleagues that they

— and I won't use the term that the Speaker advised me not to — lacked

intestinal fortitude.

It wasn't these cabinet colleagues that lacked intestinal

fortitude;

it's the colleagues of the Premier on that side of the House that lack

intestinal fortitude by not standing up for democracy, by not standing

up for the parliamentary traditions of this province and by allowing

themselves, for whatever self-serving reason, to be bamboozled into

accepting a restructuring of government that is in the fundamental

interests of nobody in this province.

We know the Premier and we know his operation. The Premier is

not, I

would suggest, the kind of person to back off something that he

believed in so vehemently that he would leave the cabinet a very few

years ago. So this county system, this system that the cabinet

colleagues of the day rejected, is still the plan of the Premier and

the plan of this government and the plan you members opposite are

buying into.

These proposals do not look like decentralization. The

Premier's

operation went from 13 employees in the Premier's office to some 70

employees. I would suggest this was the only job creation project of

the government: to increase the number of employees in the Premier's

office — this as of October 21.

This same Premier, who says that any personnel contract over

$500

must go through the Premier's office, does not look like a decentralist

to me. What would a good government do in terms of this? Would a good

government restructure government without reference to the Legislature?

Would a good government see the erosion of the role of the MLA in this

province?

Would a good government move power to the minister of state

over a

minister with portfolio? No, a good government knows the difference

between politics and government; a good government feels no need to

shut out opposition MLAs; a good government believes in parliamentary

democracy and isn't ashamed to bring their plans or their expenditures

before the Legislature; and a good government sees no need to proceed

with radical legislation without a mandate from the people.

I would suggest to members opposite that if you think changing

our

system of representation is such a good idea, envision what's going to

happen after the next election — because clearly the image of moderate

Mike is going to appeal to the people of this province more than the

image of wild Bill — where you will have eight New Democrats as

ministers of state. Is that what you want? That's what you're voting

for. What is your role going to be after the role of the MLA is

diminished in the next election? Part of me says go

[ Page 2749 ]

for it, because I think it's going to bring about the

destruction of

this government in the next election and would absolutely ensure the

victory of this side of the House, but I don't think it's in the public

interest to do so.

I suggest that this plan is wrong. It's a perversion of the

parliamentary traditions of this province. And I suggest that members

opposite think, because I don't think the people of British Columbia

want a county system of government.

MR. WILLIAMS: I'm sorry that the minister

of state for the

region I come from is not in the House. We had that wonderful

long-winded history of parliamentary secretaries reaching right back to

Sir Robert Borden. In a few minutes I want to talk about the activities

of the minister of state for the lower mainland region, the member for

Burnaby-Willingdon (Hon. Mr. Veitch), but first I'd like to say it does

seem to me that a good idea is being corrupted here.

This is genuinely a province of very different regions: the

south

Okanagan compared to Omineca; the wet belt of the Kootenays compared to

the Cariboo; and so on. These are very different regions in British

Columbia and they need a different approach. No question about that.

But when you think about it, where is the different approach needed

most? The different approach needed most is around the different

geography and landbase of the different regions. Studies were done in

this area when we were government in the seventies. The Environment and

Land Use Committee of cabinet established resource regions in the

province so that there could be decentralized resource management and

dealing with a proper integrated resource management approach to the

province. It makes a lot of sense.

But have we ever heard anything out of the Premier or the

minister

of state for the lower mainland on those kinds of issues? Indeed, there

has been nothing whatsoever about the land based departments in terms

of the natural resources of the province, in terms of decentralization.

Never, out of the Premier or the senior ministers, has there been any

discussion around this area of integrated resource management. This

clearly is not what is in the Premier's mind. Now that could change; it

may change every day. I mean, we get a different news story every day

out of the Premier of this province, and sometimes they don't jibe;

sometimes they conflict. At any rate, this is dealing partly with

economic development, and I would have expected the Minister of

Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) to get up in this chamber and

talk about how....

Indeed, the Minister of Economic Development is worried about

her

job these days, so I think we're not going to hear much out of her.

Economic development is being scattered around now, and the former

foot-soldier for the Minister of Economic Development is now the

supermayor of the lower mainland region. Oh, how the mighty have fallen

— the member from Burnaby is the supermayor, not the member for

Vancouver-Little Mountain. Pecking order really changes in that

cabinet. But I have to hand it to the Minister of Economic Development;

strained as it is, she's got a smile on her face. Imagine, the old

campaign manager from the leadership days is the new supermayor, and

he's got a million dollars to do that minister's job. Does that say

something about the efficiency of the Minister of Economic Development,

that her colleague is going to try and do the same job for $1 million

that she's spending hundreds of millions on? I know she throws

expensive parties; there's no doubt about that. We've found that in

this past year. I think the new minister's trying to do the same sort

of thing; he threw a somewhat cheaper party on the Grey Cup weekend for

a few hundred people. It's a fairly modest beginning for the new

supermayor of the lower mainland region.

But one can't help but wonder.... Part of that million dollars

supposed to go to small business development, but the Minister of

Economic Development has a small business group, and she has funds to

deal with. Maybe the minister will get up and elaborate on how she is

going to coordinate her activities with the new minister of state in

the lower mainland regarding small business programs. I'm looking

forward to the details and the next glossy pamphlet....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: I must commend the ministers

for their gracious

invitations to these sessions, and I can say that genuinely, having

just been an observer at the first ministers' conference. I think it's

to the credit of government in that regard.

In the lower mainland.... We've just been in the great city of

Toronto, and seen the incredible growth that has taken place and the

tremendous employment in Toronto — 3.9 percent is the official

unemployment rate in Metro Toronto. You folks from the interior and the

north, reflect on that.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Free trade in the Auto

Pact.

MR. WILLIAMS: Managed trade in the Auto

Pact. That is not a

free trade arrangement. When we have a free trade arrangement, it will

be Mexican auto parts. I don't think the Premier's even thought of

that, and he's swallowed the deal already. But we'll get into that when

there's a debate on that subject.

I'm intrigued by the supermayor for the lower mainland, the

supermayor from Burnaby-Willingdon. Let's reflect on the great work of

the new mayor for the region. What was his first proposal? Does anybody

recall? Does nobody from the back benches recall? It was to sell city

hall. Don't you remember? The mayor's first proposal was to sell city

hall — Robson Square. That's really carrying privatization too far. The

guy is just named there, and bang, he wants to sell city hall. The real

mayor of Vancouver and the real council in Vancouver had to take steps

to deal with that. It's extraordinary that....

Welcome, Mr. Minister of State. One of the eight new states of

British Columbia. I presume you're calling it the lower mainland state,

or do you have a new name?

[3:45]

The first proposal of the supermayor over there in the corner

was to

sell city hall, but the real city council said: "Nothing doing."

That's a city square; that's really the park in downtown Vancouver,

designed by Arthur Erickson, maybe the greatest architect in the

country and one of the great architects of the world. But the new mayor

was willing to sell it so they could put some highrises in that hole.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, no.

MR. WILLIAMS: There's ice-skating there;

there's park space;

there's sitting-out space. But he was going to sell it. He says,"No,

no," but there's a full city council in Vancouver — your farm league,

all those non-partisan Socreds — that voted unanimously in favour of a

zoning bylaw that

[ Page 2750 ]

would stop you dead in your tracks, so that there wouldn't be

highrises there. That was step one for the new supermayor for the lower

mainland region.

What's the second proposal? This is after having been in

Toronto

last week and seen the dynamic growth in this great city, and here's

the man responsible for the great city in British Columbia, the largest

and most dynamic economically and so on. I just looked at it the other

week. There was a release on November 17, 1987, regarding a motor sport

facility being studied. Number one initiative: sell city hall. Number

two initiative: a motor sport facility.

He said he's asked his parliamentary secretary and another

parliamentary secretary — two of them; yes, this is government

efficiency at its best — to look at the motor sport facility. He notes

that people could watch those cars on television, and it could be a big

boon for the lower mainland.

One needn't dismiss this idea. A motor sport facility might

well be

interesting and could be worthwhile, but as one of the first projects

for the lower mainland region, when this is supposed to be the new

international financial centre, the manufacturing centre for British

Columbia, where we are the focus for Pacific Rim trade for the entire

nation...? And you're talking about a racing-sport facility as your

first project to really get into after you've sold city hall. Come on!

HON. MR. VEITCH: I take it you're against

the idea.

MR. WILLIAMS: Did I say that? I'm against

the idea of a

minister of state who would set his priorities in this manner. That's

what I have difficulty with, when you think of the range of

opportunities in the lower mainland region, that the first thing you

should come up with is the flogging of Robson Square, this magnificent

open space in the heart of Vancouver with government services in it.

Then number two. I took this seriously. I thought, well, we

have

this proposal, and I'm interested in more information, because it

refers to backers of the project. I was interested in trying to find

out who the backers were that had convinced our new mayor that this was

the top-notch project for the lower mainland. So I phoned this number —

660-8666 — and it's the government agent office at Robson Square, I

think.

HON. MR. VEITCH: No, it's not there; you

phoned the wrong number.

MR. WILLIAMS: No, I phoned that number;

that's actually the

line they gave me, Mr. Minister. You must brief them on how they're

supposed to answer the telephone, because when I asked for the name of

the contact man, Sven Buemann, he said just the same thing. He said to

me: "How'd you get my number?" That's what he said. I said: "Gee, I

just read this press release from the new supermayor, and it has this

number and your name, Mr. Buemann." He said: "I don't know anything

about it; I just wrote the release." That's what he said. He said: "No,

I just did what I was told. The member from Dewdney gave me the

information, and I put it in that release, but I don't know anything

about it." Well, I guess you've only got a million dollars for

starters, and maybe you haven't had enough time to get the kind of

staff you need. But it gives you an idea where it's all at.

Do you ever wonder at times about people saying, hey, this new

administration and this new Premier are kind of interesting, and

they've made some changes, some of which are worthwhile, but at times

doesn't it look just a little flaky? Does it look very well thought

out? Has it been thought out in terms of how you work it out with the

Minister of Economic Development? Mr. Campaign Manager, you've got to

do a lot of coordinating with the Minister of Economic Development.

That's the second one.

You just get the feeling that it's amateur night over there,

that

you haven't got your act together. The boss has had a brilliant idea

the night before and he says: "Hey, I think we should have these eight

regions." But it's not only that. The top man in the administration at

the civil service level said that this is major and what we're talking

about is a new United States of British Columbia. But what have we got

here? There's no admission of it in the statute in the legislation.

It's just to increase the number of parliamentary secretaries. Do you

wonder why there is some question of credibility, Mr. Minister,

Minister of State, in terms of this whole exercise? Through you, Mr.

Speaker — because they could dump this in your area, this motor-sport

facility. Who knows?

I listened to some of this born-again, right-wing economic

rhetoric

at the first ministers' conference in that very successful, wealthy

city of Toronto, and I don't know if the Minister of Economic

Development caught it, but when the economic speech of the Premier was

given on the second day of the conference, the Premier of Ontario

actually sat there with his mouth wide open, with his jaw dropping to

his chest, because he couldn't believe that this early, born-again,

right-wing rhetoric was actually coming from that conference table. It

was quite clear. But if he saw some of this stuff, why, his chin would

be a lot further down on his chest than it was.

Then you think about the other folks. That's your first go at

it in

terms of the lower mainland. But think about sending the member for

Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers), the Minister of Highways, the

minister in charge of privatization, to Nechako, to the member for

Omineca's (Mr. Kempf '

s) turf. Imagine sending Sugar Daddy north. I

look forward to the day he holds his first public meeting in Fort St.

James. It's going to be something to behold.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: It'll be very tempting, yes.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: This Saturday — in Fort St.

James?

AN HON. MEMBER: Last Saturday.

MR. WILLIAMS: I was coming back from

Toronto, Mr. Minister, and I did enjoy the opportunity in the east.

The other thing mentioned in these early releases is the

agricultural land reserve. Again, it's sort of number one that comes to

the Premier's mind — that agricultural land reserve. I can take a stab

at why it's on his mind: he can make a lot of money if he can change

it. That's the case in Richmond. It has happened again and again in

Richmond, and it's going to occur now with the Terra Nova lands that

you and the cabinet approved. One can't help but wonder if maybe that

racetrack is tied to that idea. Maybe there's some linkage. He says:

"Oh, no." Can the minister of state guarantee that this new racetrack

won't be on agricultural land? Can you give us the guarantee, through

you, Mr. Speaker?

[ Page 2751 ]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'll guarantee it's on

land.

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. I think we've just

been guaranteed that it's on ALR land. That's been the message to the

other regions.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay, I appreciate that. The

ALR is going to be

challenged through this process of these new ministers of state; that's

clear. That's the agenda, and it's high on the agenda. Patronage jobs

are high on the agenda; that's already been shown as well. One can't

readily take these proposals seriously at this stage of the game.

There are other pieces of legislation before us in this

statute. One

of them is the Railway Act; that's part of the group of principles that

we're talking about here. One of the smaller areas proposed for

privatization that has interested me is the B.C. Hydro railway. The

B.C. Hydro railway serves a great part of the lower mainland, and if

one remembers, the original company was the B.C. Electric Railway Co.

This is one of the early assets of that corporation. That old

interurban line ran from downtown Vancouver to Chilliwack, a

significant right-of-way in the lower mainland. It's proposed for

privatization, and you're changing some of the rules around the Railway

Act that might well be of some benefit to a party interested in

acquiring the Hydro railway.

That railway now serves South Burnaby, throughout the

Metrotown

area. It serves the Big Bend area down below Marine Drive. It serves

the Annacis Island area, which is a very significant industrial area in

the Fraser River port. It serves Matsqui, Langley, Surrey, Chilliwack,

Abbotsford, and also Roberts Bank. That's of some significance. It's a

significant terminal railway in the lower mainland. It is a neutral

railway serving all of the other railways in the region. It's

important, as a neutral terminal railway, to be of service and to be a

generator of traffic.

I remember some of the civil servants who worked for Hydro in

the

early days, who established, essentially, the industrial pattern south

of the river in the lower mainland — the Newton industrial area in

Surrey and around Cloverdale and Langley, and other parts of the region

— acquired land ahead of time, and provided a significant industrial

base in those municipalities south of the river.

It's important in terms of Roberts Bank, which is really our

new

harbour for the lower mainland region, because the inner harbour and

the port of Vancouver, more and more, are inadequate and don't have the

backup space. The only place you can get the backup space is on the

Fraser River and at Roberts Bank.

It's a significant right-of-way in the lower mainland. If you

really

think about it, rights-of-way in the lower mainland should be retained

by the Crown, because there aren't many of them — that is, long, linear

routes. We are a land-poor region, this great city of ours. We are

constrained by the 49th parallel and the mountains north of the river.

It's a tight, narrow area.

Through this, there is this right-of-way that is significant

and

that can serve the whole region. A chunk of that railway between

Chilliwack and Sumas could be a significant bypass for rail freight

traffic in the region. A lot of the lines in the valley could use that

spur to transfer south, avoiding going into the metropolitan area of

the city. If some work was done, the B.C. Hydro railway could play a

significant role in diverting traffic ahead of time in terms of

movement to the United States.

It's also important as a transmission line right-of-way. It's

also

important as a right-of-way for SkyTrain, over much of the SkyTrain

route. The question is: is that going to be preserved, or will the

rental payments pay for those various transmission and right-of-way

purposes? Is that part of the game plan? Will you provide a revenue in

annual rentals for some new private buyer — from B.C. Hydro, for their

transmission lines, from SkyTrain? Is it part of the game plan to make

this valuable to some private buyer?

There's one area that you haven't even thought about in terms

that Hydro railway, and that's the question of commuter service south

of the river. This administration has spent $1 billion on SkyTrain,

just to New Westminster, and is spending more bridging the Fraser River

to serve North Surrey, to Surrey Place. Not far from Surrey Place, and

certainly not far from — in fact, on — Scott Road, is the railway line.

If there had been any advance thinking at all on the part of this

administration, you would have tied the two together. You could have

had a major transfer point in North Surrey for commuter traffic that

would move from SkyTrain — which has been incredibly costly to build,

as the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) knows only

too well — and linked it to the Hydro railway which is already there.

All you would need is the rolling stock. Experimental work was done

last year during Expo on serving some of the people on the south side

of the river, and it was a success. So with a little more thought, that

Hydro railway, with some additional spurs and additions, could be

serving the growth areas south of the Fraser River. You wouldn't have

to spend billions extending SkyTrain south of the river into Surrey,

Langley and those other municipalities. I don't think there is any

advance thinking at all going on in terms of what that significant

right-of-way represents.

[4:00]

The accountants you hired to review it said that it doesn't

really

make sense to privatize it to a single party. The only thing that might

make sense is to sell it, or turn it over to and integrate it with B.C.

Rail. That's what your own right-wing accounting advisers are saying.

They say it doesn't make any sense to sell it to the national railways

in Canada, because they are regulated nationally. Because they are

regulated nationally, the charges for the switching movements between

the railways would be dramatically reduced to virtually nothing — in

terms of national railway policy. So it makes no economic sense to sell

it to the CNR or Burlington Northern, the other major players in the

region, because all the revenues would disappear, since federal

regulations regarding switching would remove most of the basic revenues

of that Hydro railway.

So what is it? Is it just an ideological hangup we've got over

there? In terms of economic policy and province-building, most of this

stuff on your privatization plate doesn't make any sense. It's an

ideological harangue. It's ideologically driven by the Premier, and

everybody is supposed to line up and go along. It does not make

economic sense, nor does it make sense in terms of development of the

region. Yet you're proceeding.

So much for the railway, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the

next

speaker being the hard-working Minister of Economic Development, so we

can hear fully from this minister just how she is going to integrate

her work with the minister of state, the member for Burnaby-Willingdon

(Hon. Mr.

[ Page 2752 ]

Veitch). I look forward with bated breath to hearing the

Minister of

Economic Development elaborate on how the minister of state will foster

economic development in the lower mainland region.

MS. A. HAGEN: Mr. Speaker, in looking at

the principles of

Bill 59, as the two previous speakers have noted, we are looking at the

first opportunity in this House, in a one-sentence amendment, to deal

with the massive changes that are proposed through something called

decentralization and the setting up of eight regions in the province. I

would like to spend just a few moments looking at the region in which I

live, and which has my riding, in the context of parliamentary

secretaries, and to note before the House some statements that have

been made by the minister of state for what is called the

Mainland-Southwest region. A couple of weeks ago that minister of state

announced that New Westminster would be the centre for this new region.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wondered if perhaps I was seeing

re-enactment of history when I looked at the zone that this particular

minister had responsibility for, because it goes from somewhere just

this side of Powell River up to Lillooet. Although I'm sure that in the

early days, 125 years ago, the region of which New Westminster was the

capital was a bit larger, it does perhaps suggest that in this region

we are trying to go back in history and recreate some glorious past.

Some past, some glory, however, when we look at what we have before us

in this manifestation.

The minister of state announced that the office would be in

the

government agent's office. It's a similar situation to what the first

member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams) has noted in his region. I

happen to know that gentleman, as I think we all know our government

agents; I know what a hard-working person he is and the many things

that are a part of his office. The first thing that the minister of

state announced was that the government agent would take responsibility

for all matters related to his region. I had this incredible vision of

school boards, hospital districts, economic development associations,

municipalities, regional districts, water and sewage and hospital

boards, and any number of organizations and structures that exist. I

noted that this man has a computer, and I know he works it well, but it

seemed like a very large task to land in the lap of one government

agent who has — let me note, Mr. Speaker — plenty to do with his

present job.

However, not to be outdone with the perhaps logic of this

assignment, the minister of state then went on to note that not one

cent of the million dollars, which has not yet been authorized by this

House, would be used to fund any project. He did note, however, that it

would be used for incidental costs; and he deigned to specify what some

of those costs were; he noted that they included data processing and

travel. He didn't mention the luncheon, because at that time I don't

think he knew; certainly none of the rest of us knew that a luncheon

was taking place.

I don't mean to make light of a very important need in our

province.

I think I've made clear to this House on any number of occasions what I

consider to be the need for planning and for involvement of regions,

both for economic development purposes and also for the purposes of

much more effective planning for human services. But I find it passing

strange to look now at the further growth of this region, which has now

become the capital of one part of the province, again under this

decentralization plan.

The minister of state for this region announced that five more

offices would be set up in various parts of this massive region.

Perhaps because the two parliamentary secretaries for this region are

across from one another in terms of the areas of the lower mainland and

southwest, which they represent, we're now going to find some work for

some of the other MLAs in the lower mainland region, perhaps in

Sechelt, Dewdney or Lillooet. So I think we're going to see that we'll

need some more data processing and some more travel for all these

various parts of this huge region to communicate with one another.

We're really looking at an extraparliamentary system being

established in the name of two of the most important tasks that we as a

legislature and the government of this province have to undertake. It

is sad that this manifestation is being foisted upon us as a means of

achieving very worthy and important ends.

Let's once again look at the size of this region. Thirty of

the 69

MLAs in this Legislature are in the region designated as the lower

mainland-southwest. The very absurdity of the size of it tells us that

there really is no credibility in the working of such a setup to

achieve economic development and change and improvement in social and

human services.

Other speakers have spoken about the complexities that many

people

find when dealing with government. It seems to me that another aspect

of the setting up of these various regions is to further confuse the

issue. Let's take just one ministry, for example, the Ministry of

Advanced Education and Job Training, which now encompasses aspects of

several ministries under a new mandate and was established when this

government came into office. That ministry, which is attempting to set

up one-shop stops and to coordinate its work, is suffering from the

fact that its minister — who already has a major task in organization —

now has been given another task by the Premier.

What do we find within his ministry? We find constant change;

people

moving in and out of office. If I call that ministry at this stage of

the game, I have a changing personnel constantly. The majority of

ministers in this House have more than enough to do in coordinating the

work in their own ministries, making them sensible to the people of the

province, enabling MLAs representing their constituencies to be in

touch and get the information they need for their constituents and

enabling critics of this House to get information about what is going

on in those ministries.

But no, instead we are going to have new ministries and a

whole new

group of parliamentary secretaries with some tasks of data processing,

travel and communication. Mr. Speaker, the tasks that have been

established for such a structure are mind-boggling in their nature, not

clearly defined in the specifics and impossible to achieve in terms of

any benefit to the people of the province.

The member for Burnaby North (Mr. Jones) has noted that he

believes

the Premier has another agenda that would carve up this province into

counties and into a whole new system of administration. That particular

matter was well canvassed when it was first presented, and it is said

that it is before us again as a possible structure for the delivery of

the important changes we need in the province.

I want to come back to the structures that already exist and

some of

the work that government has done around economic development. Most of

the people who have reviewed that development have noted that it is

small, ill-coordinated and unclear. The same thing has been said about

the restructuring

[ Page 2753 ]

going on under decentralization. But we have within the

province a

number of ways in which coordination and cooperation and constructive

work can be done. I want to zero in on some of the human services

areas, because these are the ones I know best from the point of view of

how those systems work and how the various parties across the province

interact with one another.

Recently, under the aegis of this government, there has been a

study

of hospital districts in the same region covered by the lower mainland

southwest region. There have been some recommendations from a former

minister of this government that there be some amalgamation of those

districts.

[4:15]

As you and I know, Mr. Minister, people guard their turfs very

closely, and change does not come easily. People are used to working

within certain geographic areas and with certain individuals. The idea

of changes in those hospital regional districts has been before people,

and they are beginning to look at it from the point of view of how they

might function better and how health services might be delivered better

with changes.

There are 75 school districts in the province. There are

possibilities for changes that might bring about improvements in the

delivery of services. Those changes will also come with reluctance and

concern on the part of those who may be affected. Again, school

districts have indicated a willingness to look at those changes.

There are not too many other systems that exist, as far as

social

structures are concerned, but if you look at almost any community in

the province, you would find some kind of a social and health planning

group. In my community, it's an interagency group of about 40 different

organizations, some of them government organizations, some of them

non-profit and voluntary organizations. In Chilliwack, which I visited

at the end of last week, there is an organization that is dealing with

senior services in a very creative kind of way. Those structures have

grown out of the fundamental needs of the community, and they have,

within their own community base, the tools and the means to bring about

some of the kinds of reorganizations and changes to improve the

delivery systems for health, for education, for hospitals, for mental

health and for mentally handicapped people.

The idea that some superdistrict of whatever size,

geographically

or with regard to population, would achieve ends that would be useful

at this point really boggles the mind, and the idea that parliamentary

secretaries will suddenly become people who will be knowledgeable about

many of the municipalities in the province.... That's just not a role

that was ever envisaged when the Provincial Secretary outlined some of

the ways in which parliamentary secretaries have been used in the past.

I believe that we have tools for good economic and social

planning within the province, but those tools will be confounded by the

system that's being foisted on us by the Premier and by this

government. This system will add to the confusion rather than add to

any kind of a solution that we might expect at this time. I would urge

that we go back to the communities that each of us represents, to the

structures and organizations that live within those communities, to the

municipal and school board and hospital district governments that are

mandated within those communities, and that we work sectorally with

those to achieve the kind of change that we might like to have in the

province.

There is a recent

article in B.C. Politics and Policy , the

September

issue, which is headed "Comprehensive Strategy Urged for Community

Economic Development." It talks about some of the initiatives that this

government has taken in the past, and it speaks critically of how

limited the effectiveness has been. It goes on, toward the end of the

article, to note that the most productive route for developing local

economies is one which brings together all elements of the community

under a comprehensive strategy for long-term development. I want to

emphasize those words "a community," because that community is not a

huge region that covers almost a quarter of the province; it is,

instead, a community of interest — what we in our constituencies

represent as well.

The writer of the

article goes on to note that a person who

has been

doing some review of economic and social development has taken a look

at British Columbia, and he concludes — and I'd like to just quote....

This person, whose name is Dr. David Ross, singles out New Westminster

as one community which has achieved a comprehensive approach to

economic development through its economic development association

established four years ago. He also notes that he is impressed by

economic development groups in Sechelt and Nanaimo. "'The energy for

these initiatives,' says Ross, 'comes from local people who don't want

to leave when local industries start to founder.' Ross says B.C.

communities lead the rest of the country in developing effective

approaches to solving their economic problems."

The tools lie with us in our own communities. We do not need a

super

sort of region to deal with those needs and solutions. In the setting

up of these regions, with any number of parliamentary secretaries to

take the place of MLAs or to confuse the communication between MLAs and

constituents, I think we are taking a step backward.

I have a few minutes left in my time for some comments, and I

would

like to move to one other

section of this miscellaneous statutes bill,

section 7, the

section that deals with changes in the Hospital

Insurance Act and specifically to the change that will allow the

Minister of Health or the person designated by him to determine, on a

review of medical evidence, that qualified.... Sorry, let me just read

that more carefully: "....the services that the qualified person does

not require."

I have seldom been contacted about any issue as much as I have

about

health issues over the last several weeks before we were back in

session. The contacts that have come to me have been about the

uncertainty of services that are available to people and uncertainty

about the processes by which government makes decisions.

As we have noted, many of the decisions dealing with the

setting up

of regions seem to be taken in a cavalier and very autocratic way. They

are not decisions that are taken in consultation with those who are

affected by the decisions, and they take onto the purview of government

responsibilities that go well beyond what most people feel should be

their responsibility to decide.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) has not specified for

what particular medical services may be removed by his decision, or the

decision of a person whom he designates when and if this particular

section passes. There has been a good deal of speculation about what

some of those services may be. As in so many instances, the removal of

some of these services — and I can only join in the speculation — will

prove costly to us in the long run and appear to be

[ Page 2754 ]

based entirely on some erroneous sort of perspective that

somehow this is going to control costs.

It seems to me that the Minister of Health would be much

better

advised to be dealing with service. If we could look at ways in which

services might be better delivered, then we could be looking at ways in

which health care could be improved.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Let me just speculate about a couple of items that may be

removed

from care. One is the annual eye examination. Mr. Speaker, many people

go to an ophthalmologist for that eye examination, and in the course of

that examination, the person receiving it often gets a check not just

for his visual acuity but for anything else that may be in his history.

I want to give just one example from a personal perspective, and that

is the incidence of glaucoma. If not checked early, glaucoma can lead

to premature blindness. To lose that service under the health plan may

very well put people at risk. Other services include fertility

matters, a very sensitive and important issue under the hospital

services and health care plan.

I have other issues with respect to the health and hospital

amendment that I would like to speak to, but I know we are moving to an

important debate on another aspect of the government's agenda —

privatization. At this time I would like to move adjournment of this

debate until later today.

Motion approved.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, in view of the

special debate

coming up in a very few moments, I will ring the bells to inform other

members that we will be starting, and we'll take a recess for the next

three minutes.

HON. B.R. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, it's with

great pleasure that I

welcome today, sitting on the floor of the House, Mr. Don Johnston, MP

for Montreal's Saint Henri-Westmount, and his wife Heather. Don was a

cabinet minister federally and held a number of important portfolios. I

always found him to be a very receptive and well-informed cabinet

minister when he was in the federal administration, a guy who didn't

stay in Ottawa, who got around the country to get other points of view,

and he's doing the same thing now as an opposition member. I would ask

the House to make him and his wife welcome here in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MR. ROSE: Mr. Speaker, we're having a

little Alphonse-and-Gaston routine. We'll try to be through it as

quickly as we can.

We're dealing with standing order 35, which is a rarity. And

despite

the fact that there's ample evidence existing by the learned gentlemen

at the Clerks' table that you can define standing order 35 as a

substantive motion, thereby guaranteeing its mover the right to close

the debate — I can cite 42.2 of our standing orders.... Rather than

cause a lengthy procedural argument at this time, thus depriving radio

listeners of the opportunity to hear this very important and exciting

debate, a first-time broadcast debate, I have agreed, on behalf of my

party, to the speaking order as proposed by the government House

Leader, subject to a commitment from the government House Leader that a

debate and Speaker's ruling on the substantive nature of standing order

35 will take place before the prorogation of the first session of the

thirty-fourth parliament.

[4:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I thank my colleague

opposite for his

remarks and for the agreement reached today. I can advise you, Mr.

Speaker, that you and the members of the Legislative Assembly have the

undertaking of the government that we will examine standing order 35 in

view of the member's comments; and that will be done prior to

prorogation of the Legislative Assembly. That agreement is there.

Debate under Standing Order 35

PRIVATIZATION

MR. SPEAKER: I will remind the hon. members

who are going to

be speaking in the special debate that because of the time allocated

under the standing orders I've asked Hansard to make sure the green

light goes on when you have two minutes left in your speech. And I

will, like in members' statements, be very strict as to the timing

because of the one-hour debate.

Hon. members, on Wednesday, the 25th of this month, the Chair

ruled

that a motion made by the Leader of the Opposition under standing order

35 qualified under the rules of the House, and leave was given by the

House to move a motion dealing with privatization in British Columbia.

Hon. members will appreciate that the governing standing order, 35(8),

reads as follows: "The debate on the motion shall not exceed one hour,

apportioned as follows: mover, 15 minutes; other members, ten minutes

each."

I now call on the Leader of the Opposition to move his motion.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to

move the following

motion under the provisions of standing order 35: that the House do now

adjourn to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance

relating to government proposals for privatization schemes within the

province.

As leader of the New Democratic Party, I want to thank the

Speaker

of the House for the opportunity to take

part in this emergency debate

in the Legislature on the government's massive and ill-considered

privatization plan. I also want to thank the Speaker for the facilities

we now have in the House which today make it possible for radio

audiences to hear this important debate, and I would like to greet and

welcome all those British Columbians who are listening. Hopefully, in

the near future we will also have the facilities to make it possible

for television coverage of this Legislature.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, members of the

New Democratic

Party in the Legislature have called for this emergency debate because

we believe the government's privatization plan will have a serious

impact on every family and every community in British Columbia. I must

express the alarm that I feel on behalf of British Columbians that this

is the first time members of the Legislature have been given an

opportunity to debate the Premier's privatization plan, a scheme which,

if the government has its way, will lead to a radical and a fundamental

restructuring of our society. The one hour

[ Page 2755 ]

that has been allowed in this emergency debate is hopelessly

insufficient to debate such a complex and critical issue. Time must be

set aside in this Legislature for a full and comprehensive debate on

privatization.

The privatization measures planned are truly massive. The

Premier

has said that the government intends to sell to private companies, to

operate at a profit, virtually every public service — every government

operation. As a first step, all highways and bridge maintenance on

Vancouver Island will be sold; next, all highways and bridge

maintenance in the province. Mr. Speaker, the services that we depend

on to keep our roads safe for our families will be sold.

The privatization plan also calls for the immediate sellout of

of the government's 217 highly profitable liquor stores. The Social

Credit government intends to sell off our environmental laboratory, our

milk- and food-testing laboratory, the soil-, feed- and tissue-testing

laboratory, and nine forestry nurseries. And the government intends to

sell off hospitals that are providing mental health care, and then flog

valuable public lands, where these institutions are, to private

developers. The Social Credit government plans to sell the $39 million

research centre, the $600 million gas division and the $130 million

rail division of B.C. Hydro. The list goes on and on. The government is

selling off assets worth $3 billion: the largest selloff of public

assets in the history of Canada. This is only the beginning.

There is a lot at risk for B.C.'s families, and for

communities from

Nanaimo to Dawson Creek, from Coquitlam to Revelstoke, from Prince

Rupert to Cranbrook. At risk are quality health care for our families;

proper safety checks for milk, food, water and air quality through

government laboratories; the safety of our highways; decent treatment

for the mentally ill and the handicapped; and many other services.

The government has no mandate from British Columbians to

abandon its

responsibilities for critical public health and safety programs and

other vital services. People have a right to be consulted and to demand

effective safeguards before the government goes ahead with this massive

experiment in social engineering. But the Premier has ignored my

request for an independent review process before proceeding.

There is no assurance at all that the standards of service

will be

maintained. There is no assurance that taxpayers will receive a fair

return from the sale of public assets; no assurance that there will be

no unwarranted increase in user fees; no assurances that jobs will not

be lost or that ownership and control of vital services stay in British

Columbia. Mr. Speaker, the government's vision of tomorrow's world is

one which would take us backwards into the future to the dog-eat-dog,

survival-of-the-fittest era of the last century.

The Premier has not allowed a full debate in this Legislature

on his

privatization scheme. He has not consulted the people of this province,

and he won't even listen to members of his own party. The former

Highways minister, the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), and

the Environment minister (Hon. Mr. Strachan) have both said that they

don't believe the private sector can do as good a job of keeping our

highways safe as can government workers. The Dewdney Social Credit

constituency has written to the Premier, with both members present,

asking him to stop and listen to the concerns of the public. But the

Premier presses on stubbornly.

The government has admitted that two independent studies have

recommended against the privatization of B.C. Hydro's research centre,

but the government refuses to release these studies. There has been no

full debate in this Legislature on privatization, no public

consultation. The government refuses to release what pitiful few

studies it has on privatization. The Premier won't even listen to

members of his own party, yet he stubbornly pushes ahead with the

privatization scheme. What we want to know is: if families and

communities will be harmed, why do they push ahead with this scheme?

Deficits, you say — the deficit. Well, Mr. Speaker, it's the members on

the government side of this House who are responsible for the deficit.

You've had 12 years in office; now you want to sell off public assets

that belong to the people of British Columbia to pay off the deficit

that you created. You have no right to expect the families and

communities to pay for your failures.

New Democrat members of this House have a very different

vision of

the future than the Premier. Ours is a vision of a society in which we

all have equal rights and equal access to vital services, in which

people from all walks of life work together to rebuild our economy, to

restore social stability and to create challenging new opportunities

for our children, the next generation.

The people of this province have a right to ask: who will

benefit

from privatization? Who will lose from privatization? It's not our

families who will benefit when services are cut or user fees increased.

It's not the health care worker who takes care of mentally handicapped

kids who will benefit. It's not the government worker who operates a

grader in a snowstorm to keep our roads safe, and it's not the

scientist testing the quality of our drinking water at the

environmental lab at UBC. It's not the small businesses in communities

across the province, who will see their sales drop when jobs are lost.

It's none of us.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, who will benefit from

privatization:

it's a wealthy few — well connected with this Social Credit government

— who are already lined up to buy government operations and public

lands at fire-sale prices. When public services and government

operations are sold off to the private sector, I ask you: who can we

count on to protect the public interest, particularly when we look at

the huge cost overruns, the scandalous overruns in the construction of

the Coquihalla Highway, overruns of hundreds of millions of dollars,

which are now the subject of a public inquiry?

It's very evident that we cannot count on the Social Credit

government to protect the taxpayers from patronage, favouritism and

profiteering for their friends. Mr. Speaker, it is inexcusable that a

Premier who once promised open government and full consultation is now

ramming through this privatization scheme without allowing a full

debate in this Legislature, without public consultation and without

supporting research.

More and more people in this great province are beginning to

feel

they are trapped on a runaway train. They don't know where it's going,

and they don't know how to get off. It's wrong for the Premier to

proceed with his privatization plan, and he's not even listening right

now in the middle of this emergency debate. What we're trying to say to

you, Mr. Premier, is that it's essential that the Legislature has the

opportunity to fully debate a privatization scheme that will have such

a profound impact on every family in every community in our province.

Your government must ensure genuine consultation with the people before

it goes any further in selling off our vital services.

[4:45]

[ Page 2756 ]

Mr. Speaker, the Premier has not listened when we have called

for a

full debate and for consultation. He must listen, because the people of

this province deserve and expect nothing less.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, what we've

just heard can

only be characterized as a blatant attempt to create a climate of fear

and uncertainty among British Columbians. The Leader of the Opposition

— and I'm being careful in my choice of words — has deliberately

distorted the facts of the case and deliberately misrepresented the

issues. There has been no mention of service cuts whatsoever in any of

the material we have presented to date. There are not intended to be

any service cuts, and for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest there

is is a deliberate distortion of the facts and the truth as presented.

It's disappointing to see him....

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the minister to

withdraw that last comment.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: That it was deliberate?

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, I'll take

your counsel, and I'm pleased to withdraw the comment.

It's disappointing to see him take this kind of tack in his

speech

and confuse the issues even more. Furthermore, by his endorsation of

illegal actions, he is further creating confusion in the minds of

British Columbians. Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House believe

that the opportunistic comments made by the Leader of the Opposition

are a disservice to our citizens, a disservice to our employees, and a

disservice to those dozens of countries around the world who have

successfully implemented privatization enterprises to reduce the cost

of government for those people receiving the services, and to provide

more effective spending of public dollars.

This province needs to make changes. With our relatively small

population base vis--vis Canada as a whole, it is absolutely critical

that we continue to lead the way with innovation and ingenuity. This

endeavour to embark upon a new era in