1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 1

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2779 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act (Bill 61).

Hon. Mr. Couvelier

Introduction and first reading –– 2779

Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987 (Bill 63). Hon. Mr. Rogers

Introduction and first reading –– 2779

Tabling Documents –– 2780

Oral Questions

Surrey hospital beds. Ms. Smallwood –– 2780

Mrs. Boone

Ex-mental patients charged with crimes. Mr. Cashore –– 2781

Riverview Hospital downsizing. Mr. Cashore –– 2781

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

Mr. Rose –– 2782

Mr. De Jong –– 2785

Mr. Barnes –– 2785

Mr. Messmer –– 2788

Mr. D'Arcy –– 2789

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

MR. PELTON: On your behalf, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make

two brief announcements. The first one is that within the precincts

today — and I notice a large number of them in the galleries right at

the very moment — there are 150 students from the Squamish high school.

Some of them who aren't in the assembly at the moment will be in later.

I would ask the members to please, with me, make each and every one of

them most welcome here this afternoon.

The second thing I would like to say, hon. members, is that this

evening Mr. Speaker is entertaining at dinner a number of the past

Speakers of this House. In attendance will be: Mr. Hugh Shantz, who was

Speaker from 1958 to 1963; Mr. William Murray, who was Speaker from

1964 to 1972; Mr. Gordon Dowding, who was Speaker from 1972 to 1975;

Mr. Edward Smith, who was Speaker from 1976 to 1978; Mr. Harvey

Schroeder, whom many of us remember, who was Speaker from 1978 to 1982;

and the second member for Delta (Mr. Davidson), who was our Speaker

from 1982 to 1986. Within the House, sitting on the floor of the House

today, hon. members, are two of these outstanding gentlemen, Mr. Hugh

Shantz and Mr. Gordon Dowding. Would you all give them a most

resounding welcome.

MS. EDWARDS: Today I'd like to introduce two deans of the

institution from which I am currently on leave, East Kootenay Community

College: the dean of academic studies, Mr. Larry Szalanski; and the

dean of vocational studies, Mr. John Siray. I wish the House would join

me in making them welcome.

HON. MRS. JOHNSTON: In the gallery this afternoon are two

nurses from our hospital in Surrey, Surrey Memorial Hospital: Donna

Holtsbaum and Morah Avery. And in the precincts we have: Gordon

Campbell, mayor of Vancouver; Don Ross, former mayor of Surrey; Don

Lanskail. mayor of West Vancouver; and Gil Blair, mayor of Richmond. I

would ask the members to please make them all very welcome,

MR. WEISGERBER: Mr. Speaker, it's a rare pleasure for me to

introduce to this House a constituent from South Peace River. In the

members' gallery today is a well-known lawyer, the newly elected

president of the Dawson Creek Chamber of Commerce. Please join with me

in welcoming Mr. Les Dellow.

HON. MR. REID: It is with pleasure that I introduce Mr. Jim

Doswell, the assistant deputy minister of the development division of

the Ministry of Tourism, Recreation and Culture, who is in the members'

gallery today. I hope that while I'm standing I can ask the employers

of the member for Kootenay (Ms. Edwards) to pay attention because

they'll have her back in their employ very soon.

[2:15]

HON. S. HAGEN: It is indeed a great pleasure for me this afternoon to

welcome to the House three gentlemen from Trinity Western University. We have

in our midst Dr. Neil Snider, the president; Dr. Bruce Traub, the associate

dean for special academic programs; and Mr. Brian Anderson, the assistant to

the president. Would the House please make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

SOFTWOOD LUMBER PRODUCTS

EXPORT CHARGE COMPENSATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Couvelier presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Softwood Lumber Products Export Charge Compensation Act.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: As an introduction to this bill, I would

like to mention the background events that make this proposed

legislation necessary. As part of a memorandum of understanding signed

between the governments of Canada and the United States to resolve the

lumber countervail dispute, a 15 percent federal charge was imposed on

exports of Canadian lumber to the United States. However, the

memorandum of understanding also contains a provision to allow the

export charge to be replaced by provincial measures subject to

consultation and negotiation with the United States government.

On October 1, 1987, my colleague, the Minister of Forests and Lands

(Hon. Mr. Parker), introduced a series of major changes to B.C.'s

forest policy. The changes included an increase in stumpage charges and

the transfer of silviculture costs to the industry. These measures were

intended to meet the requirements of full replacement of the 15 percent

export charge. Officials from the governments of Canada and British

Columbia are currently negotiating with the United States to allow the

export charge to be removed. However, until these negotiations are

complete, the British Columbia forest industry is faced with paying

higher stumpage charges and the export charge on lumber shipped to the

United States.

I am therefore tabling Bill 61 for first reading. Bill 6 I will

enable the government to provide compensation for the export charge

paid in these situations. The government's intent is to refund with

interest the export tax paid on lumber shipped from a mill of final

processing in British Columbia on or after November 1, 1987 –– I should

point out, however, that the final design of the program will depend

upon the outcome of the negotiations with the United States government,

and compensation will not be paid until these negotiations are

complete. I move first reading.

Bill 61 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 2), 1987

Hon. Mr. Rogers presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor:

a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 1987.

HON. MR. ROGERS: This is a relatively innocuous bill — my

former colleague Mr. Chabot used to call these things shortycoats. It

clarifies the qualifications for tow trucks. It introduces the category

of recovery vehicle in vehicle towing. It provides authority for making

regulations for the passing of safety certificates to certain classes

of vehicles operated within the National Safety Code, and it will add a

[ Page 2780 ]

reference allowing for the use of demonstrator plates under the

Commercial Transport Act and improve consistency in vehicle licensing.

It is a relatively routine matter, Mr. Speaker. I move first reading.

Bill 63 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House

after today.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the annual report of the Travel Assurance Board

for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987.

Oral Questions

SURREY HOSPITAL BEDS

MS. SMALLWOOD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

Dr. T.S. Wong, chief of staff of the Surrey Memorial Hospital, wrote to

your government on November 24. I quote from his letter: "The

physicians in this hospital are constantly frustrated in their efforts

to have their mentally ill patients admitted, because the psychiatric

ward is always full, and overflow psychotic patients are being held in

emergency, ICU and throughout the hospital. In addition, there is the

unsafe situation of constant and long waiting-lists." Will the Premier

accept that the situation in Surrey is only an example of the mental

health care crisis in this province?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the situation in Surrey, and I would defer to the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I could never get up and say

that we have enough beds for everyone, whether they're psychiatric or

acute, extended or intermediate care. However, I think we're providing

adequate care, and we're always continuing to took at ways to alleviate

any shortfall.

This may well be the case in the Surrey Memorial Hospital. I have

not had a letter from that particular doctor. If there is a problem, I

would like to know about it and see whether we could correct it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: The chief of staff also writes in his letter:

"Riverview Hospital, whose present population is approximately 1,000

beds, cannot meet the demand for medium- and long-term beds. Patient

transfer from our acute ward to a longer-stay ward in Riverview is

delayed, further blocking our psychiatric beds." My question again to

the Premier is: why don't those patients in Surrey have access to those

long-term beds in Riverview?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, having lived and served in

Surrey for many years, I am probably more familiar with that

constituency and municipality than the hon. member. But having said

that, I would still defer to the Minister of Health.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, as for the question that they cannot get

access to Riverview, this is incorrect. We do not make an exception; we do not

say that Surrey cannot have access but others can. We are of course talking

about providing community care for a lot of these patients, which we are doing

now. We've got many out-patient facilities throughout the province. If you

have a specific concern about some specific individual, I would like to look

into it. Other than that, we are providing care for all the people that need

it.

MS. SMALLWOOD: I can't accept that, Mr. Minister. Our

catchment area is the same size as Vancouver's. We have 20 beds to

their 195 beds. Your own consultative report recommends the closure or

the reduction of beds to 550. I'd like you to explain to this House

what you are doing to alleviate the pressure that our municipality and

our catchment area are feeling.

HON. MR. DUECK: ML Speaker, we have completed a report on

mental health which has been tabled. It is a preliminary report; the

final report will be out at the end of the year. We will then look at

the report and I will make recommendations to cabinet; if approved, the

plan will be for a downsizing of Riverview over a period of five years.

Within that period of time we will not release people into the

community and not have a place for them to go, which makes common

sense. We're not going to close down Riverview and have 500 or 600

people roaming the streets. For heaven's sake, we have never done it in

the past; we won't do it in the future.

If you have a shortage of beds in your community, that may well be.

You can phone my office and see what the plan is for that particular

hospital, rather than bringing it up here. If you want a report back

for tomorrow, I will do so.

MRS. BOONE: On November 13, Dr. Luke, the chief of Surrey

Memorial's department of psychiatry, wrote to the government indicating

that Surrey's need for more psychiatric beds had become quite desperate

— quite desperate, Mr. Minister, We have effectively been the regional

referral centre for a catchment population of 350,000. Our present 20

beds are definitely inadequate compared to Vancouver's 195.

Will the Premier accept Dr. Luke's professional advice that the

situation in Surrey, as elsewhere in the province, has become desperate

for patients and hospitals and that in fact Riverview has closed its

beds to people right now? People are unable to get into Riverview

because they are closing their doors to new patients.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The Premier would recommend that the distinguished doctor make contact with

the Minister of Health.

MRS. BOONE: Dr. Luke has also written that patients awaiting

emergency and ICU have priority for admission, but having psychiatric

patients waiting perhaps several days in emergency for an in-patient

vacancy causes stress among the emergency staff and patients

themselves. The doctors in the emergency department have voiced their

concern for years in that psychiatric patients, are languishing in the

emergency blocks waiting for medical and surgical treatment, with

serious consequences.

Will the Premier accept that Dr. Luke's professional assessment is

accurate and that action is required by this government to deal with

this serious situation in Surrey and in other hospitals throughout

British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I can't tell Dr. Luke what

he should be doing or how best to do it. Dr. Luke has to decide for

himself whether he wishes to have it

[ Page 2781 ]

presented through the critic from the opposition, or directly to the minister. That's Dr. Luke's decision.

EX–MENTAL PATIENTS CHARGED WITH CRIMES

MR. CASHORE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of

Health. The Minister of Health said in this House today that he does

not want all sorts of people walking the streets — ex-mental patients.

Will the Minister of Health not acknowledge that the Mental Patients'

Association has documented an alarming increase in the number of

ex-mental patients coming before the courts charged with such things as

theft under $1,000? I know that the minister has received that

information, and I would like to ask him what his comments are on that.

HON. MR. DUECK: If you're asking me if I'm concerned that

people who have problems of any kind are walking the streets, of course

that's true. If you're asking if I'm going to do something about it,

that's also true. We're constantly revealing our plans. We are building

hospitals and taking people from Riverview, which has been going on for

years, incidentally, and has nothing to do with the downsizing of

Riverview. We just moved 30 people into the MSA area recently, people

who can now be released on the basis of integration back into the

community. This is an ongoing process; it has been going on for years,

which you well know because you were in that business.

However, when you speak about overcrowding, yes, there is some

overcrowding; yes, we haven't got enough beds; yes, we're trying to

improve the situation, and we're constantly working on it. We will go

on improving it in the future.

RIVERVIEW HOSPITAL DOWNSIZING

MR. CASHORE: I have another question for the Minister of

Health. That minister has spoken in very positive terms about this

report. It's a report that has some very real merit. The minister has

gone on record as saying that nobody will be discharged from Riverview

Hospital unless there is proper preparation and education of the

community, and that the facilities are well in place. I want to ask the

minister: why has he participated in a government that has announced

that that hospital will now be handed over to a private society, when

the final report — which he has just said will come out at the end of

this year — is not even being issued? Does the minister not realize

that this is very unsettling for the patients, for the families of the

patients and for the workers in that hospital?

[2:30]

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is completely

wrong, because we just received a letter from the Mental Health

Association. They write that they are very happy with the plan of

downsizing Riverview; they say that's the direction we should go. As a

matter of fact, they wrote a letter to the Province criticizing the

article written on the downsizing of Riverview, and the Province

printed the criticism. If you saw that particular letter, you will note

that this association is very happy. Of course they're concerned that

we have the infrastructure in place before we release any people from

Riverview — should this report be accepted and approved by cabinet —

for there to be a place to go. Why criticize me, when we haven't even

decided to close or downsize Riverview' The report hasn't even been

accepted yet. You're already criticizing it, saying that these people

are, roaming the streets. We're not even at that point yet.

MR. CASHORE: Another question to the minister. The minister

knows full well that there have been comments from street workers,

community workers and health workers about the number of ex-mental

patients who have fallen between the cracks and ended up on the streets

of Vancouver and other locations. The minister is very much aware that

on the day this consultation report came out there was an announcement

to close the psychiatric day facility at the Royal Columbian Hospital.

I have some information from an accreditation committee that has

recently conducted an accreditation of Riverview Hospital. These are

the words of Dr. Colin Smith....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has had a large

preamble.

If he can get to the first question, maybe there can be another one.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. CASHORE: In view of the words of Dr. Colin Smith, who undertook a detailed survey of Riverview Hospital....

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please ask his question.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. CASHORE: In the light of the accreditation committee's

findings that there are very severe problems at Riverview Hospital in

terms of the working conditions and the deplorable conditions people

are in, will the minister not recognize that he has a responsibility to

make sure that the facility is adequate to care for the patients in

that institution now?

HON. MR. DUECK: I am aware that an accreditation process is

now going on, and I want to remark on what he calls privatization of

the Riverview Hospital. It's not privatization; it is, in fact, going

exactly the route of every hospital in this province which is run by a

society. Surely you're not telling me that all the hospitals are not

operating efficiently. That's what happening now. We're saying that

government shouldn't be operating the hospital; it should in fact be a

society, and that's the route we're going.

As far as the people are concerned who are in these institutions,

yes, it is my concern that they are properly treated and have proper

facilities. That facility is too old, and we either put up a new

facility or we move them out into the community, and that's a decision

that's going to be made by cabinet in the very near future.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Adjourned debate on second reading of Bill 59.

[ Page 2782 ]

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4), 1987

(continued)

MR. ROSE: I'll just tread water while some of the other

people carry on with their conversations and leave the building. That's

what usually happens when I get up to speak anyway, so actually, I

suppose, that won't be a new experience for any of us.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hand out some hankies.

MR. ROSE: No crying towels, no.

When I was so rudely interrupted by noon hour and moved adjournment

of the debate, I was having a little exchange with the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet). I find him a delightful debater. He

admitted to me at noon — I don't know how privately or how

confidentially — that he didn't really care much for order or the rule

books. I was trying to make sure that he didn't lose his place in the

debate, when it was really a point of order. But the Chairman at the

time....

HON. MR. BRUMMET: On a point of order, I think there is room

for fun and exchange and that sort of thing, but for that member to say

that I have said to him privately that I don't care much for order is, I

think, a little bit too much to take.

MR. ROSE: I apologize, but I thought it was a little bit of

fun, and that was the way it was intended. So if I have offended the

minister for the fourth time in a row, I am sorry about that. But in

all due respect, it was supposed to be kind of light-hearted, although

the rest of my speech will not be.

Interjection.

MR. ROSE: Light-headed? I really do feel that the minister

took offence at something that really wasn't. And there's another

minister that should be taking offence right now, and I'm going to deal

with him. He's not here, so he's already offended. Maybe it offends the

rule of anticipation — I don't know.

Before lunchtime we were talking here about the whole matter of this

business of decentralization and the appointments of ministers of

state, and we were being scolded by the Minister of Education. He

didn't use a pointer and he didn't point his finger, but there's no

doubt in my mind that we were being scolded because we in the

opposition had decided not to be co-opted into a system of statism in

British Columbia, or into regionalism in British Columbia, to which we

object. It's the idea that "you come along on board with us, fellas,

and we'll get you in on these big committees for the good of the

region." We don't trust the government to do that. We think they want

us there to legitimize the whole process, which is illegitimate;

therefore we say: thanks but no thanks.

We don't like, for instance, the fact that they authorize $8 million

under warrants to set this whole thing up — to provide for parties and

all this other kind of stuff — before it even came to the Legislature.

We made that point yesterday. We object to it because it offends our

traditions. What happens is that you have the parties and the public

has the headache. We don't want to belong to that sort of thing.

Another thing is that we were unsettled somewhat by the honest

remarks of the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid). I think that's the

kindest thing I can say about it. I wasn't going to suggest that this

is a new experience for the Minister of Tourism — such honesty;

nevertheless, I regard them as honest. He spoke to the Esquimalt Social

Credit Party here in October. I didn't have his direct quotes this

morning when I was discussing this; I paraphrased him. But now that I

have the direct quotes, I'm shocked and dismayed. I'm absolutely

shocked that anybody would admit in a democratic society, in which we

are all freely elected, that if you don't vote the right way, your area

or district will not receive "consideration from government."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. ROSE: Well, I don't like to mention this, because I know he's quite hail-fellow-well-met.

Here's what he had to say, as reported in the Times-Colonist

on Thursday, October 15. The Minister of Tourism said.... I can't use

his name. I think we could have a look at that rule, Mr. Speaker, but

that's another inside joke. I hope it doesn't offend you and have you

walk out of here in a huff.

But he said: "...will go without government money unless the area

elects a Social Credit MLA." That's really, really shameful. Oink,

oink! I would spell that for the Hansard reporter, if it is felt

necessary. [Snuffle! Snort!] I don't know how you put that in Hansard ,

but you should try to get up to speed on it. You might hear some sounds

that are even more obscene in future.

I'm quoting: "Reid told an Esquimalt-Port Renfrew Socred

constituency meeting that while decentralization will improve access to

government, the only way to secure government funds for the area is to

vote Socred."

Here's what one of the people who were listening countered with: "We

hear all this talk about a new approach by the government." This is the

oldest one in the world; it's called "jobs for the boys." It's called

"patronage." It's called "pork-barrel." It's the new approach to

government: "consultation, no political wars and arguments. Then we've

got an elected official saying something like this. Was all the talk

before simply window-dressing?"

I guess the whole leadership campaign was window dressing. I'm sorry

to say that. People are disillusioned. They were very, very trusting

that this was in fact the good new day; and we had good news with our

new Premier. But if it has degenerated into the same old stuff, then I

think that people will soon find out. There's some old saying, which I

can only paraphrase, that says: if you're fooled once, it's somebody's

fault; if you're fooled twice, it's your fault.

I could go on quoting from this because I'm sure you're fascinated

by these quotes, Mr. Speaker, and I think I will. Here's another part:

"I can tell you as minister responsible, when my colleagues come up to

me and say, 'Where's that $1,000 for that sports group, I say: 'Well, I

haven't given any to Sihota over there; if I give it to Sihota, they'll

all have a fit."' So what that means is that this grantsmanship really

has a political connotation to it.

I think that what we've been trying to do over the last 50 years is

try to root out that stuff. Down in the Maritimes it was quite common,

as late as the seventies, that you could get a vote for a mickey. Down

in the Maritimes it used to be you could buy a vote for a mickey. You

can't buy a vote for a mickey any more. It may have changed, but I

don't think it's

[ Page 2783 ]

probably changed that much. We have, I think, been relatively free of it.

It's not that we haven't had examples of people who got favours

because they were close to government, but to come out and blatantly

say in public the truth — that "if you don't follow the government line..." — is taking a great political risk.

Mr. Speaker, I've been looking over this list of new ministers of

state and I see the Minister of Advanced Education, the Provincial

Secretary, the Social Services and Housing minister, the Municipal

Affairs minister, the Environment and Parks minister, the Forests and

Lands minister, the intergovernmental relations minister and the

minister of state for education, or the Minister of Education. They are

all ministers of state. Where's the Minister of Tourism? He's not a

minister of state. That's what happens to you if you go out and tell

the truth. He's being punished. Where is he?

The Minister of Education says to us, in effect, "Come on board,

fellows" — and I was going to say girls, but I'll say women. "Come on

board, fellows, in our regions, and you'll be part of the process." Do

we want to be part of this process? I don't. I don't want to be part of

the United States of British Columbia. It is not part of our

traditions. It's divisive and it's not decentralization.

If you put a minister of state in every one of those regions to head

it up and control the patronage, the development, the pork-barrelling

and all that, and then you take those people and put them all in the

cabinet, where's your control? That's not decentralization; it's

control from the cabinet square. That's another reason we don't really

want to have anything to do with it.

The minister of state in my region invited me to a Grey Cup party,

and I thought that was very nice of him. I didn't know that he got his

money on warrants. I didn't go to the party, and I'm trying not to be

too self-righteous about it because in general I enjoy going to

parties. But I didn't go to this one because I felt it was a matter of

principle.

[2:45]

The minister of state is going to have lots of time to be supermayor,

because the Provincial Secretary hasn't got much to do any more. I

mean, all the good stuff in his ministry was gutted out and he's left

with nothing. Plecas took it all into the other ministry, so he hasn't

got much left and has got lots of time to be supermayor of the lower

mainland. I've tried to do my best to commiserate with him and all the

rest of it because he has been on occasion very, very friendly with me,

as other ministers are.

You know, the Liberals in about 1970 — and I go back that long, not

as a Liberal but being around Liberals.... I know a lot of people

across the aisle here are former Liberals. Our Premier once tried to

lead the Liberal Party. They were all absorbed into the Liberal Party,

so there's nothing wrong with it. It's not going to contravene the

health act for communicable diseases or anything like that. It may not

be very savoury in some people's eyes; certainly many British

Columbians don't think so. But nevertheless it is a political party in

this province.

Do you know what they tried federally? It was called regional desks.

This regionalization was tried once before. They would put a

superminister in each province and the hope was that you'd run end-runs

around your MP. There was a terrible outcry over that. It was awful; it

was dreadful; it was deafening. And it didn't work. It was withdrawn

because people saw it for what it was worth. It was a propaganda

machine and a pork-barrel machine and it went, and nobody has heard

from them again, because who was supposed to be looking after that kind

of thing, those problems?

I had a lot of experience with people sitting over on that side of

the House. I know that the former mayor of central Fraser Valley

sitting over there is an estimable gentleman. He's big in the milk

industry and I think he has a good social conscience. He's an immigrant

here and he's made a great contribution to Canada. I was once his MP. I

wonder if he would have liked to be rerouted, instead of needing to

discuss things with me, through a minister of state or a minister for

the province.

There's the member from Dewdney over there — he's also estimable, I

estimate — and another member from Dewdney. They were all mayors in a

riding I represented. I wonder if they would have liked having to be

forced around the block instead of coming directly to me. I was elected

by the people to look after those concerns. I don't think they would

have liked it.

As a matter of fact, I was once the Member of Parliament for the

Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston), and I was once the

Member of Parliament for the Premier. I wonder when he was the mayor of

Surrey. I wonder when he intends to move back to Surrey. He boasted

that he knows so much about Surrey; I wonder if he plans to leave Delta

and move back.

He has an affinity for Surrey. but that's not the point. The point

is that this is an insulation between the elected member and the

Legislature, and the region — those duly elected people in the region:

school boards. municipal councils, regional districts and everything

else. Is this a way to keep the increasing number of people elected

from the left of centre rather than the right of centre from occupying

municipal office? Is this going to help them or hurt them? Is this

going to cramp their plans, or is this going to assist them? We'll see

about that, because the record of this government on this whole issue

is shameful. That's parliamentary — I was going to say "shabby," but I

thought that might not be parliamentary.

Mr. Speaker, we had some suggestion earlier that we shouldn't have

second reading debate on this bill. because it has no principle. In

other words, second reading is debate on the principle of a bill. Since

this is a miscellaneous statute, it follows that — like the government

— it had no principle.

That was obviously just testing the waters. People say: "You're out

of order on this bill." I tried the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

Brummet) on this bill. "You're really out of order, because do you know

what you do? Every once in a while you mention privatization." Well,

privatization is in the bill. It's one of the principles. I can point

to certain sections in the bill. To complain that we're out of

order.... To be fair, the Chair has never complained that we were out

of order, but the Minister of Education is supposed to know better. He

maintains that he has a tremendous interest in these matters of order

and rules and all that sort of thing. He says that we are out of order

because we happened to talk about privatization. If we can't talk about

privatization in this bill, where can we?

Legislative privatization and non-legislative privatization are one

and the same thing. If the government hoped to call us back and

sweet-talk us through a bunch of housekeeping amendments, and have us

not raise the subject of the future of many of our institutions, I

think they will have to admit that

[ Page 2784 ]

they were mistaken. I think that this week we've shown that they were mistaken, and we've been in order.

Look at the various sections that have to do with health. Can we not

talk about the threat to people's health when you are amending the

Health Act? Of course we can. If I want to talk about the dairy labs

and their privatization — oh, I'm sorry; their sellout — I'm going to

do it, and I will be perfectly in order, I will argue. If I want to

talk about the privatization of SkyTrain or the possibilities in the

future for it.... I look at the B.C. Rail

section of Bill 59. What are

they going to do there? It certainly has some elements which would be

perfectly in order to discuss, as far as privatization is concerned.

The B.C. Hydro rail division — those are all possibilities.

I can talk about anything I like in terms of health. What about the

closure of the Kelowna tissue lab? That is part of privatization, but

it's also part of this bill, because it concerns the health of British

Columbians.

If I have time, I'll do those things, but I want to talk about

something else before I start this. Yesterday we were treated, I think,

to a very excellent debate. I don't know whether one is supposed to

reflect on previous debates, Mr. Speaker. Other people discussed that

debate this morning in this chamber, so I see no reason why I can't do

the same.

I'd like to pay tribute to the House and the Speaker and all those

connected with that debate yesterday. I think there should be more

opportunity for people — the public, who pay our salaries — to hear

what we're doing here directly, not filtered through the media. Not

that I have anything against the media, because that would be a very

dangerous thing. "Never attack a newspaper," the old saying

goes, "unless you own one." Since I don't own a newspaper, I have no

intention of attacking one.

Nevertheless, during that debate the Premier chided the Leader of

the Opposition. He said: "You're telling us there's been no

consultation; that our government hasn't consulted when we sought to

privatize something; that we let an aura of fear out there." Then he

said: "Did you consult? Did you consult when you nationalized?" Then he

listed a whole bunch of things that we nationalized. The answer is that

we nationalized — or took under public ownership — a number of things,

including the cannery at Port Simpson, which the Premier mentioned; the

Watson Island mill, which formed the core of BCRIC; Ocean Falls; Swan

Valley Foods and Panco and finally BCRIC. Why did we do that? To save

jobs. We took over virtually bankrupt losers and turned them into

winners: that's what we did.

This government is doing the reverse. They're taking over winners,

and they're going to sell the winners. That's what they did with BCRIC.

There is an air of uncertainty and fear, and a sort of cloud hanging

out there on everybody. We took things over to save jobs. My view, ML

Speaker, is that this particular kind of initiative is to cause

unemployment and to lower wages.

If the Premier asks whether or not it would be safer to ride on Air

Canada than, say, on Canadian Airlines, or vice versa — public against

private — I think it's an excellent debating ploy, but it's a ploy

only. We've got a tradition of public and private enterprise in this

country. That is the Canadian tradition, and we think it's worthwhile.

We think it's worth preserving. We don't want to head towards

Reaganomics, whether it's supply-side economics, which has been a

failure....

MR. REE: On a point of order, we heard the member earlier on

the philosophy of the bill, the principle, and I'm having a little bit

of difficulty relating his privatization speech to the bill. The

opposition made a point last week that they would not have an

opportunity to debate privatization; yet this bill had been introduced

at that time. Therefore they were being hypocritical in their

application for an emergency debate on privatization, or they were

being ignorant of the principle of this bill at that time. But I'm

having a great deal of difficulty following the member's line of

reasoning with this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I've taken out the bill myself, and I have some

concerns, because the House in the past, as you know, has not normally

debated these bills in second reading; but when you look at the bill,

it does cover a number of sections, and the Chair to this point has

allowed some leeway. But I would also ask the members who are speaking

to listen to the advice of some of those who are concerned if they tend

to stray just a little bit.

MR. ROSE: I admit that I was a bit discursive when

challenged, Mr. Speaker, but I was attempting to make a point. I think

sometimes you have to be able to build your case. There are ways to

reach a point that are not necessarily straight lines. Some people have

very logical, sequential minds, and then other people have non-linear

minds. I think this was one of my non-linear days.

But I don't know whether the hon. Whip, the Miracle Whip.... Now

that's w-h-i-p, not w-i-m-p; I don't speak so good sometimes. I just

wanted to say that he might have been out of the room when I explained

how I was going to keep this whole debate in order even though I might

stray into privatization — discursively — because of the various

sections in the bill, as the hon. Speaker just mentioned. The hon.

Speaker said that, yes, this bill covers a lot of ground. The attempt

here is to have this bill cover up a lot of ground.

MR. REE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the

member's comments about the bill covering a lot of ground. It's

obviously a debate. When he's on a non-linear course, he's going to

cover a lot of ground too. It's very fortunate nobody's going to ask

him to walk a straight line.

MR. ROSE: I liked his remarks better the first time, Mr.

Speaker; but he is a good friend of mine, and I know that if I do

happen to stray, he will make certain that I get back in line. I'm just

concerned about the whole concept. There seems to be a philosophy

abroad — especially in the ranks of my friend over there — that

somehow, if you get rid of all regulations, if you make government

simple, if you give government away to the private sector in health —

just to make sure I'm in order — in railroads, in dairy labs or soil

labs or water labs, that somehow life will be beautiful. Not that I was

that old, but Herbert Hoover said the same thing: prosperity is just

around the corner.

That's not Canada at all; that's an importation of a foreign

ideology. We may not think of the United States as being foreign,

because we all have cousins and relatives there. But according to our

British traditions, it is foreign. So when somebody gets into trouble

and they don't resign, and when somebody offers a public institution

like the Tories did with CBC and Air Canada and the CNR, that is the

Canadian compromise. That's what we want to maintain. We don't

[ Page 2785 ]

want everything flogged off to the private sector. We should remember why we've got them.

[3:00]

I've got a little list here of the things we've developed as part of

Canada's traditions. I'll tell you what they're for. They're to

insulate farmers from the cyclic brutality of the marketplace. You're

familiar with co-ops. You're familiar with credit unions, the Crow

freight rates, the Farm Credit Corporation, export incentives,

deficiency payment, wheat pools, two-price systems, Wheat Board.

subsidies, marketing boards, supply management and perhaps others. They

did not come about because private enterprise brought them about. They

came about because either private enterprise was not equipped to do the

task, or they wouldn't, or they weren't the ally; they were the

villain, That's the problem. It's not that all private enterprise is

villainous. I think we do have a tremendously wonderful system and

mixture in this country. We do in all countries in the western world,

for that matter. There ain't no such thing as a free enterprise country

anyway.

But I'm off the topic slightly there, and I don't want to stray too

far from the topic. I am concerned about where we're going with this

legislation. I am concerned about the ministers of state. Why do we

need nine ministers of state? I haven't counted up all the ministers.

but if you add the ministers of state to the Speakers and the Deputy

Speakers and the parliamentary secretaries and Whips and the deputy

Whips and all those people, I don't think there's a person on the other

side who hasn't got an extra job of some kind. I don't know how that

affects them, but maybe it's jobs for the boys, maybe it's busywork. I

know in this debate they don't speak. So what do they do over there?

They don't speak on any government legislation. I wonder, what do you

do with your time?

I know my time is just about up, but I am concerned about the health

of this country. I happen to represent Riverview, and I happen to know

that the land it's on for housing is worth $40 million. Are we going to

toss people out into the streets like they've done in New York and call

it deinstitutionalization without the proper community placements?

We're worried about things like that; that's why we bring them up.

We're worried that somebody's going to blacktop Colony Farm, and that

in this legislation you empower the regions to look after their own

farmland. The government record is not good, especially in the last few

years. It's just not good enough, and we don't support it.

I don't imagine I have more time, so I thank you for your forbearance and I conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: Before I recognize the second member for Central

Fraser Valley, I would remind members that Friday at 10 a.m. we have

private members' statements. The standing orders call for them to be

tabled no later than 6 o'clock the preceding Tuesday. As members know,

the House will be adjourning at 4 p.m. today, and in talking to the

table, none of the members have filed reports yet. If they could file

them before 4 o'clock, we would appreciate it.

MR. DE JONG: I would like to make a few brief comments about

the bill that is before the House. The member who spoke previously

referred to me as being the previous mayor of Matsqui and as to how I

would feel if I was still in that chair. The fact is that I'm not in

that chair: however, I can put myself in the position, having been

there for 11 years. We've gone through some difficult years through

that period of time, as we're doing today. We're going through times of

change. There were things that you could do at the municipal level and

things you could do at the regional level and other things at the

provincial level. There was a reason why regional districts were

established 25 years ago. Even though regionalism didn't work perfectly

in all circumstances and in all areas, it certainly did have its

benefits, and it had its good points as well as its weak points.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

We know that this is not another level of government. It should not

be seen as eight government regions; it is intended to be, and I'm sure

it will be, eight economic regions. When we look at what has happened

in the past, at the municipal level we were confronted sometimes by

various industrialists or developers, wanting to establish a factory or

whatever in our municipality or in the regional district. If it didn't

fit all the criteria, they would look elsewhere. Oftentimes in the

past, our local governments as well as our provincial governments,

perhaps even the opposition from the other side here, have criticized

British Columbia for not welcoming to the development industry. We have

been criticized that people wanting to establish businesses in British

Columbia were moving to Alberta or Washington.

MR. WILLIAMS: And this will make the difference?

MR. DE JONG: I'm sure it will make a difference, sir.

We know that in the municipal field, services such as water and

sanitation — two very basic services — could in many instances not have

been provided had it not been for the regional scope of government.

Again, I do not want to say that this is another level of government.

All I want to say is that each community cannot do things on its own.

This is another attempt, through the eight economic regions which are

to be established, to pull the regional districts as well as the

municipalities together to accomplish what we set out to do: to make

British Columbia a number one place for business establishment and

economic increase.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unable to be in

attendance yesterday for the one-hour debate on the privatization of

government services. As you know, we had some pretty menacing weather,

and the ferries were victims of that natural phenomenon. Hence my

inability to be here at that most important event.

However, I can add my comments for the record with respect to Bill

59, a bill that has been described as having no principle. Most

recently my colleague from Coquitlam-Moody indicated that he saw no

principle. I would say that miscellaneous statutes amendment acts do

have a principle, and that is that they are designed primarily, as far

as the opposition is concerned, to provide confusion and subterfuge and

could very well be described as shell-game acts. As long as I've been a

member of this Legislature, I've heard comments from my colleagues to

be careful of those statutes that are supposed to be housekeeping

amendments. Usually there is something quite nocuous about them, and

there are several sections in this bill that fit that category.

Section 2, of course, is one of the very profound, simple

statements, removing the number 10 from a piece of legislation. That

means that the government has. In effect, carte blanche in appointing

members of its back bench to whatever

[ Page 2786 ]

positions it may see fit, with more pay and whatever else may be available to them through this extra duty.

We are addressing

section 19 also in an attempt to try to get what

we should have, by right, as parliamentary members in the Legislature:

a debate of this main initiative, the government's privatization

program, which is associated very closely with decentralization and the

creation of a series of new ministers of state who are expanding the

whole concept of government in the province of British Columbia beyond

the imagination of just about everyone — certainly of the voters of

October 1986.

I would say that, had the government really been concerned about the

perpetuation of the democratic system, it would have reviewed its

structure — that is, the existing ministries — rather than simply

adding on parliamentary secretaries and creating new ministries of

state. The government, were it serious, would have brought this before

the House, and I am sure all members of the House would have been

delighted and felt a sense of relevance in having an opportunity to

discuss what the new role in the 1980s and 1990s should be as we

approach a new century, in terms of how the government can best cut

down its overhead, streamline its activities, improve services and

increase opportunities for the citizens of British Columbia to learn

what participatory democracy is really all about. All these ideals and

principles, expressed quite often on both sides of the House, could

have been effected had the government truly been committed to

perpetuating a parliamentary right, a democratic right, and had

introduced legislation the way it has traditionally been introduced in

this Legislature. Whenever a ministry has been introduced in the past,

members have had the privilege of being able to debate the merits or

demerits, whatever the case may be, of bringing in that legislation.

Today I must say with great dissatisfaction and disappointment that

this is reminiscent of the days of 1983 when then Premier Bill Bennett

Jr. was bringing in his awesome, so-called "dirty dozen" legislation

and very heavy-handedly beginning to dismantle the public service and

many of the services that people had come to rely upon, without

opportunity for adequate debate, without forewarning during the general

election. We are experiencing something more than just a transitional,

metamorphic growth in this province; we are seeing something happen

that I believe is a radical departure from what is expected in a

democratic House.

The leader of the official opposition yesterday made reference to

what he believed was the Premier's orientation towards fanaticism or a

kind of ideological commitment to this privatization to the extent that

he was being unreasonable. I'm not here to suggest that the members on

this side of the House are without fault or that we are in some way

endowed with more of the good qualities of humanity than members on the

other side of the House, but clearly we are not addressing our public

duty and responsibility when we can sit back and watch one person, the

Premier of this province, carry out activities that are clearly a

subversion of the rights of the members of this Legislature.

[3:15]

I say that with regret, but I believe that the evidence is quite

clear and speaks for itself. We are attempting desperately to find ways

of debating issues that clearly should have been brought before this

Legislature.

I know that politics is the name of the game. I know the government

feels that the opposition will merely find ways to obstruct their

so-called progress, so that they can get on with the job. The Premier

yesterday, or just after the Speaker ruled that an emergency debate was

in fact appropriate for the members of this House to discuss something

as major as privatization, wholesale privatization of government,

literally.... I think we should say government, rather than government

services, government institutions or government departments, because we

are talking about the thin edge of the wedge, in my view, with respect

to what is happening in British Columbia and the right of citizens to

see their government behave in a way that allows access, dissent and

input on the part of the members who find themselves in the opposition

and, just as importantly, the other elected officials throughout the

province, the municipalities and in the regional boards and districts.

It is a pretty incredible period of time we're living in, and I wish

I could find the words to express the severity of the situation. I've

resisted allowing myself to become outraged, because I believe this is

a place for sanity, for reason and dialogue and for constructive

confrontation around issues that can be addressed and defined and

discussed in an open, democratic atmosphere. But when you think of what

is happening in this province as a result of this one person.... I

think members on both sides of the House would agree — perhaps quietly

on the government side, because of their belief that solidarity is the

best way to survive. But I'm sure that on an individual basis many of

them have cause to be concerned that they are dealing with someone who

has set himself above this place that we call the Legislature and is in

fact abusing the concept of the order-in-council.

My first thought when I read about the creation of these new

ministries of state was that, well, the government was elected to

govern. I'm sure they have checked with legal counsel, and they know

they are within their rights to do just about everything, despite the

fact that it may be uncustomary and against our traditions. But then I

thought: well, if an order-in-council can be used in this way, if an

order-in-Council can in fact transform the whole structure to which we

are elected, then what's the point of this place?

It's not a case of if you had come to the opposition, we would have

had open arms and been willing to embrace your programs and given you

100 percent support. That isn't the point. In fact, we may have been

able to make very little change to your overall plans and strategy. But

it's the perception that's important. This is where I believe the

Premier fails. Not only does he not recognize that democracy is a

fragile concept that requires serious husbandry of those principles

behind the scenes; in fact, we are experiencing someone who has

blatantly disregarded even the perceptions. He makes no pretence

whatsoever of being democratic. I'm sure the minister responsible for

intergovernmental affairs will attest to that, because just recently on

public television even that minister was attempting to defend the

order-in-council as a fundamental right of the executive council to

dictate what is going on in this province.

The issues we are dealing with in this bill are so numerous that it

would be literally impossible for us to address them — certainly on any

one principle, such as the one I just told you about. I just suggested

that miscellaneous statutes were pretty much the same as

orders-in-council, were in fact a way in which the government could

carry out

its activities with the least amount of participation by anyone else,

namely the opposition — should there be an opposition in the House at

the time.

[ Page 2787 ]

So I think that that is an abuse. That is something that should not

be used in the way it's being used. It is there for what it said, for

housekeeping, for routines. A miscellaneous statutes amendment act

should be used for matters that generally are not nocuous and that are

not going to be used to disguise ulterior motives, such as

section 19.

Looking at

section 19, one would wonder why the minister suddenly

needs all of these new powers to bring in regulations, to demand

through the regulations the right to call for what should be routine,

the reporting, the plans, the strategies of the railway, etc. One must

suspect that the real reason for these amendments is that at some point

in time BCR and Hydro railway and ski facilities and other related

government entities are going to be up for sale. So what can we expect?

According to the Premier, privatization means that everything is for

sale, including the government itself. Now we've been joking about it.

Sure, no one seriously believes that the government is going to sell

the Legislature, but the government has not come down with guidelines

saying: "These are the things that we have studied. These are the

things that we have analyzed, These are the details that we need in

order to make a responsible decision, and we can assure you that on a

cost-benefit basis, we can defend and justify every one of these

initiatives. If we are going to be privatizing health care or aspects

of the public school system or part or all of the road system in this

province, we can defend it and we can satisfy you that in no way will

there be an erosion in services and in cost-efficiency. We have all of

the safeguards in place. If you have any questions whatsoever with

respect to any of these procedures, address them in the Legislature.

That is your right and we want to ensure that you have that." Instead

we have a Premier who says: "If these members on the opposite side had

anything to say, they would have said it by now. I don't expect

anything new from them; and furthermore, if they have anything to say,

an hour is sufficient." I think this is an abominable affront to the

members of this House, and it's all being done by one person.

I can tell you that I don't feel very good about having to give what

clearly is a lecture. I know that I'm lecturing. but I'm telling you

that, regardless of your political stripe, surely you must love British

Columbia, you must love parliamentary democracy and the system which

has protected all of us, enough to at least give the appearance that

you care.

What we are experiencing in this province through this Premier is a

total subversion of the democratic process, making no pretence

whatsoever. It doesn't take an expert to begin to wonder why the

fanaticism, why the blindness. why the hellbent-for-election attitude

with respect to privatizing. Why wasn't it raised in the general

election? Why doesn't the government call an election on it if it's

that important? One has to be suspicious that there's an ulterior

motive or that the Premier is driven by something even more sinister,

maybe a personal reason, whatever that may be. It surely isn't

something that he's sharing with the House, and surely we have cause to

be outraged.

It is not just a case of trying to protect jobs and the security of

public servants, who should be protected, by all means. It's more than

that; it's what's going to happen. It's justified for the opposition to

be expressing concern that there is going to be doom and gloom ahead.

We are accused or using scare tactics. We should use scare tactics and

any other tactics that we can in order to bring public attention to

what's happening, because in a democracy we are all as safe as the

process we use.

If it is going to become the order of business in the future for the

government to operate by order-in-council, if we're going to have to

scramble through miscellaneous statutes amendment acts in order to find

out what the government is dealing with, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker,

that we may as well forget it, because we have very few rights — they

are eroding — in the opposition, to the point where the Premier is

really just thumbing his nose at this whole process. I find that an

offence not just to those of us on this side of the House, but to the

government itself.

We're going to be dealing with this situation, I am sure, for some

time to come, because we're barely past one year. We've got at least

three more years, maybe four, of the Premier and his tactics.

MR. CRANDALL: Good years.

MR. BARNES: One of the members suggests that they're going to

be good years. I'm sure that there will be some good despite the

Premier — to come from some of the things that are happening in this

government. Some good will come. Nothing is absolute; everything can

have its positive side. But I believe that the best way for us to

ensure that we have the options and the choices and the chance to

assess and evaluate good, bad and indifferent is that this be the

number one forum in which it happens, when it comes to the government

of the province.

It should not be happening the way it is in this province. We are

not informed. We do not know how to responsibly describe what the

government is doing, and the government itself can't do it. The

government merely states that it was elected to govern, that it has the

right to govern by executive council or by any other means it thinks

fit, and that for those of us who are not part of that government, it's

just too bad. That's what we're dealing with. I don't think those words

are intemperate or unreasonable or uninformed. I think there is ample

evidence to support them. I can tell you that for me personally, they

are an accumulation of experiences and observations over a long period

of time.

[3:30]

Perhaps I can use a parallel, Mr. Speaker, hoping to be in order,

with respect to how this government has operated its decentralization

program. I think about the initiatives by the former Minister of Human

Resources, who talked about the strategies that were being worked out

to decentralize the mental health institutions — Tranquille and

Woodlands primarily: Essondale and some of the other facilities

throughout the province — in order to give those patients a better

opportunity to be more integrated into the community, closer to their

families, closer to resources; to normalize their lives; to

deinstitutionalize them and get them into an atmosphere of being able

to feel some fulfilment, to experience what we describe nowadays as a

holistic life, not one constrained by the conditions that one finds

himself in in an institution. So the opposition, activist groups in the

community and concerned individuals were all in support of

decentralization of mental institutions. There wasn't a single person

who said no, but there were quite a few voices that said: "But before

you do, let's ensure that we have completed the strategy by which it

will take place. The process must be a complete package. Let's ensure

that we will not leave these mental health patients stranded."

That was reasonable, and that's all that we're saying about what you're doing with programs today. That's all we're

[ Page 2788 ]

saying you should do with your privatization schemes today: ensure

that we know what we're doing. Do you want another B.C. Resources

Investment Corporation fiasco? We don't want to rub it in your faces,

but surely you know yourselves that BCRIC was a disaster. It was a

horrible experience both for your supporters and for ours. We all know

that. Surely we are not going ram more of that BCRIC stuff down our

throats. Let's get smart.

MR. REE: Let's get off it.

MR. BARNES: Someone said: "Let's get off it." I can tell you,

Mr. Speaker, that the taxpayers can no longer afford these incompetent,

uncaring, irresponsible acts by this government. That's all they are.

When a member of the opposition stands very sanely and very rationally

and says to the Premier and to the government, "Give us the details;

show us...." We've all been through the public schools and the

post-secondary school systems, and we've been trained and educated to

sit down and debate rationally and discuss matters. Why do we have to

operate this way, behind closed doors and with secrecy? Why can't we

find out what's going on in this place?

Privatization. That means the right to control. That means certain

protections, certain secrecies. Are we saying that public services that

we've been able to deal with in an open atmosphere are now going to go

into the hands of people who would have the right to own them, and that

in effect we will be grovelling at the door while they get their just

profits from what was once public services? We should know. We don't

know. We're in the dark, and we cannot respond intelligently to our

constituents. There are no documents and no studies, and knowing what

the Premier feels on this subject, there will be no studies and no

documents. There will be no recourse for us in the opposition except to

oppose and use tactics which we prefer not to use, in order to bring

attention to what this government is doing. When the Leader of the

Opposition suggests that in the future it does not look good, that he's

using scare tactics.... I certainly support that approach. I commend

him because I think we have a duty to bring attention to issues of

serious concern.

In a decade from now, this place could be just another heritage

site, just another place where we come and go through the charades.

We're doing that now. We're seeing a proliferation of government

without debate. We're seeing the cost of government go up within the

executive chamber, but we're seeing the services go down. We're seeing

society at risk because we're not in a position to assess what is

happening.

It's been so out of control for so long that most of us no longer

bother to talk about the deficit that this province is suffering under

Social Credit. We've long since stopped seeing that, because the public

doesn't seem to care any more. After all, you have God's given right to

govern. You are the chosen people, the ones who get the free time on

CKNW. The rest of has have to grovel to get attention to what's going

on.

You've got the odd person over there dissenting, trying to speak

out, taking great chances but showing that they do have some

conscience. I think that the public must know that this Premier.... I

say it rests on his shoulders. There is no semblance of democracy;

there is nothing to suggest that he consults with his colleagues; and

there's nothing to suggest that his colleagues have any security

whatsoever when it comes to any initiatives in government policy. We

are suspicious that there is a grab for power by one person to the

detriment of this province.

So we predict that there may come a time when this is just a

charade, when government in British Columbia will belong to the private

sector, and it will be the right of those who have the monetary means

to control and manipulate the economy. It's not so far away; it's a

very real possibility.

Government must have a heart, and government should have compassion.

It shouldn't be just a semblance; it should be a real thing. Government

has a duty to come in here and face the opposition. It has a duty and a

responsibility to come in here and take its chances. It was given a

mandate; it was given the numbers. At least it should be willing to

come in and allow us to use the one means, the one resource we have,

and that's our ability to verbalize the issues, to speak about them, to

disseminate information to the public and to be called upon to express

our concern at any time. That is not happening.

This is why we say the concept of using statutes amendment acts is

being abused. This is why we say the order-in-council concept is being

abused. And this is why the opposition has used this opportunity to

debate Bill 59 the way it has, in order to bring through the back door

information and concern to the public that cannot be brought in through

the front door because this government is using closure on the rights

of members of this Legislature to debate issues of public concern.

We will certainly be voting against this bill.

MR. MESSMER: I have listened very intently to the debate on

this bill, and certainly to the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly), who

suggested that we go home this weekend and think about the bill and the

effect it had on the people of British Columbia. I'd like to say that I

did that. I went home and thought about the bill this weekend, but it's

the same that I have thought about for the past 11 years as an elected

municipal person and a businessman in British Columbia for the past 20

years. I believe that frustration is the difference between having an

active economy and having no economic base at all.

We talk about decentralization. I suppose this government could have

implemented decentralization by moving into each of the constituencies

one representative of each line ministry that we have here in Victoria.

That would have moved probably somewhere between 700 and 800 people

from the cities of Victoria and Vancouver out into the rest of our

constituencies. Our Premier has accomplished the same effect by moving

nine people and using the taxpayers of British Columbia as the

expertise behind them. I believe that this is not another level of

bureaucracy but simply a good business move.

We do have some regional differences in British Columbia. For

example, in the new region of the Thompson-Okanagan we have a knapweed

problem. It's taking over the rangeland so badly needed by our cattle.

How do we control that problem? It's a regional problem, but is it

really of high concern to the people in downtown Burnaby? I don't

really think it is.

Another one is our interior lakes, which take in more than one

constituency. We have a milfoil problem, a problem of immediate concern

to the people in the Okanagan because of our lifeblood, which is the

tourist industry. But is that really a problem in downtown Vancouver?

I doubt it.

[ Page 2789 ]

We talk about the treatment of effluent in the Okanagan chain, which

is certainly one matter that we're highly concerned with. Our belief is

that the treated water should be of higher quality than the receiving

water. I asked the member for Victoria if he thought the city of

Victoria had the same concerns about the effluent that we have in the

interior.

The list could go on and on, but I think even big government, Mr.

Speaker, has to learn from small government. If we go back to municipal

and regional councils — and I believe even the former mayor of

Vancouver would back me up on this — in order to attract business we

had to hire people outside the bureaucracy to assist us in talking with

the businessman who wished to invest in our community. The reason that

we had to do that was because the process was slow, and to businessmen

time is money. They can't afford that length of time. On many occasions

the former mayor of the city of Vancouver made the statement that you

have to have businessmen go talk with other businessmen to invest in

your community. The politician should only be there to open the door

and to introduce them. What we have done in regionalization is to hire

one person to talk to the people in a region to find out what problems

they have, to streamline the system, so that we do not lose them in the

interior of British Columbia — and that's who I'm speaking for at this

time, for Boundary-Similkameen.

It's much easier for those people in the Vancouver and Victoria

areas to talk about the fact that they can go directly to government.

It's much more difficult for a businessman in our area who is willing

to invest to have to wait to travel to Victoria and back, and wait some

length of time while that proposal sits on a desk in front of someone

down here. What we're talking about is streamlining a system that has

become very, very slow. I think we would all agree that the government

bureaucracy is not the fastest decision-making mechanism in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I honestly believe that decentralization will make our

areas that much stronger, that our economy will grow, and that because

of this we will be able to have more people working in our areas. I

support the bill.

MR. D'ARCY: I realize there are millions out there hanging on

our every word in here this afternoon. However, Mr. Speaker, I happen

to think that this is a very important debate, and I hope to be able to

make a positive contribution to it, particularly on behalf of my

constituents and the people in the Kootenay region.

Part of this bill before us will establish eight new parliamentary

secretaries. Last year or the year before, we had ten new parliamentary

secretaries established. Somehow, the province got along for the first

115 or so years without any parliamentary secretaries. We had a

government coming in, in the last few elections, proposing to reduce

the size of government. Yet we have this additional legislative burden

placed on people — to what end, we really don't know.

Within my own region, we have concerns — I would point out that

they're public concerns, not partisan political concerns — over exactly

what this is going to mean to us. Naturally, we look for positive

things. We were hoping good things would happen out of it. The problem

we see with the entire so-called regional decentralization is that,

within the region, we already have — either at the federal, the

municipal, or in some cases the provincial level — many of the services

which are supposed to be delivered through the parliamentary

secretaries and the regional ministers of state.

[3:45]

Perhaps members of the provincial government believe they can

provide these services more efficiently. Perhaps they think they could

do it cheaper. Perhaps they think they know better than any of these

agencies which have been in place — and, I might say, have been quite

responsive to local needs — over the last few years.

I would like to mention, in particular, that in one of the

communities in my riding, in Castlegar. we have a business development

centre. This is funded not through Economic Development, not through

the federal government, but through the Ministry of Advanced Education

and Job Training. Basically, it's a Selkirk College operation and it's

an education facility to assist people who wish to get into business

but really don't have the background for it.

In the city of Trail, working throughout the Regional District of

Kootenay-Boundary. we have a very successful Community Futures program

that is quite well endowed with federal money. What is different about

what the province intends to do? Firstly, the Community Futures

program, while it's had some labour pains, is working very well, and

it's extremely responsive and tailored to what the region wants. Most

importantly, though, from the public's point of view, there are

clear-cut guidelines as to what their objectives are and what their

limitations are.

In terms of regional development provincially, it would be an

understatement to say that guidelines are somewhat vague. In fact, all

we know is that there is a million dollars to start with, apparently

for promotion brochures and get-togethers for people with community

interests throughout the region, and there will be more money coming

down the tube later on, presumably in this spring budget, for actual

development. Nobody knows what the guidelines are. Nobody knows what

the objectives are. Most importantly, from the point of view of the

public, there is no public scrutiny. One of the issues....

Interjection.

MR. D'ARCY: I hear one of the intermittent caterwaulers on my

extreme left saying that they're not going to shovel money out of the

back of a truck. What we and the citizens of British Columbia want is

some sort of defensible comprehensive guidelines and some sort of rules

regarding the expenditures of public money. We have already heard over

the past 12 months that the present Social Credit government has been

in office, and for years under other Social Credit governments, how we

have to lower the deficit that they ran up.

We all know that one of the ways they're proposing to do that in the

short immediate run is to contract out some essential government

services. My constituents — and I think I can say this for the whole

Kootenay region — are not too happy about seeing essential government

services contracted out and the money used, essentially. In ways that

simply add another layer of bureaucracy and decision-making over what

is already there and working quite well, thank you very much.

Naturally we want new things. We want new assistance. But let's

remember that we want to be able to help ourselves. We don't want

government doing things for us and making the rules. We want programs

which are tailored to our own

[ Page 2790 ]

needs. Because there are no guidelines, objectives or provisions for

public scrutiny for this money, I and a great many of my constituents

have concerns about this program.

Mr. Speaker, I would have no objection to a provincial program that

was doing new and different things, that had clear set of objectives,

that was not going to duplicate what the provincial government is doing

through the Advanced Education and Job Training, what the federal

government is doing through the Community Futures program and the

Federal Business Development Bank, what local government has been doing

for years under the industrial development officers who have been in

the employ of various municipal bodies throughout the region — I might

say, in the main, funded with grants that originate through both the

federal and provincial governments.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to the business development centres I have

mentioned and the Community Futures program, I would point out that the

province — or some of the spokesmen on behalf of the province —

indicates that there is going to be development money acting as a

banker of last resort. This is a concern we have, because we already

have two bankers of last resort within the region, just as I'm sure

most of the rest of you have in your ridings. We have the Federal

Business Development Bank, and we have the federal arm of Community

Futures, which is the business development centre — essentially a

lending agency — under very clear-cut guidelines and under very close

scrutiny as to what they do with their public funds. We all know that,

where public funds are involved, there need to be not just reasonable

checks and balances but also ways to safeguard the public interest as

to what happens with these fairly large amounts of federal funds.

Since these agencies are doing a very good job at the local level

now, and have been doing so, everyone's asking: "Why do we need another

decision-making process, and what will its function be?" After all,

right now there is shared risk. Let's be honest about this. It is

generally conceded that if you have one success out of ten when the

banker of last resort comes in to help a business.... Remember, it

usually isn't because they have been turned down in their entirety with

the business proposal by the private sector financiers. When I say the

private sector, I'm talking about the regular banks and credit unions.

It's usually because the banks and credit unions will not provide

enough financing or startup money to get the business off the ground.

That's where the Federal Business Development Bank comes in, and that's

where the business development centre money comes in.

Mr. Speaker, while we concede that there is shared risk here, not

total risk, of the public funds, we also know that we're really only

looking at one real success, maybe, out of ten — hopefully two or three

real successes. But do we really want to shore up with public money

anywhere in the province the kinds of businesses that are going to

constantly rely on government assistance? Do we really want those kinds

of businesses? We don't in the Kootenays. We want businesses that are

viable from the word go, where the people involved have managerial

skills, where they have not only identified a market but are able to

market their product and distribute it. We want people to understand

cost control, whether they are producing goods or services. Basically,

as I'm sure everyone does, we want businesses and small industries that

are going to fly on their own.

Mr. Speaker, we don't see any of that in the guidelines that we're

getting from the provincial government. We already have agencies right

in town that through the Community Futures level provide technical

advice. They provide essentially what in the trade is termed

hand-holding advice and assistance and encouragement. In some cases

they have to advise people that they really don't think they have such

a viable operation, and they have people who can and do approve, demand

and get business plans.

Mr. Speaker, I don't see any of that in the regional development

proposals that the province is putting forth. We all know that they are

already funded with a million bucks apiece, $8 million in total, by

special warrant — without public scrutiny, without guidelines, without

a clear-cut set of objectives other than a very general set of

objectives, which, as I pointed out, certainly within my region and I

believe throughout the rest of the province are being ably provided for

by this plethora of agencies in the main funded by the federal

government, but to a lesser degree funded by local government and the

province through different ministries, which leads to another question

that can be begged out of this, Mr. Speaker. The provincial assistance

programs already in existence through Economic Development, Tourism

and, as I mentioned, Advanced Education and Job Training: are they to

be cancelled or rolled into this? Or are they to stay in place?

Mr. Speaker, one thing we say in the southeastern part of the province is:

if it ain't broke, don't fix it. We have at times gotten impatient with

the federal Community Futures program over the last few years, waiting for it

to get functioning and to be effective. We find now that the wait was worthwhile,

because in both the West and East Kootenay the Community Futures program is

working extremely well. We would like to see the province work with those people.

We would like to see the province come on side with what we already have in

place on the ground, rather than simply going in and setting up — which the

province wants to do, apparently — a new bureaucracy on the ground to do some

of the same things.

Mr. Speaker, we also have major concerns in the Kootenays about some

of the services provided by government and about what the government's

intentions are. Does the government intend, under the guise of the

regionalization thing, to reduce or dismantle some of the services that

we have now throughout the region?

On October 23 the government of B.C. published a multipage document

which outlined the short- and long-term plans for changes in the

administration of various government facilities. I think they called

them "action plans." Yesterday the Finance minister (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) said that there was no intention of cutting back any

services anywhere, and that it had not appeared in any document. I

liked what he had to say, Mr. Speaker; I really liked what he had to

say. The problem is that I didn't find him very convincing.

In the government's own October 23 statement, they talked about

controlling education costs. Mr. Speaker, in our region we know that

our education costs are going up simply because of inflation. If you

cap education costs, it means that within the region that's going to be

served by the minister of state and parliamentary secretary we are

going to have reduced education services, if the intent is carried

through. The only government intent we have here is to cap education

costs.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

[ Page 2791 ]

Another part of the statement talks about capping health care costs. Throughout

the region we, once again as with the rest of the province, have a population

whose average age is increasing. We like to think that our health care costs

are not going up as fast as our gross product from that part of the province,

as I think is true throughout the province: health care costs are not going

up as fast, in spite of the ageing population, as the gross provincial product.

But when we see statements about capping health care costs, we are concerned

that our budgets for health care are going to be frozen at 1987 levels. How

else can we construe it? That's exactly what it says.

The government document also talks about capping GAIN costs. Well,

we don't want to see GAIN costs. We would like to see fewer and fewer

people on GAIN everywhere in the province, especially in the Kootenays,

so that GAIN costs can be reduced. The fact is that the government is

not doing anything for the economy, and the fact is that in the short

run, again because of inflation, it's impossible to cap those costs.

We have concerns about our transportation system within the region.

I know there has been a lot of discussion in here about safety on the

highways. In the Kootenays we have the heaviest snowfalls and the

highest passes anywhere in British Columbia. Our winter highway

maintenance, and to some degree our summer maintenance, are incredibly

important not only to the transportation needs of the community and

occupational needs in terms of people's ability to get to and from

work, but also to their ability to move around safely and even to get

out of the region. The nature of the valleys and the weather indicate

that we have many days in the dark months of the year when the air

services are simply not operating, and the only way in and out of the

region is by highway. In fact, I don't remember any days in the last 27

years when highway access has been closed. Even when the Salmo-Creston

was closed briefly, you always had a ferry alternative.

Inland ferries is another area that that document of October 23

talked about which has concerned us — on the regional basis covered by

these parliamentary secretaries and ministers. That document talked

about reduction of services, about user fees, and about the elimination

of some services. Within my region, within West Kootenay alone — we are

not even talking about East Kootenay — we have seven freshwater

ferries: four on the Columbia, three on the Kootenay; five of these are

cable and two are basically free-water ferries. These are essential

transportation links within the region. When we see government

documents talk about a fee structure, about privatization, about

cutbacks in services, we say these are essential public services.

Contracting out or selling off or fees is an abrogation of government

trust that we've had in the region for many years, going back to the

first Social Credit government, which established many of these

services. They established them without a fee structure because they

recognized they were an important part of the highway system in the

southern interior part of the province.

Now that I've worked my way through my introductory comments, I

realize I have a few more moments left to me. However, I recognize that

there has been an agreement between the House Leaders that this chamber

— I have to consult my notes, Mr. House Leader — should adjourn debate

until the next sitting of the House.

Mr. D'Arcy moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: My best wishes to our dear friends opposite. With that I move adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 4:01 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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