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)

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1987

Morning Sitting

[ Page

2829 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Heart surgery waiting-lists. Mrs. Boone –– 2829

Heart surgery funding for Royal Columbian Hospital. Ms. A. Hagen –– 2829

Government funding. Mr. Williams –– 2830

National day care policy. Ms. Marzari –– 2830

Private Members' Statements

B.C. Council for the Family. Mr. Rabbitt –– 2831

Hon. Mr. Dueck

Mr. Cashore

Privatization. Mr. Vant –– 2832

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Mr. Lovick

Regionalization versus democracy. ML Kempf –– 2834

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

Centralization. Mr. Blencoe –– 2836

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm

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

(Hon. B.R. Smith) –– 2837

Ms. A. Hagen

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. Kempf

Mr. Skelly

Hon. Mr. Strachan

Ms. Campbell

Mr. Miller

The House met at 10:09 a.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. HAGEN: It's a great pleasure for me this morning to

welcome a group of young men and young women from the Comox valley who

are members of the 386th Royal Canadian Air Squadron from Comox. I'd

like to introduce at this time Captain Forsyth, Lieutenant Martin and

Second Lieutenant Melanca. Would the House please make them all welcome.

HON. MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to make a

special welcome to a gentleman in the gallery today, Mr. Wayne

Sterloff. He's the chairman and chief executive officer of B.C. Film.

He's visiting with me today.

Oral Questions

HEART SURGERY WAITING-LISTS

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Health. Yesterday

in this House the minister made reference to heart surgery as only a

"trendy status symbol" in health care. Will the minister tell British

Columbians which of the 400 patients on heart surgery waiting-lists in

this province, in his view, should be denied surgery?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear in

this House that I did not say that heart surgery was trendy. I did not

say that. I said there was a difference of opinion in the medical

fraternity. Some physicians are saying.... In fact, I read that

article. If you didn't listen.... I did not say that I believed that; I

said this is what some doctor's opinion is. I want to make that clear.

It wasn't my opinion.

MRS. BOONE: The minister interprets things a little differently from the rest of British Columbians here.

The minister is seeking new laws which give him the right to deny

British Columbians health care. The minister has told this House that

there is nothing sacred when it comes to health care. By what authority

has the minister decided that 400 British Columbians on heart surgery

waiting-lists today will not receive the vital health care they need

now?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to speak to

innuendos and to things that perhaps I stated that came from an

article, and relate that to the statements I made. I read from this

article, and I gave someone a copy. You can have copies and read it for

yourself; you can also phone the doctor if you wish. I've also had

other doctors tell me personally about the waiting-list and that some

perhaps should not be on the waiting-list, but as I explained very

clearly yesterday, that is up to the physician and not me. I've said

that how many times in the House? It is not my opinion. I don't make

the decisions on who should have the surgery now and who should wait

until next week.

As far as the waiting-list is concerned, I think I also mentioned in the House

yesterday that we allocated funds for 2,200 and some-odd open-heart surgeries

last year. That was for a 12-month period. In that 12-month period only 1,700-and-some

surgeries were performed. There were many reasons why. There were shortages

of critical-care nurses and professionals. There was also a lineup; sonic doctors

had a longer lineup than others. There was also a shortage of beds; there was

a shortage of many things. But it wasn't just in one area. For example,

you take the Victoria hospital: it is only about three weeks in arrears with

open-heart surgery. I'm saying that we estimated very accurately the number

of people needing open-heart surgery, but the hospitals — for reasons unknown

to them at the time they made that prediction and unknown to me — weren't

able to perform. That's where the blockage is. We're trying to correct

it now, and I'm putting it into the estimates for next year to perhaps open

up another open-heart surgery facility.

MRS. BOONE: The minister obviously isn't listening to his

hospitals, because the hospitals have told you. Mr. Minister, that

their overall budgets aren't high enough to allow them to perform all

these surgeries. Surely you can take some of this $8 million that you

are giving to set up your statedoms in this province and put it towards

health care. Has the minister consulted with his government regarding

the $8 million that is used for parties in this province that could be

put into health care'?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, as far as not listening to the

hospitals, I don't know who visits hospitals more — my opposition

critic or myself. I have travelled the province from one end to the

other. and I think I've visited just about every hospital. I've been in

contact with every one of them by letter or by telephone and so have my

people, so you cannot accuse me of not listing hospitals. because I

think I've done more.... In the period of time that I've been minister,

I've seen more hospitals. more doctors and more board chairmen than any

other minister in this period of time.

[10:15]

If you're talking about the $8 million, I think that's silly, and I'm not going to comment on that.

HEART SURGERY FUNDING

FOR ROYAL COLUMBIAN HOSPITAL

MS. A. HAGEN: I have a question to the Minister of Health.

The Royal Columbian Hospital has two operating rooms awaiting

government funding to allow them to perform up to 400 heart surgery

operations a year. Given the heart surgery crisis in this province,

will the Minister of Health provide funding for the Royal Columbian

Hospital so that they can get on with this lifesaving surgery? They're

ready to go, Mr. Minister. Are you?

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to act a double if I have to be up here every day on the double.

The question that was raised about the Royal Columbian is true.

However, even now, if we gave them the green light today, they would

not be in operation for months down the road. Also, the shortage of

critical-care nurses is not addressed just by opening another ward. But

I think I mentioned a little earlier that we are considering — and I'm

going to put it into the estimates for next year — that we will

probably have another hospital to perform that surgery. Just so we

haven't got three doing all the operations, it may be better to spread

it out over four than three. That's something for the

[ Page 2830 ]

future, and I'm not sure how many dollars I'll get for that or whether in fact that's the plan.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING

MR. WILLIAMS: I have a question to the Minister of Finance,

Mr. Speaker, the incredible Minister of Finance who says: "It is not a

pot of money; it is only $1 million." C.D. Howe was defeated when he

said: "What's a million?" This man is saying: "What's $8 million?" Tell

me, Mr. Minister — through you, Mr. Speaker — how many coronary artery

bypasses would have been funded with this $8 million if it had not been

used this way?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I'm at a loss to understand the reference

to the million dollars. If someone could refresh my memory, I might be

able to more adequately respond to it.

MR. WILLIAMS: The minister is reported in this morning's

press as making this statement. Clearly, what's a million? What's eight

million? Mr. Minister, when are you going to bring some guidelines and

end the kind of madness and foolishness in terms of spending and

parties under the Provincial Secretary and the like? When are we going

to have some guidelines? When are we going to have some legality in

terms of public spending in British Columbia?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I would love to be able to give one of my

full and complete answers if I properly understood the source of the

question. The press report he refers to deals with a quote. I'm not

clear; was I supposed to have made the quote, Mr. Speaker, or some

other cabinet minister? And if that's the case, in what context?

MR. WILLIAMS: I might quote, Mr. Speaker. He's quoted in this morning's Times-Colonist :

"It is not a pot of money; it is only $1 million." The money was put up

front so people would know the government was serious. The hungry

school children in Vancouver would like to know if you're serious about

them, Mr. Minister — will you put money up for them?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The reference now, I understand, refers

to the creation of the regional ministers of state. In that context, we

went through that in a question period a few days ago and I gave a full

and complete answer. I'm pleased to repeat it if that's the

questioner's desire, although I suspect it isn't.

Dealing with the question of the urgent need for some particular

spending in the area of health, the Minister of Health has fully

canvassed that. You have been told that funding was provided to do a

greater number of open-heart cases in this province than were

performed, and he told you why the money wasn't spent for that purpose.

You cannot accuse this government of not providing adequate funding for

that level of service.

MR. WILLIAMS: The question is to the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

When are you going to legalize this $8 million funding activity that

does not yet have guidelines? When are you going to set some proper

priorities for these eight rampant ministries of state? Have you

prepared the legislation? Have you prepared the means of legalizing

your activity to date?

NATIONAL DAY CARE POLICY

MS. MARZARI: The federal government has just announced a $5

billion child care package for the country. It's woefully inadequate,

but it does offer some opportunity. Since the Minister of Social

Services isn't here and did promise, the last time I asked a child care

question, to bring a negotiated package to this House before he went to

Ottawa, I'm asking the Premier: are there going to be more new child

care spaces in British Columbia with this new package, or are we going

to be stuck with the number that we have now, 100,000 short of the need?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I think we're making great progress in

a number of areas, and I'm very pleased to receive this particular

question. Let me assure the member that what we're seeing in British

Columbia now is growth in a number of areas largely because we're

making enormous gains in economic growth, as was provided, I'm sure, to

all members by the latest statistics. We've seen the greatest job

growth, we've seen enormous growth in all areas of the economy, and it

will continue to be this way. With that, no doubt, the demand will come

for further day care facilities, which we've already seen and which

we're attempting to respond to. We'll await the return of the minister

from Ottawa, where he has been meeting with the federal minister to

discuss all aspects of the newly proposed program. We'll certainly get

a full report then, and I'm sure you'll want to question him in the

House.

We will be addressing the opportunities that may exist in the new

program as announced by the federal government and expanding on the

program in order to respond to the enormous growth that's taking place

in the B.C. economy right now, and the growth of jobs and people

arriving here from other places and how we can provide further social

programs to them.

MS. MARZARI: Is the Premier predisposed, committed, does he

have any values that would give us any indication as to whether or not

there will be new day care spaces in British Columbia?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, we've seen a commitment in

the 1987-88 budget to growth in day care. We increased the budget for

day care, and we now have a new program to consider which was initiated

federally and which obviously will assist and make opportunities

available to all the provinces across Canada. As I said to the member,

with all the growth now taking place in the B.C. economy, we'll see new

pressures, no doubt, because there will be a further increase in

population, and that brings with it certain demands. All aspects will

be considered when the minister returns. We'll consider what the

opportunities are in the federal program. We as a government are

committed to providing the strongest economy and the best social

programs for those in need of them.

MS. MARZARI: May I suggest that the net amount this province

invests in day care at this point is $12.5 million. You recover 50

percent from the feds; so you can say that you invest $25 million, out

of a total budget of $10 billion in this province. Mr. Premier, how

many people on your side of the House have children under 12?

[ Page 2831 ]

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, if it's extremely important to

the member and the NDP caucus that we determine how many members here

have children under 12, we can do a survey and make these figures

available to you at a later date.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would ask leave for the Special Committee to Appoint an Auditor-General to sit later today while the House is in session.

Leave granted.

Private Members' Statements

B.C. COUNCIL FOR THE FAMILY

MR. RABBITT: What I have to say today follows quite closely to the last question that was asked.

In a time of highly controversial subjects being debated in this

House, I would like to speak on what I consider an important social

issue, that being the family unit. The family unit is the backbone of

society; it's a vital cog that supports stability, and a sense of

well-being is required.

The costs emotionally, socially and economically of marriage

breakdown and family breakup are devastating. Obviously, in today's

rapidly changing society, great strains are placed on many families. In

the 1985 poll commissioned by Maclean's and Decima

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam on a point of order. I'd ask Hansard to stop the time for this member while we listen to the point of order.

MR. CASHORE: The hon. member is speaking on an extremely

important subject. I have the responsibility of responding, and I'm

having a difficult time hearing what he is saying.

MR. SPEAKER: I think all members should take notice of that. The Speaker was just about to ask for quiet.

MR. RABBITT: A 1985 poll commissioned by Maclean's

and Decima reports 66 percent of all Canadians believe that in years to

come the family unit will become even more important than it is today.

Presently many organizations do a considerable amount of work in

helping to sustain the family unit in British Columbia.

One organization that deserves special mention is the B.C. Council

for the Family, and I am proud to say that I sit on the board of

directors of this fine organization. The B.C. Council for the Family is

a non-profit, non-denominational group which was incorporated in 1977.

It is the only provincial agency wholly concerned with the well-being

of the family.

I would like also to point out that it has representatives of every

sector of our society and, in fact, every political party on its board.

The B.C. Council of the Family is linked in almost every community in

the province through individual, family. group members, affiliated

agents or contact persons. Membership alone represents over 100

communities.

Our government seriously supports the work of the council by

providing a substantial operating grant. Funding for work done by the

council also comes through other sources, both private and public. The

work of the council is based on the belief that families, through

changing and adapting as they have done through history, do have great

strengths and if given help when needed can be a major force for the

betterment of society.

The council provides various services to support and strengthen

families. For example, it provides a forum where responsible

representatives communicate with each other, to government and to

voluntary agencies. They are concerned about the needs of the family

and help in preparing plans and programs to meet society's needs.

The Council for the Family stimulates and helps facilitate self-help

projects to support and strengthen families in our province. The

council, in association with other bodies, helps to further public

knowledge and to promote public concern about the well-being of the

family. One area where the Council for the Family does considerable

work is in helping to facilitate and promote stable marriage

relationships.

The council also has written numerous handbooks on marriage and

family life. The council also works with various ministries of

government to assist in bringing for-ward even better government

programs. A successful marriage is a combination of many factors. Often

individuals who are contemplating marriage are unfamiliar with what's

involved in sustaining a long-lasting, successful relationship.

As a result they are often in need of assistance and counselling in

some form. Marriage counselling is not only for those couples whose

relationship is strained; many couples go for marriage counselling when

they feel they have struck upon a problem and they just do not have the

ability to resolve it themselves.

[10:30]

There is a wide variety of programs to assist couples with their

relationships. There are various types of marriage encounter programs

sponsored by churches to help couples focus and rediscover the good

things in their relationship. As well. couple-communication courses are

available through local colleges. Marriage enrichment groups are

available through churches and other organizations.

I think all of us would agree that united families contribute to a healthy community and a healthy society.

Nevertheless, in today's society there are disturbing examples of

marriage breakup. Teen-age marriages, for example, tend to end up in

divorce more often than not. Lack of educational and job skills, along

with premarital pregnancy, place severe pressures on such early

marriage. Often such individuals can benefit from marriage counselling.

Family breakup has become too frequent an occurrence. For example, in

1985 there were over 8,300 divorces in the province. I am pleased to

say that this has turned around from 1982, when the figures were well

over 10,000. However, I believe that as a government we should be

working more closely with groups such as the council in developing

marriage counselling programs. Choosing a marriage partner is probably

the most important decision one will make in life. Therefore I

encourage our government to continue to work with the council to

establish a marriage preparation program that is

[ Page 2832 ]

second to none. This program can save society thousands of dollars and make thousands of lives and marriages happier.

I consider the family concept essential in our society and ask all

of you in this building to consider and support the B.C. Council of the

Family.

HON. MR. DUECK: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to that

for just a few moments. The B.C. Council for the Family is something

that we support, and since it comes under my ministry, I would like to

mention a few things that we're involved in at the present time.

We agree that the trend once again is to a family unit. It has

become fashionable once again for two people to marry, stay together

and raise a family. This is certainly true for those of us who have

been brought up in that atmosphere, that we want to continue in this

particular area.

We value the input of the B.C. Council for the Family in various

areas of policy-making. They are involved in the policy review that I

am now doing on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies. The council

facilitates marriage stability, and it also helps churches in

furthering their committee of counselling. It also provides counselling

for the role of mother and father with children. I think this is an

area that needs much support and further help. Their support to

churches has been known for many years, but I think they're getting

involved more and more as time goes by.

We in the government and the Ministry of Health certainly support

the B.C. Council for the Family, and my ministry is becoming more and

more involved, especially in the programs I just mentioned. I thank the

member for his report, and I hope that we can continue working with the

B.C. Council for the Family.

MR. CASHORE: The member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt) and I

have often had the opportunity to discuss our mutual concern for family

life in British Columbia and our respect and admiration for the

excellent work done by the B.C. Council for the Family. I think it

would be appropriate to mention especially the work of Dr. Carol

Matusicky, the executive director, and the Reverend Rob Lees, who

chairs the B.C. Council for the Family.

I would also like to say that it is a worthwhile thing that the

government does support this instrument, which helps support an

institution under a great deal of pressure in our technological

society. Having said that, I think that we need to recognize that the

area of concern about what is happening in family relationships is

indeed vast, for we are talking here not only about a traditional

nuclear family including a mother, father and children, but about the

extended family, about the blended family — where two families merge

when new relationships are developed — about the single-parent family,

and about a unit in society which we could call a single person; yet it

is important that that person be recognized in the same way as a family

is recognized, as an entity of worth and value in our community.

One of my real concerns with regard to the family is that the work

of the B.C. council is not so much to support the family to be a family

as it is to enable resources to be available to help those families

bring out the best fulfilment they can in their family unit. One of the

very real problems we have today is the element of poverty which many

families are experiencing. So one of the ways we can support the B.C.

Council for the Family is to recognize that they recognize the kinds of

pressures that many families are under, as they try to fulfil their

responsibilities.

Certainly the importance of marriage counselling and preparation is

extremely important, but there's only so much that can be done when we

still have a situation in the province that means the gap is widening

between the rich and the poor. This can be supported statistically by

Stats Canada; this is really the case. As the Christmas season is

approaching, there are many families in British Columbia that think

nothing of spending $75 or $150 for a toy, and there are other families

who are looking at not even that amount of Christmas bonus they will be

receiving on their income assistance.

So I appreciate the points the hon. member has made, and I support

the encouragement for this government to continue to support the B.C.

Council for the Family.

MR. RABBITT: As a government committed to the people, our

government provides many programs specifically designed to meet the

needs of the family. Our government has in place a women's secretariat,

which is responsible for the coordination of all government initiatives

relating to women's issues.

The Youth Advisory Council acts as a liaison with groups in

communities throughout the province and solicits ideas from young

people on common goals, ideas and potential opportunities.

The provincial government is putting $3 million into public schools

this year for a family life program; the program operates from grades 7

to 12. The government is also committed to introducing legislation to

enforce maintenance payments for abandoned families.

We have a deputy ombudsman for children, who coordinates

investigation into services provided for children through the

Ministries of Education, Social Service and Housing, Health,

Attorney-General, and Advanced Education and Job Training.

The B.C. Council for the Family has taken a positive step forward

and, in cooperation with the government, has been helping to strengthen

the family unit in British Columbia. I certainly support them and ask

all those in this assembly to do so as well.

PRIVATIZATION

MR. VANT: I'm delighted this morning to have the opportunity

to speak to the House on privatization. Being a private member on the

government side, I'm getting used to hearing all kinds of pink herrings

from the socialist corner of the House. This morning I want to deal

with some of the red herrings that we've been hearing from them

recently on privatization.

We hear from the socialist corner of the House that privatization

means giving up control to monopoly suppliers. That's rubbish. Properly

managed, it means competition and better services and better prices. We

also hear that privatization means putting everything on the block.

More rubbish.

MR. MILLER: That's what the Premier said.

MR. VANT: We said we would examine everything, and we will.

That process is being guided by six privatization principles that will

determine what's on the table and what's not. I could spell out those

principles, because if the members in the socialist corner would read

them and remember them,

[ Page 2833 ]

they might begin to understand what privatization

is and what it isn't. Instead, what I'm going to do is table those

principles so every member of the House can read them for himself.

Because we established those principles and because they are the

ground rules under which we operate, we are proud of privatization. Of

course, there has been this ongoing demand for debate on privatization,

and the people in the socialist corner have been saying that

privatization somehow is a big, deep, dark secret. That's more rubbish.

We couldn't be any more frank than we've been. It has been out there in

the open for a long, long time. Indeed, during the last election our

mandate was to downsize government and promote free enterprise, so it

has been very up front. And the process since the announcement has been

as open and as public as possible, including communicating fully with

our employees as developments occur; after all, there is the weekly

newsletter. I can assure you we'll keep working to get that information

to people who are willing to be informed.

Let me now turn to some examples of the kind of misinformation the

socialists like to disseminate. The Leader of the Opposition — and

also, I believe, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) —

said government is selling off Hydro's research and development

division in the face of a report recommending there should be no sale.

Well, that's wrong again; that's incorrect again. The report doesn't

say privatization shouldn't take place, but suggests that work be done

to ensure the research and development division's viability as a

business. The Thorne Ernst and Whinney report in fact says Hydro could

be merged with B.C. Research to become a substantive provincial

research entity that could achieve export success and sell services to

the private sector. This toothless pit bull gang in the socialist

corner of the House has to try to remember that a key to the

privatization process is to ensure that the business entity will be

viable, whether through a merger with an existing firm or by some other

means.

[10:45]

One other point for those in opposition to the plan to place

Riverview patients in the community — not overnight but very gradually.

Riverview is to be transferred to a non-profit society, and a $77

million annual grant for operating will be given; that's not

privatization. You should be aware that the proposal has been fully

endorsed by the Canadian Mental Health Association. There's widespread

support for this move among those who work with the mentally ill, and

I'd like to offer just a couple of quotes.

They held a public meeting to debate this proposal, and an officer

of the Friends of Schizophrenics society went on record as saying:

"It's always better for patients to live in the community rather than

an institution." Chloe Lapp, executive director of the Canadian Mental

Health Association, says: "Moving mental health care into the community

rather than isolating it in a large institution such as Riverview is an

idea whose time has come." I think that has been well proven by the

tremendous success of our initiative to deinstitutionalize Tranquille.

We will also provide appropriate levels of service and certainly

maintain standards of public safety in all our privatization

initiatives.

We recognize that we won't achieve these gains if we privatize

badly. That's why our past experience and the mass of experience in

other jurisdictions is so important.

MR. LOVICK: You mean BCRIC?

MR. VANT: No, there are many successful.... We will follow

the good examples. Many other jurisdictions in Canada and around the

world are privatizing successfully. Why" Because privatization is

working.

Here's what one government leader said after privatization: "Under

our previous system there was a morass of stifling regulations and red

tape for civil servants. These are gone now. The economic performance

of these privatized operations had been hopeless. They had been

suffering terrific losses. which of course the taxpayer was

subsidizing. You can't run a country on that basis."

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: The member has very well stated the

policy of government with respect to privatization. Ws a thrust of this

government which certainly is already reflected in the economic

recovery that is taking place, which is probably beyond what we see

anywhere in Canada today. We've seen a growth in employment in British

Columbia like nowhere else in this country. We've seen more activity in

the manufacturing sector than we've seen in any other province in

Canada. This thrust, along with the decentralization, the review of

programs, the restructuring of government, will create economic

activity that will provide security for our young people, that will

open up a whole new field for new industry. That, added to the

opportunities that exist with free trade, will provide us with a sound

economy for years to come.

I realize that whenever you have these sorts of changes, there is

fear — particularly with those who live on fear and who sort of wish to

promote the fear for their own political gain. But having put that

aside, the long-term benefit is far more important than what we're

hearing from the other side as criticism.

I'm very pleased that we've had recognition as well from the largest

union in this province, which. Incidentally, has an executive, just as

government has an executive. That executive met and made a decision

that somehow they would offer whatever moneys required in order to make

a bid for this particular undertaking which has previously been

government. They too would become private entrepreneurs. They too would

be working in an economy where the more you give, the harder you work,

the greater the interest and personal involvement, then the greater the

productivity, the more you see done, the less it costs and the better

off we all are.

I'm very pleased that we're seeing a growing interest in

privatization. I'm very pleased that we're seeing a response in the

economy. I'm very pleased that there's a perception developing not only

in this province but across Canada and elsewhere in the world that we

have in British Columbia a government that is not afraid to take on

change, that is not afraid to work in a world where we've seen a high

level of unemployment sort of accepted as the norm. that is not afraid

to say: no longer can we continue to spend the money that belongs to

our children and their children; we must act responsibly; we must cut

the cost of government and the size of government. Support is coming

from all quarters for what we're doing, and because of this there's a

confidence developing that will see new industry, growth of existing

industry, more jobs, a chance and a future for the young people of this

province. We, as a government — as was expressed by the hon. member —

will build for our province an economy that is second to none anywhere

in Canada.

[ Page 2834 ]

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Speaker, amidst the rest of that speech,

which we heard before at the last Social Credit convention, there were

a couple of nuggets of substance. There was actually substance there,

and I'd like to deal with a bit of the substance. For example, the

Premier makes the point that the GEU is suddenly on side in endorsing

privatization. That is simply not the case. Every single statement made

by the president of the GEU has said: "We are categorically,

unequivocally opposed to the privatization measure." For the Premier of

this province to suggest otherwise, it seems to me, is inexcusable.

I want also to remind the Premier, when he gets into that process of

saying, "We are not afraid," that fools do indeed rush in where angels

fear to tread, and we see the evidence right there. When the Premier

talks about the thrust of the new economy, the only thing that comes to

mind is that we can see the thrust, all right. We are being skewered

and screwed by that particular thrust, thank you very much. The

predicament is that the Premier continues to tell us....

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member that time under standing orders is up.

MR. LOVICK: I also regret that, Mr. Speaker; I would I had more.

MR. VANT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, privatization is spreading around

the world, because it works. I continue my quotes of that leader in one

country. He said: "We found there was overwhelming support, because the

public saw greater efficiency and a lower government payroll." These

are very interesting comments, because they came from a dyed-in

the-wool socialist, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the Deputy Prime Minister of

New Zealand's labour socialist government.

We have conceived our plans very carefully over many months. I want

to give you an example, too: the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) is putting in place special training programs to upgrade the

contract-management skills of senior managers in government. You have

to agree that a highly developed contract management is an essential

component of successful privatization.

Before I table our statement of principles, Mr. Speaker, I am

confused by the second member for Nanaimo (Mr. Lovick). He is quoted in

the Vancouver Sun as saying: "There are probably some

very good arguments for privatizing. If, for example, you were going to

make something worker-owned and -controlled, bringing it closer to

economic democracy, how can you argue with that'?"

Well, it's our government policy to favour the employees, because we

want to bank on their expertise and their experience. We are not

leaving out our employees. We welcome these employee initiatives.

There has been mention too about a fire sale. Believe me, there's no

fire sale. The 12-month time-frame applying to the highway and bridge

maintenance is not carved in stone. We're going to proceed cautiously

and carefully. Employees know where the inefficiencies lie. Employees

of the Highways department have approached me and said that up to 40

percent efficiency can be realized in highway and bridge maintenance.

Believe me, they are in a position to know.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure in wrapping up my

statements on privatization to table for the House — especially for the

edification of the toothless pitbull gang in the socialist comer of the

House — our statement of principles so they can read for them for

themselves.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: More! More!

REGIONALIZATION VERSUS DEMOCRACY

MR. KEMPF: It's a very boisterous House this morning, Mr.

Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to stand in this kind of

atmosphere to talk about a very important subject. The government would

call it restructuring, or decentralization, or regionalization. I see

it as just the opposite. I see it as a centralization of power — an

obsessive quest for total control which is undermining our very

democratic process in this province, severing the very purpose for

MLAs, the duly and democratically elected members of this Legislature,

and virtually depriving them of the opportunity to represent those who

elected them.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. KEMPF: Baa-a-a-a! I hear it from the corner over here, Mr. Speaker. The first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) was right.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: It is a boisterous House. Mr. Speaker, it goes so

far as to make an absolute mockery, in my estimation, of this very

chamber — the foundation of the democratic system. The MLAs, the

representatives of government closest to the people, vulnerable and

accountable to those people for their actions.... As it's been said,

the MLAs are the very backbone of the parliamentary system.

[11:00]

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: No, not at all. Under this new system — and even

that is a misnomer, for it isn't new; it has been tried in many other

jurisdictions and has failed — the clout of those MLAs and their

ability to represent those who elected them is virtually being

abolished. They're being reduced — and I've seen it in my own

constituency in the last 30 days — to mere puppets who are now, in the

words of the Premier's principal secretary, overrated. The people's

choice overrated, to be examined as to what they do, and to be invited

to join the development groups appointed by the minister of state,

invited to sit as equals on a team of non-elected decision-makers in

the very regions where they themselves were democratically elected.

How wonderful, Mr. Speaker. How kind they are, these ministers of

state, these almighty czars, ruling over all they survey. How

benevolent this Premier, with his philosophy of: "I know best what is

good for British Columbians." It's scary, serious, undemocratic — all

of those things and more. And what's worse, it's being covered by a

smokescreen. There's a smokescreen to cover up the consolidation of

power in the Premier's office via the centralization scheme — touted

mockingly as decentralization. All the decision-making in this province

is in the hands of eight. No, not really eight, because one person and

one person only has the awesome and total control over those eight

individuals. All of the decision making is in the hands of one, Mr.

Speaker. History has shown what that kind of power can do.

[ Page 2835 ]

Hon. members, should we, the people of British Columbia, allow this to continue,

to happen? The tenure of this chamber and of the entire democratic process in

British Columbia is at risk. As Mr. David Poole himself said recently: "And

who knows, 15 years from now the political structure in terms of who is elected

to do what may be entirely different." I don't doubt that for one minute,

hon. members. The truth is that our democratic system is very fragile, very

vulnerable and susceptible to indiscretion. While the people of this province

still retain the ability to send us here, we in this chamber — on both sides

of the House — had better begin to realize what it is that's happening here

in British Columbia before it's too late.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke

about decentralization is the same member who has often stood in this

House and said, "I'm a northerner. I'm from Omineca, the great

constituency of Omineca." And each and every time, this was intended to

project — and rightly too — that there was something different about

Omineca, that each of these constituencies and each of these regions of

the province was a precious gem but somehow different from the other,

and that the problems of Omineca were not necessarily the same or could

somehow equate to the problems that existed in other regions of the

province.

I can remember the member speaking out and saying that when the

citizens of the lower mainland or Vancouver Island speak about the wolf

kill, they don't know what they're talking about, because they haven't

spoken, haven't met, haven't seen the people affected in Omineca.

There's something different about Omineca, and people down here in

Victoria or people in the lower mainland don't understand Omineca. This

message was repeated time after time for all of the years that the

member has served here, and I commend him for that. But in the last

while, when the member crossed the floor away from the free enterprise

group in government, somehow with that particular change, or somehow

because he's been resident in Victoria so long, his views seem to have

changed. Though his views may have changed, Omineca hasn't changed.

Though this member believes that we can continue to make all

decisions in Victoria or Vancouver without seeking as much input as

possible from the people of Omineca, this government has not lost touch

with the people of Omineca or any other region in British Columbia.

This government says that we mustn't be afraid to make changes to

assure that we give the people of Omineca every opportunity not only to

have a voice through an MLA, as they should and always will, but to

have even more of a voice by having their views presented directly at

the cabinet table because they had input into the process, because they

were there as equals at a table expressing their views on the various

things affecting Omineca.

We've had overwhelming response from all regions of this province. I

intend to visit Omineca soon and to meet with the people of Omineca.

Though the member for Omineca has obviously changed his views to be

more Victorian, let me assure him that when I get to Omineca, I know

that the people I meet will want to express their support for an

attitude of government that says: "Be a part of the decision-making

process in those things that affect you directly. Be a part of sitting

with the MLA, the ministers and members representing various

organizations, and giving direct input in order to have decisions made

that respect the views you hold in Omineca."

There has, as I mentioned already, been enormous support. There will

continue to be growing support as people see the process working more

effectively all the time. If we continue as we have been doing, we will

see growth happening in the lower mainland, as I'm sure it will, but

there won't be similar growth in many of the other regions of the

province. In 10 to 15 years, if we don't have the courage to move now,

we could see growth. pressure, land being filled with apartments and

houses, and job shortages in the lower mainland, while the people in

Omineca and such regions go wanting for development, jobs and an

opportunity for their children. The children and people of British

Columbia deserve this decentralization process, which will give them an

opportunity for greater input.

MR. KEMPF: That was quite an interesting tirade. I'll tell

you, it must be because of the feeling the Premier has for the people

of Omineca — what he calls the state of Nechako — that he appointed

someone from Vancouver South to represent that area, together with

someone from the South Okanagan. That's a real feeling for northerners.

If the Premier hasn't developed a feeling for the people for the

northern part of this province, it is about time that someone did.

You bet Omineca is different, as you, Mr. Premier, shall very

clearly see, come the next around at the polls. It's been said many

times, and it will prove true the next time we seek a mandate from the

people of British Columbia: as goes Omineca, so goes British Columbia.

Never will there be a more crucial time in this province to watch what

happens in Omineca than the next around. The people of Omineca won't be

taken in by the rhetoric that goes on in this chamber. I know what the

people of Omineca think; I'm in touch with the people of Omineca daily.

I know what they think about regionalization.

If you think that I don't believe in decentralization, that is

absolutely untrue. I believe that decentralization in some areas is

very good for the province. Decentralization in other areas is very bad

for the people of British Columbia. We've seen a Highways minister

speak out and tell the media, a Highways minister who served in that

capacity for 11 years, himself more of a northerner than I am....

You can talk about living in Victoria. That makes very great

rhetoric in this chamber. I've got to tell you. If you ever tried to

serve a constituency the size of Omineca by living in any one of the

communities up there.... I've served my time.

MR. SPEAKER: I regret to inform the member his time is up under the standing orders.

MR. KEMPF: We'll continue this at another time.

MR. SPEAKER: The member for North Island seeks leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. GABELMANN: I would like members of the House to join me

in welcoming a group of grade 6 students in the gallery this morning.

accompanied by some of their teachers and parents. This group is from

the Rockland Elementary

[ Page 2836 ]

School in Campbell River. Would the House please welcome them.

CENTRALIZATION

MR. BLENCOE: I also rise today to talk about, I think, an

emergency in the province of British Columbia — the state of democracy

and the principles of this cherished institution that are being eroded

right here, and a Premier that has said that nothing is sacred in the

province of British Columbia.

[11:15]

There are some things sacred, Mr. Premier. We have a special warrant

issued on October 29 of this year, allowing for $8 million to be spent

without authorization from the Legislature. An emergency, it said: the

money is urgently and immediately required under this warrant. Yet we

knew we were coming back into this chamber within a matter of days.

I want to know whether the Premier or those who signed or authorized

this warrant checked with the Attorney-General for the legality of this

special warrant under the rules of this Legislature and the laws of the

province of British Columbia. It was not an emergency.

Quite frankly it is, in my estimation, an illegal act on the part of

the province of British Columbia and this government to pass $8 million

without authorization of the people of British Columbia through this

Legislature. I call today for inquiry by the Attorney-General into that

illegal act. Eight million dollars, and we have the Minister of Finance

saying: "Well, it's not a cart of money; it's only a million dollars."

If there ever was a symptom like the Coquihalla syndrome that is

spreading like a cancer through this province and a back of a truck for

money going out, here we have another illegal act on the part of the

province — $8 million without authorization by the people of British

Columbia. Eight million dollars — an illegal, illegitimate act on the

part of the people of British Columbia.

We know why we're getting no details of this United States of

British Columbia — and I'll get into that in a minute — because as soon

as this Legislature rises details will come down by order-in-council.

They'll be sneaked through the Premier's door. We'll get these notices

on our desks that we're going to spend money here — up to $50,000

without authorization of this cherished institution, Mr. Premier.

How dare you on the part of the people of British Columbia? How dare

you do that? We know why you're not having any legislation in this

House to debate this issue: because you cannot face this Legislature

with an offensive, undemocratic centralization that this province has

never seen before in its history. You dare not face the people with

such an offensive system.

Mr. Premier, you are gutless because you brought in this piece.... Absolutely gutless, Mr. Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the member please withdraw that.

MR. BLENCOE: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

In my estimation this $8 million through the back door, an

unwarranted illegal act, is to undermine the role and the democratic

principles endorsed by local government. It's an $8 million spy agency

to snoop on local government. That's all it's for.

We already have local government doing economic issues. We already

have local government preparing plans, and what were they asking for?

They were asking for real decentralization. They were asking for real

policies that allowed them to develop their own regions without a new

bureaucracy, a costly bureaucracy not endorsed by the people of British

Columbia or this Legislature. We have a level of bureaucracy that

usurps the role of local government. With government control over the

regions, how can we decentralize decision-making?

It has nothing to do with devolving power. It's a cynical, perverted

distortion of real democratic decentralization. It has absolutely

nothing to do with sharing power. It has everything to do with grabbing

even more power for the Premier and his eight governors, to rule this

province from the Premier's office. It has nothing to do with the

people in the regions making decisions over their own natural or human

resources, but everything to do with the government setting the

complete agenda for such matters. It has nothing to do with making

provincial government decision-making more accessible to British

Columbians but is intended to dictate government policy and desires to

local government.

In short, it's the work of a Premier who has come back to this

Legislature determined to impose those values and those principles that

were in the Land Use Act when he resigned from the old Socred

government. We all know what that act did. It had more than 50 ways the

provincial government could overturn a local government decision.

That's what it's all about. This United States of British Columbia is

to take over the role of local government, to snoop over their backs

and control the decision-making process at the local level.

Never before have we ever had such a cynical, distorted view of how

the Legislature can be used to turn local governments into virtual

rubber stamps for the provincial government. Puppets of the provincial

government: that's what this minister and this government want.

I go back to the 1975 debates, and I quote someone in this House:

"The rights of parliament were not won easily. The rights of discussion

and debate are the modern equivalent of what people went to war and

fought for. It's a freedom that was won, and we will never lose it

freely or willingly." And: "Anarchy never, but freedom forever." That

was Bill Bennett in 1975, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Speaker, today we are in trouble because of this Premier and

this government, and on this side of the House we cannot endorse such a

usurpation of democracy in the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: As the member was speaking I was

reminded about the position of the NDP only a few years ago when a

former member for Prince Rupert stood up in his place and time and time

again spoke about the need for decentralization and the fact that

innovative ways could be developed which would provide for greater

decentralization. Then too, as now, we listened; I listened and

certainly consulted not only the member but other people in the

province, particularly local government.

In January 1987 we called a conference in Richmond to discuss

decentralization. At the conference we had every mayor and regional

district chairman from across the whole of the province present to

debate, to talk and to give suggestions that could lead to greater

decentralization in this province — to develop with local government a

process which would permit local councils, regional districts, school

boards, chambers of commerce, all associations, to have a greater input

into the decisions made about them by the

[ Page 2837 ]

provincial government in Victoria. The process was

worked on during 1987, a decision was made and the announcement was

made again in front of 1,200 or 1,400 members from local government.

The UBCM convention in 1987: local government again was recognized as a

part of this process.

Now the member for Victoria calls the decentralization process

undemocratic, the opportunities for people in the various regions of

this province to have more input. He calls it undemocratic that people

be permitted this greater input. They make mention of the fact that

we've allotted money to these functions within the regions, money to

ensure that the process will provide an opportunity for greater input,

They say it was dealt with improperly by the cabinet. I refer the

member to the Financial Administration Act,

section 21(5), which reads:

"The amount appropriated by a special warrant shall be submitted to the

Legislature as part of the next ensuing Supply Bill." There will be an

opportunity again, according to the legislation, to see this matter

debated.

We not only want democracy, we have proven that we are providing a

greater opportunity for democracy to work effectively in this province

by commencing a decentralization program. People in all parts of this

province. be it the great Peace, the Kootenays, the Cariboo, the

Nechako, wherever, deserve to have greater input, deserve to see a

system that allows the differences of the various regions to be

recognized properly in the decision-making of government.

Decentralization is democratic; it's supported by local government;

it's supported by the people of all regions of this great province.

MR. BLENCOE: The Premier is attempting as usual, by puffery

and rhetoric, to cover up what he knows local government has the

ability to do today. He knows local government has the ability to do

economic planning and development. He knows they have their plans in

place. He knows they're elected by the people in their regions. He

knows those people know their regions best. He knows that sometimes

they disagree with Social Credit policies, but he knows that if he's

going to control those regions from his office, he has to put into

place a centralized state system that's more like the United States of

America than Canada. And to do that, whatever he says about quoting

from statutes, he is prepared to pass, behind closed doors or in an

order-in-council, $8 million for a so-called emergency. I quote to this

Premier the words of a former premier of this province, Bill Bennett,

who stood in this House and said — and we say: "Not one dime without

debate." And we mean not one ten-cent piece.

Whether this Premier and this government are not prepared to work

through this Legislature, we are not going to give up on this sacred

institution; we're going to fight for it. We're going to go out into

every single region; we're going to speak to every single local

government official and tell them exactly what you're up to, Mr.

Premier. Not a dime without debate, and let's have some law-abiding

rules and legislation.

They know what this government has done in this warrant. They know

what Bill Bennett talked about, and went out, and we will go out. You

don't have the right to break the laws of the province of British

Columbia which even Bill Bennett said people died for. You don't have

that right. This decentralization is just a coverup for the Premier's

desire to control local government in British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Before proceeding to orders of the day, I note in Hansard

of last week that my dear friend opposite asked that ministers be in

the House during private members' statements, and I think today we've

satisfied that beyond your wildest expectations.

MR. ROSE: It is beyond my wildest dreams. We asked for a

whisper from a minister, and we got screams from the Premier. But I do

welcome the Premier here for debate. It's nice when he stays home from

his visits to China and the fleshpots of....

AN HON. MEMBER: Omineca.

MR. ROSE: You said that; I didn't. I was thinking more of Saanich or some place like that.

But we do still have a problem with this particular rule. I think

you'll agree that on some of the debates which come from that side of

the House, and the initiation of the statements from over there.... If

you interpret the rule literally, as happened this morning, you find

that this side is not represented at all. In one instance the Minister

of Health (Hon. Mr. Dueck) cut short his remarks so that we would have

a brief moment on this side to respond to the excellent statement of

the member for Yale-Lillooet (Mr. Rabbitt). On the other hand, the

other ones really didn't reflect the opposition; we were not involved

in it at all. There were two others in which we weren't involved. So I

think the rule bears examination. But the fact that the Premier is here

and engaging in this debate is a good thing.

The rule was intended to give back-benchers on both sides of the

House, people who are not cabinet ministers, an opportunity to express

the deep concerns of their own constituents and of themselves, when

there was no other opportunity. It was supposed to stimulate debate.

Well, this morning it certainly did. I think it's working well, and I'd

like it to continue. But I'd also like it to be a little more fair when

it comes to treating opposite sides of the House for purposes of

participation, which are now, if you interpret the rule literally,

denied to them.

[11:30]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The member makes a good point.

Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to proceed to public bills.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 59.

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT (No. 4). 1987

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 59; Mr. Pelton in the chair.

section 2.

MS. A. HAGEN: As we closed debate yesterday afternoon. I and the Provincial Secretary were engaged in a little

[ Page 2838 ]

informal dialogue across the table. I would like to

start the debate this morning by giving the Provincial Secretary the

opportunity to respond to some of the comments I made yesterday, and

then I have some additional questions that I would like to pose to him,

and some comments I'd like to make.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to see you back in

the chair this morning, looking so hale and hearty. I also wish to

commend the committee and the House for the excellent way the private

members' statements went off this morning.

The hon. member for New Westminster mentioned — and I'm sure she's

had a chance to check the Blues — that I said that there were specific

rules laid out for parliamentary secretaries. No, what I did say....

I'd like to reiterate those for the edification of the member. I said

that neither the federal nor the provincial legislation — that of

British Columbia — provides a detailed description of the duties of a

parliamentary secretary. But I did say that their role varies with the

demands on the minister whom they assist. Their role includes carrying

out routine tasks in relation to the House, presenting the government

position in discussions and committee business, answering questions

when questions are directed to them — they can't answer questions in

this House unless the question is directed to them and a minister is

absent — supporting the government position in committee, and meeting

with other members of the public organizations and other concerned

bodies on behalf of the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I personally believe that one of the most important

roles that a parliamentary secretary can have is that of facilitating

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

the decision-making process, as the Premier said, the more our

government's decisions will reflect the needs and aspirations of all

regions of this wonderful province. That's what this is all about: it's

having the voice of government extended out into all regions of the

province; to listen, to communicate, to bring back ideas from the

people who make up the grass roots of this province — the people at the

local level.

MS. A. HAGEN: I want to concur in the last statement by the

Provincial Secretary, that in every region of our province there are

ideas and structures to deal with those ideas. What we are looking at

in the clause in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act is a move to

allow the government to have an open-ended season on parliamentary

secretaries to provide for what the Provincial Secretary has just

called "facilitating and communicating" in those regions.

The position I want to take this morning is that the task for those

parliamentary secretaries is not appropriate in two ways. First, we are

asking an individual in each of eight regions of the province — and in

the region where the Provincial Secretary bears the title secretary of

state, two parliamentary secretaries — to be the conduit for those

messages, along with that person's secretary of state. I looked at the

thick document from the Premier's office, around the responsibilities

that he sees in a decentralized model, and I cannot find any vehicle

for the kind of facilitation and communication that the Provincial

Secretary states is his goal.

I want to look at some of the substructures these people are going

to be working with, and I want to refer to the comments the minister

made at a luncheon in Vancouver last weekend, commonly referred to as

the Grey Cup luncheon. He noted that there were contacts with over

3,000 people, in beginning to pull together a list, and that something

in the order of 300 people attended. I haven't quantified the number of

municipalities and regional districts that are represented. When we

look at the number of MLAs encompassed in that region, we know that

every MLA — with myself excepted, since I represent a constituency

which has a municipal boundary that is contiguous with my own riding —

represents a range of regions, and we have 30 MLAs in that region.

We are asking these parliamentary secretaries to be the conduits to

the Premier's office for the aspirations of the region. That's a

totally inappropriate and impossible task to give these people. We have

all kinds of committees with whom they will liaise, communicate,

facilitate and attend meetings. Those committees are resource

development committees and service development committees, and they

will have backup committees.

I want to look at it from the perspective of the area that I know

best and that I follow closely: the area of social services. We have a

committee as yet unstruck that is supposed to improve service delivery.

The examples that are noted are not what I would call either

earth-shaking or reassuring. One of the examples noted by the minister

of the ways service delivery might be improved is that a college and

local industry may mutually benefit by closer interaction. Mr.

Minister, I have been involved with the college system, and you know

people who have been involved with the college system. It's my view

that the interaction that exists among those institutions is already

very fine. I do not believe that some middle level of bureaucracy — or

even the most well-meaning of parliamentary secretaries — can do very

much other than carry a message like this, which is really such a

minuscule and unimportant idea, given the coordination that exists and

the work presently done by colleges to provide leadership and

cooperation between areas.

The other area mentioned is that the whole region may benefit from

computer-based employment and training programs. Mr. Chairman, we have

an example of that in the province right now, also foisted on this

House without any notice whatsoever and eating up untold numbers of

dollars, which I cannot get a report on because the minister doesn't

respond to my requests for information. That is the Hewett Group, which

is out doing computer-based employment and training programs. That

program presently in the province has no outcomes expected, nothing in

the contract that tells us what we are getting from dollars unspecified

in contracted out services. If that's the kind of payola that we're

talking about with the $1 million for the kind of programs in this

region, Mr. Provincial Secretary, that kind of action doesn't leave me

feeling very comfortable about the real needs of this province for

service and programs.

In this House over the past week we have talked about the problems

we face in health care, and I think people on both sides of this House

would acknowledge that health care is probably one of the greatest

challenges — the minister's just leaving, but I know he'll nod his head

— that government faces in service delivery and improvement of

services. Not a mention, not a suggestion, but we're going to have a

committee that in the service area involves the Provincial Secretary,

Advanced Education and Job Training, Education, Health, Social Services

and Housing and A-G. And the minister is seriously suggesting that this

is a new and innovative way to deal with planning and improvements? I

do not believe that

[ Page 2839 ]

the minister — who I believe is a man of sincere

intentions — genuinely believes that in his soul. The rhetoric he is

providing us is rhetoric. No person with the intelligence and knowledge

of government that I know the Provincial Secretary has — no person —

could genuinely believe that those kinds of structure, regardless of

the number of parliamentary secretaries, are going to provide us with

answers to our problems. This government is talking about providing a

structure, but it is a structure that cannot and will not deal with

those problems.

I could go on, Mr. Chairman, and cite any number of examples. The

issue is that we are opening the door for an entirely new and different

level of government involvement in the regions with a setup that is not

— I repeat, not — constitutionally, systematically or functionally able

to deliver any of the very tenuous outcomes. I would submit that it is

a vehicle for announcements about a motor-sport complex, which could

come from any source, an excuse for us to continue to contract out

services without accountability to this House, and a means of

showcasing a government rather than dealing with our problems.

I would like to see the grass roots better involved in ways that

would tap their energy. Every MLA in this province has been involved in

his or her region with those groups, and we know the energy and the

ideas that come. We are not opposed to that kind of activity, but we on

this side of the House are saying that the model and the goals are not

achievable with the system we have in place.

[11:45]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I always appreciate the manner in which the

hon. member for New Westminster debates in this House, and I have a

great deal of respect for her as a person. We must agree to disagree,

though, on our philosophies about how governments should operate.

I've always believed that the government closest to the people is

the government that operates the best. I know that over the years, for

whatever sets of reasons, we brought into our system a method whereby

more and more concentration of power occurred, I think that was done

for a set of reasons — whether good or valid. We came to a point where

we got to believe — or at least we accepted the concept in many parts

of the world — that government was all-knowing, and that somehow or

other, if we centralized everything, we'd have a better government in

the province. We're talking here about the very converse of that

particular argument.

The member mentioned a conduit. A conduit is a means of transmitting

something, and one of our conduits — there are several of them — is the

MLAs. The MLAs say people come into their offices whenever they're

there. In a steady stream, with a whole myriad of problems and

opportunities. You'll continue to deal with this and to do your job,

I'm sure. But what we're doing here is offering you a new opportunity

in a new era to expand the role and the usefulness of Members of the

Legislative Assembly to those very same constituents who you purport

and, I know, wish to serve very well. We're offering you a new vehicle

— a vehicle that doesn't fit the time of the Industrial Revolution or

something back beyond that. We're offering you a vehicle that fits this

new decade, this new century, that we're entering into.

As I said many times before, the government that was right for the

province from 1952 to 1972, and worked so very well to build the

province, is so very different from the kind of government and

administration that we need here today.

The time of governing from the southern tip of Vancouver Island

throughout all the vast regions of this province is long, gone, and

thank goodness for that. What we're doing here is, giving the

opportunity for members of this Legislative Assembly, who have the

opportunity through legislation to be appointed as parliamentary

secretaries, to expand that conduit, to expand the lines of

communication, to reach out into all parts of this province and to be

able to bring information back to Victoria so that it can be dealt with

at the various highest levels — and that's the cabinet office.

I guess if there are differences in philosophy, they could best be

summed up by the socialist idea that everything works better if you

centralize it, bring it in; that somehow that all knowing body of

people who happen to be elected, or bureaucrats who happen to be placed

in a high office somewhere. know more about what's happening to folks

out there than the folks do themselves. You see, we don't think that

way at all, Mr. Chairman. We believe that are more good ideas out there

in the regions than there ever are in this House or in Victoria. That's

what it's all about.

If you say this is new or partially radical, I say yes. It's time

for that. It's time. Madam Member, that we held a rummage sale for some

of this garbage that clutters up our mental attics, and filled them

with some ideas, and were willing to accept some new concepts. That's

precisely what this is all about. We're providing parliamentary

secretaries who will be able to work with you if you'll allow yourself

to work with them. Now that's your decision. You can be part of the

process; you can be part of the problem or you can be part of the

solution. That's entirely up to you. What we're doing is offering you a

challenge to be part of that solution in this new process that is right

for this time in British Columbia.

MS. A. HAGEN: The minister has just noted that this idea is

new and radical. I don't think he has any licence on the idea that

people are the sources of ideas and communities are the ways in which

ideas are put into practice. I don't need a lecture, Mr. Chairman, on

working in the community; I don't need any lectures in that regard at

all. Nor do I need any lectures from the minister about how I will do

my job or how I will get to know about what's going on in the province.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have not taken unto myself any delusions of

grandeur such as are being accorded to the parliamentary secretaries.

With all due respect to those men and women.... I think they're all

men, come to think of it. That is interesting; that is very

interesting. I must at some time have an opportunity to discuss that

with, perhaps, the member for Langley. It would make an interesting

discussion over tea in the afternoon in the legislative dining room.

With all respect to those worthy gentlemen, I do not believe — this

was the point of my earlier comment, and I want to make it again very

simply — that this is either new or radical. It reminds me a lot more

of ward bosses, patronage and pork-barrelling. As you know, Mr.

Chairman, I am not given to using that language very often in this

House, but truly, that is what it reminds me of.

I tried to comment earlier that the ways and means by which all of

those parties, for instance. In the human services could begin to do

anything constructive — even through the most brilliant of

communicators or conduits. who had as his title parliamentary secretary

— are beyond my ken, I being a reasonably intelligent and energetic

member of this House.

I want to note also, in terms of the minister's comments about the centralization of government....

[ Page 2840 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Decentralization.

MS. A. HAGEN: The centralization of government. Please don't

put words in my mouth, Mr. Minister. I will conduct my own speech or

comments, and when you wish to respond, I will listen with great care.

About the centralization of government. There are many ways in which

government, through its ministries, can go out to the public. This

government has in fact exercised some of those and — regrettably, I

think — it has exercised them without any involvement of people on this

side of the House: the Minister of Labour and Consumer Services (Hon.

L. Hanson), in his consultation about Bill 19, which — unfortunately

for him and without his knowledge — was simply ignored; that same

minister, in terms of the liquor review, which I will say on the record

I think produced good results, although regrettably there was no

attempt to involve people from this side of the House; work that

happens among the bureaucracies of ministries like the Ministry of

Health, which has been doing an extensive review on continuing care. So

there are vehicles, Mr. Minister, for good things to happen that go out

and tap the regions. And there are many other models that would achieve

the goal of tapping the energy and ideas.

The position that I have taken on this clause in the amendment of

the Constitution Act is that it isn't parliamentary secretaries; it's

not going to be achievable or possible; and you snow us with your

silken words and your continuing rhetoric. You snow us when you try to

persuade us that that will happen. The record will show for itself. We

may in fact find that this is a way to get around the agricultural land

reserve, that this is a way to get around environmental kinds of

controls, that this is a way to provide some kind of contracts to

friends of government. But I'm not looking to this as solving the

problems that we in this House have responsibility to solve in terms of

the economic and social wellbeing of the people of this province.

Unfortunately, there is nothing that I have heard that gives me

confidence. It is only a repetition of the bumf and the rhetoric. I

regret that, because I think the minister would honestly like to do a

job — there's not a lot left in his provincial secretaryship, and this

is a challenge. But it's not the route to go.

MR. KEMPF: It's very interesting to listen to the Provincial

Secretary talk so glowingly about the way in which parliamentary

secretaries can better communicate with government than can the duly

elected MLAs.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I didn't say that.

MR. KEMPF: Oh yes, you did. I sat in my office listening to

the monitor, and that's exactly what you said. So I've got to ask you

the same question I asked the Premier the other day in question period

and failed to get an answer to. That question is: do you or do you not

subscribe to the philosophy of the principal secretary to the Premier

with respect to the role of MLAs in this chamber? I know what he thinks

about the role of, parliamentary secretaries, and I will quote his own

words. And it's no wonder that the Provincial Secretary comes into this

chamber and says what he does in speaking on this bill.

I'll quote the questions that were asked and the answers that were

given. I quote the question: "If you want something from the

government, do I go to my MLA, my regional parliamentary secretary, my

regional cabinet minister, or the minister in charge of that area?" I

now quote the response: "If I was going to get something done, I would

be going to the parliamentary secretary assigned to the region." Next

question: "More than my MLA?" Answer: "Probably yes." That is the whole

philosophy behind the need for additional parliamentary secretaries and

the regional concept, the regionalization, the forming of the United

States of British Columbia in this province of ours. That's exactly it:

to do end runs around those who were duly and democratically elected to

represent their constituents.

What's better, having 69 representatives to report to government or

16? In your estimation, Mr. Provincial Secretary, what would be best —

I mean, given a situation where the government is listening to the

elected representatives? I grant you, if the government is not

listening then it's probably better to have 16 than 69. But if the

government is listening, if they are actually communicating — as I

heard the Premier say in this very chamber this morning — which is

better, 69 representatives or 16? That's the question here this

morning. If the government were to listen to all the elected

representatives — the others in cabinet, those on the back bench of

government, those on the opposition side of the floor; there are 69 of

us.... Well, there are 68, excluding the Premier. If he were to listen

to those who, I think....

I've sat here for 12 years. It will be 12 years in a short week from

now since I was first elected to this chamber, and I've listened to

some very good representation by members in all corners of this chamber

of the people in their constituencies. Now we have to have a new

system? Now we've got to have super ministers? We've got to have czars

supported by parliamentary secretaries?

[12:00]

I agree with the parliamentary secretary system — I was a supporter

of it from the very start — but not if it's used to do end runs around

people who were duly elected to this chamber. I will never agree with

that. I got a letter this morning.... I've heard in this chamber for

the last couple of weeks that we're going to be invited to sit on these

regional committees. How very nice! What's the purpose, if the

Premier's own principal secretary says: "Don't go to your MLA if you

want something done in government; don't go to your MLA whom you've

duly elected" — in my case, four times? Don't go to that MLA. Go to the

parliamentary secretary.

If you think that the parliamentary secretary isn't going to have a

good opportunity to do end runs around the MLA, then I ask you to

consider this: a meeting is called for one of these regional

committees.... The Provincial Secretary should recall such a situation,

in which I was denied a seat on the government aircraft to attend a

function in my constituency.

Interjection.

MR. KEMPF: It's in writing, Mr. Member; it's in my file. I

made sure that it was in writing. I was turned down — riding on a

government aircraft on which there were three empty seats; a trip that

would have allowed me to attend that function in my constituency.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why didn't you go up?

[ Page 2841 ]

MR. KEMPF: Because to go commercial would have taken me a day

to get there, a day to attend the function and another day to get back,

and this House was sitting.

MR. SKELLY: Why didn't you put him on the flight?

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Provincial Secretary, why?

You think it isn't going to be a simple situation for not only the

super ministers but also their parliamentary secretaries to do end runs

around the MLAs? Not at all, and that, I suggest, is the reason for

setting up this system in the first place. When we've got 69 members

who represent every minute region of this province of ours, why do we

have to have yet another level of government consisting of eight super

ministers and their parliamentary secretaries?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I want to thank the hon. member for Omineca

for his speech to the committee this afternoon. Yes, he is a very

experienced member. When we first came into this House, I moved the

first Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne for the new

government in 1976 and he seconded it. This fellow and I have fought

the war together. We haven't always agreed, but we haven't always

disagreed.

He's absolutely right that every member of this Legislative Assembly

has not only a right but a duty to serve his or her members and serve

them in the most effective way possible. Each one does it in a very

different way. And the government from time to time extends an

invitation to all members who are not part of the executive council to

be involved. We have extended an invitation.... I don't want to get too

far off

section 2 of this bill, Mr. Chairman. An invitation has been

extended by the minister of state to this member to participate. Now

whether he participates or not is entirely up to him. The way he

chooses to serve his constituents in Omineca is completely up to him.

I'm not talking about enlightened self-interest when I want to go

for a ride on a government aircraft or something of that nature. What

I'm talking about is serving the people of this province in a very new

way.

I remember how that hon. member and I — and I won't break any

confidence in saying this — used to sit down and talk about our fear of

seeing government centralized, seeing government run from Victoria.

Hon. member. we're making an honest, sincere attempt to fulfil the

aspirations that you had back then, when you thought very differently

than perhaps you think now — to decentralize this government and to

take government out to the people; yes, into Omineca; yes, into

Vancouver South; yes, into North Peace River; yes, into South Peace

River. Every part of this province in this new era that we're in

deserves to have a conduit: a way of getting their people, their ideas

and their expressions focused at the very highest possible level. I'm

sure the hon. member would subscribe to that.

We're not doing any end runs on anybody. Someone said to me that if

the job doesn't bring honour to you, then you bring honour to the job.

You do whatever you want to serve your constituents in any way that you

want and in your own manner, and I expect each and every one of the 69

members of this Legislative Assembly to do exactly the same thing.

But what we're doing here is offering a new vehicle, a new conduit,

a new service, not only to the hon. member for Omineca, whom I respect

very much — not only to your constituents but to you, and to help you

do your job in a more effective way. You're invited on board. Whether

you accept that invitation or not is entirely up to you. I would let

that decision rest with myself and trickle down your memory for

history. When you look back in many years, hon. member, and you see how

well the people of British Columbia respond to this government

initiative, you'll be sorry you didn't get on board.

MR. KEMPF: I didn't get an answer to my question. However, it did give me some other food for thought.

The Provincial Secretary has said in this chamber that I'd be

welcome on board. Does that mean, Mr. Member, the government aircraft

when a parliamentary secretary is going to attend a regional committee

meeting in my constituency? Yes or no? Does it or does it not? You're

great at not answering, the same as the Premier was the other day,

about the philosophy of Mr. David Poole, the second most powerful

person in this province, which seems to be a philosophy of having a

distaste for duly elected members of this chamber.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Sit down and I'll answer you.

MR. KEMPF: You'll get a chance. I hope you do answer me. But

the first question: will that mean welcome on board the government

aircraft when a parliamentary secretary or a super minister is going to

attend a regional committee meeting in my constituency?

Yes, we sat and talked about decentralization in years gone by — I

agree with the Provincial Secretary — and they were great meetings. The

Mortlach was fantastic — faaaantastic, Mr. Chairman.

I ask another question: do you really believe, and do you really

think you can make the people of British Columbia believe, that it was

necessary to have eight superministers together with their

parliamentary secretaries? That's what we're debating in this

section

of Bill 59: the need for additional parliamentary secretaries. Do you

really think that it was necessary to have this regionalization

concept, to have decentralization? I don't believe so, and I know many,

many people who agree with me.

It's interesting, Mr. Chairman. that the Provincial Secretary should

talk about what the parliamentary secretaries will have in order to

represent the people whom I am duly elected to represent. But I guess

the key question this morning is: will other members of this assembly

have the same offered them. In order that they might better.... If

that's the philosophy behind the Provincial Secretary's comment that

parliamentary secretaries can better represent the people of British

Columbia. Certainly that's the philosophy of David Poole.

I'll be asking the Premier questions in question period down the

road, hopeful to find out whether he adheres to that same philosophy.

It's quite apparent from what I have heard the Provincial Secretary say

this morning that he does, but I'd really like to know whether or not

the Premier does as well. Are the members, the duly elected

representatives, the MLAs in those areas, doubly covered by

superministers or their parliamentary secretaries? Are they going to

have the same recognition in order for them to better serve their

constituents?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member for Omineca asked me — I think rhetorically — if I think people want

[ Page 2842 ]

better ways to communicate with the government, and

without equivocation or mental reservation of any kind, the answer is

yes. He asks if other members will have the same offer. This government

has made an offer to every member of this House to better represent,

through these regional committees, the people they represent. Unheard

of; it's never happened before in any place that I've ever known,

certainly not in this Legislature. Regardless of whether you're a

socialist or a free enterpriser — or whatever you are at this point in

time, hon. member — the government has given you that offer to work

with members of government, with the cabinet, with parliamentary

secretaries, and take your ideas directly through to be part of the

process and part of the solution in this new era in this province.

You're asking me, I guess, if.... I'm going to have to ask you. Are

you saying, hon. member, that if I give you a ride on a government

airplane up to Omineca, you'll be part of the process? Are we

negotiating something here? I don't know.

MR. KEMPF: No negotiating.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Then what is it you're after? It seems that

the quid pro quo you're looking for is a ride to Omineca or Burns Lake

or something on a government aircraft, and then you'll be part of the

process. I wouldn't call that being part of the process. I'd call that

enlightened self-interest.

MR. KEMPF: I'll call the Provincial Secretary's bluff. Yes,

if I'm allowed on a government aircraft on which a parliamentary

secretary or a superminister is traveling to my constituency to attend

one of these committee meetings, I will be part of the process. I call

the bluff. It would have been nice if we'd had such an agreement which

would have allowed me to attend the opening of that provincial

government office in Bums Lake at the time, but it wasn't so.

Interjections.

MR. KEMPF: Be part of the process. The process is one of

political patronage. We saw that in the appointment of Mr. Barrie

Carter from Smithers. We saw what kind of a pork barrel this

regionalization plan can be — political appointments to your friends.

That person who the superminister responsible for the State of Nechako

said had the qualifications.... He hasn't shown that to this House yet.

He vowed to bring that information to the members of this House, but he

hasn't done so. That person is starting off at a salary far exceeding

that of an MLA and has been given an expense account far exceeding that

of an MLA, and you don't call that political patronage? You don't think

the regionalization plan can be a political pork barrel when that sort

of thing happens?

I rest my case.

[12:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think

we're finally getting somewhere in this chamber on this particular

section of this particular bill. What the hon. member for Omineca has

agreed to do.... I don't like negotiating; I'm not much of a

negotiator, but what he said is that if I give him a ride on an

airplane somewhere with a parliamentary secretary, he will be part of

the process and come on board. Isn't that interesting? We're not

talking about what we are; we're just haggling over the price at this

point. It's interesting how our principles will change.

The hon. member knows in his heart of hearts that the parliamentary

secretary process is a good process, and I'm very pleased that he has

now agreed to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. I

want to thank the hon. member for that.

MR. SKELLY: I know there are other members who want to speak

on this issue and have other benefits to negotiate. I think the member

for Omineca made some excellent points during his speech.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: No, there is an issue there, and I think it's

unfortunate that it has been made fun of. There is an issue there as to

the equality of private members in this Legislature, and I've brought

this up during the number of times that I've participated in this

debate, because I think that this is a key issue that's being ignored.

I think that's what the member for Omineca is referring to when he

talks about the ability being given to some members to participate in

functions in his constituency, and in my constituency and those same

benefits — whether they are transportation or additional member

services — being denied to other members if this particular

section 1s

passed.

I notice that the Provincial Secretary always speaks from the

government point of view. It's very clear that he has never sat in

opposition in this Legislature and doesn't really understand the role

and function of a private member in this Legislature. I think that's

part of the problem. I think another part of the problem is that he

realizes that the government has made up its mind on this section. You

can tell when the government has ceased to use their ears and they've

kind of dug in, and they hope that the opposition is going to give up

before Santa Claus comes.

So it looks like we're not having any debate on this

section of the

legislation. The government has simply decided to dig in on it. They

know that at some point down the line, MLAs are going to want to break

for Christmas, and the parliamentary secretaries are going to get their

three grand. That's what's happening here and it's unfortunate.

I mentioned that the Provincial Secretary really has had no

experience as an opposition member, a private member in the

Legislature. He has always been....

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: I know you've been a back-bench government

member, and I've been one too. I won't quote the member for Omineca on

that part of it, but I think that there is a problem here. Perhaps you

have been a minister for too long and that's the reason you don't

understand the problem we're trying to get at.

I notice that in your discussions you said that the government

should really be getting closer to the people of the province. You're

absolutely right. But the Legislature is not the government, and what

should be happening in British Columbia, and what has been the problem

in British Columbia, is that the Legislature has not been close to the

people of the province for the last ten years.

[ Page 2843 ]

Several years ago, Premier Bennett, who was quoted here today by

another member, shut down the select standing committees of the

Legislature, those instruments that the Legislature used to get in

touch with the people of this province under W.A.C. Bennett — and

because it was done under W.A.C. Bennett many years ago doesn't mean it

was a bad thing. There are some good old things that are connected with

this Legislature as well. And it was done under the Dave Barrett

government. The legislative select standing committees were used to

hold hearings on important issues that were quite divisive in the

province, issues where we needed the benefit of public input. For the

last ten years this Legislature has not had the opportunity to go out

and meet with the people of this province on a bipartisan basis through

select standing committees to hear what their concerns are and to

translate those kinds of concerns into legislative action and

ultimately into government action. That's the problem with the

Legislature, Mr. Chairman. I don't doubt that that's a problem at all.

We've been trying to identify this as a problem to the government for

the last many years.

The government has been developing all sorts of mechanisms to make

the government closer to the people over the last ten years, as you

know. It has appointed millions of PR people and people who travel

around the province; it has set up information centres in government

agencies. All of those are good things from the government point of

view, but we're here as legislators in the Legislature. Government

operates quite apart from the Legislature. It's a separate system

altogether, and what we're concerned about on this side of the House is

giving the Legislature more eyes and ears so that we can receive the

information we need in order to make this Legislature function better.

Paul St. Pierre, who is a combination journalist and has been a

member of Parliament for a coastal area of British Columbia — the kind

of area that I represent — came to interview me one time when I was a

back-bencher and he said: "What do you think of this institution?" I

said: "The Legislature is very much like the old Zulu kingdom in South

Africa." I don't know if the minister knows this at all.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: There are probably some other reasons. I tried it through the back door last election. It didn't work that way either.

The system of government in this province is very much like the old

Zulu kingdom in South Africa. The Zulu kingdom, as you know, is very

tightly regimented. When young men in the old days were required at a

very early age to go into barracks and were tightly controlled by the

king, the king's word was law. He could put one of those young men to

death if he chose, at his whim. He was the strongest, most powerful

creature in the Zulu state and the state was tightly regimented. Every

state that operates that way has to have some form of accountability.

Once a year there was a festival at which the king had to strip himself

naked and run through the streets. Women, who would otherwise have had

to remain in a separate street from the king, or else bow their heads

so low they couldn't see him or be seen by him, were allowed to yell

obscenities and throw cow dung at him on one day of the year.

Our Legislature operates in precisely the same way.

HON. MR. VEITCH: We do it every day here.

MR. SKELLY: No, not every day, because this Legislature has met as few as 54 days in a single year.

But every government must have a time at which it is accountable to

the people of the province through the elected members of the

legislature, and that's what we're saying is missing from this

section

of the bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Why?

MR. SKELLY: I'm getting to it. That's missing from this

section of the bill because what isn't there is the bipartisan aspect

that makes government accountable.

HON. MR. VEITCH: You want to be a parliamentary secretary.

MR. SKELLY: No, I don't want to be a parliamentary secretary.

My concern is about this Legislative Assembly and making the government

more accountable in this Legislative Assembly. You don't get the

government to be more accountable by setting up a separate pay scale

for government members. You get the government to be accountable by

having all members of this House on an equal basis and using all

members of the House as if they were equal. That's not happening. In

fact, that is being changed by this

section of the statute. That's why

you have such opposition to this

section of the statute. Mr. Provincial

Secretary.

I, as an individual member, am absolutely in favour of this a

government getting closer to the people. If you wanted to appoint ten

more staff members to get your information out to the public and

information back from the public, I'd stand up in this House and

support that. But to pay Social Credit members of the Legislature on a

different pay scale than opposition members of the Legislature is a

perversion of the fundamental principles of this Legislative Assembly,

and I'm not going to vote for that under any circumstances. I can't and

still have respect for this institution.

What we want here, Mr. Chairman, is to get the Legislature closer to

the people of the province. The only way to do that is through the

bipartisan approach of select standing committees, a way that's been

demonstrated to be successful in the past. If it has been successful in

the past, why did we toss it out?

At one time I was the Chair of the Select Standing Committee on

Forestry and Fisheries. The Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources of the day referred an extremely difficult problem to us that

was of concern to all the people in the province, and that was how to

manage forests in watershed areas with respect for other resources,

such as water quality, fisheries and wildlife — as the Minister of

Environment (Hon. Mr. Strachan) will agree, a very important concern to

this day. We, with Liberal members, Conservative members and Social

Credit members, travelled around the province, including Prince George,

Prince Rupert, and to other areas of the province. We got the input of

almost all affected groups who were willing to come before that

committee, and we heard from thousands of people in the province of

British Columbia.

HON. MR. VEITCH: What did you do about it?

MR. SKELLY: We filed a report with this House. I'll tell the

minister that that report had an impact on decisions that were made by

the government of the day; but not only by the

[ Page 2844 ]

government of the day but by the succeeding Social

Credit government, because their members had participated in the

drafting of that report. That was why it was so effective to have

committees operating and solving problems on a multipartisan basis — or

on a bipartisan basis, given the current structure of the Legislature.

That's where we should be investing our bucks, if we're going to spend

additional bucks in this Legislative Assembly, not in creating a

separate pay scale for Socreds and opposition members. That's not going

to do it, and you know it.

Interjection.

MR. SKELLY: The member wants to respond. I can recall his

last response. He said: "Well, the NDP voted for parliamentary

secretaries." We did, on a limited basis, because we've seen how

parliamentary secretaries function in the federal House of Commons,

when the minister is absent from the House and there's a need for some

accountability, in terms of answering questions or participating in

debate. When that minister is absent, the parliamentary secretary is

there and available to respond. It's worthwhile on a limited basis, but

at no time has it ever been suggested in the House of Commons that

every government member be entitled to get a parliamentary secretary's

wage — at no time. That would not improve the system, in any case; it

would destroy the system. It would not only destroy the system of

parliamentary secretaries but also undermine the fundamental equality

that we need as private members in this House, in order for this House

to function appropriately.

Parliamentary secretaries also have a function out in the riding. I

can remember when I did a visit to the B.C. penitentiary when the

Liberals were in power, back between — whatever it was — 1974 and 1979,

and the federal minister who couldn't be on that tour, after a serious

riot at the B.C. penitentiary, sent Art Lee, who at that time was the

parliamentary secretary to the Solicitor-General. It was important to

have Art Lee on that tour, in order that the federal minister's

position could be represented there. It was important to do that. But

there were a limited number of parliamentary secretaries who were

assigned to assist, in the House of Commons, ministers who were busy

and required the services of those secretaries. What we're talking

about here is a limited number.

[12:30]

Mr. Chairman, the reason I stood up is that the minister seems to

have a distorted view of how the people should relate to the government

and to the Legislative Assembly of this province. We have absolutely no

opposition to the government becoming closer to the people of the

province of British Columbia. What we're concerned about is that this

process does not result in that happening, and that it also undermines

the ability of back-bench members of the Legislature, private members

of the Legislature. It undermines our ability — if we are not Social

Credit members — to represent our constituents as effectively as we

might, because we don't have the same kind of benefits and privileges

as do parliamentary secretaries on the Social Credit side. That's our

concern.

If the minister came in with an amendment to this

section of the

legislation that said that it would be limited, that it would be to

assist ministers who require that kind of assistance in the House or in

carrying out the duties assigned to them under their portfolios, we'd

vote for it, because that's a legitimate use of parliamentary

secretaries. But we cannot support an unlimited appointment of

parliamentary secretaries, which simply amounts to setting up a

separate pay scale for Social Credit MLAs and to destroying the

fundamental equality of private members in this House.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'll be brief. The member for Alberni

expressed some concern with respect to the different pay scales that

exist in this Legislative Assembly, and that was the thrust of his

argument as recently stated. I'll advise the Legislative Assembly and

the committee that there are many different pay schedules used that are

at a different level from other members: the Leader of the Opposition,

the opposition House Leader.... If it's the suggestion of the member

for Alberni that we eliminate all those special salaries, be it

parliamentary secretary, opposition House Leader, opposition leader, we

may consider that.

MR. SKELLY: I know the member for Point Grey (Ms. Campbell)

would like to speak, Mr. Chairman. But that's an inane suggestion, and

I pointed out in my last speech.... I hope it's not a threat, because

that's the very thing we're talking about. If you can give $3,000 per

Social Credit member, you can also take it back at your whim in order

to buy their acquiescence to government legislation, in order to buy

their silence when they have a different opinion from the government.

I said in the speech I made previously in this Legislature that the

House Leader — whether government or opposition — has a service to this

House. Not a service to the government, but a service to this House, a

service that is appropriate, that needs to be done and that involves

additional energy and work expended by that member and the requirement

of additional services to that member — whether it's the Whip, the

Leader of the Opposition, or the parliamentary secretaries, in a

limited way — providing the service that parliamentary secretaries

provide to ministers in this Legislature.

You're the ones who compare our House and the federal House; there

are a limited number of parliamentary secretaries in the federal House.

This provision isn't a back-door way of creating a separate pay scale

for government members, which undermines the independence of members in

this House and buys their acquiescence to government programs. Don't

threaten the members of this Legislature....

MS. CAMPBELL: I'd like to participate in this debate, which I

think is an excellent one. I would like to compliment the members on

both sides of the House for raising some very interesting issues. I'd

like to suggest that the hon. member for Alberni's conception of what

parliamentary secretaries should do in this House — based on the

standard in the federal parliament — is not a complete discussion of

this issue.

The issue he raises is an important one, and it's very appropriate

to be discussed in this House. But I think that many of the problems

that we're talking about today with respect to this

section of the bill

really relate to the size of our House and the implications of certain

structural changes that we make in this House with respect to the size,

which is very small. In other words, we have a House where the

government side consists of 46 members. We have a relatively small

cabinet now, but there have been times in this parliament when the

cabinet has been 22 or 23.

MR. BLENCOE: You have eight.

[ Page 2845 ]

MS. CAMPBELL: I'm talking about members of cabinet, not parliamentary secretaries or ministers of state.

MR. BLENCOE: Eight superministers.

MS. CAMPBELL: Oh, forgive me. I haven't stood up for a day or

two; I've been out of the House, and I must be losing my touch by not

picking up on the irony of the hon. member for Victoria.

We have a situation where, in theory, if every minister had a

parliamentary secretary, that would certainly employ a large number of

the government back-benchers. Therefore the concerns the hon. member

raises are legitimate and real ones to be considered. The problems

created by the size of our House reflect on a number of things that

have been discussed; for example, the activity of legislative

committees.

I chair a legislative committee of this House to which business was

referred in the last session. In fact, we had a great deal of

difficulty in convening the members of that committee, because members

of the Legislature are extremely busy now — even back-benchers, even

opposition back-benchers. Our schedules are very full, and it is very

difficult to staff committees on a continuing basis. But it is easier

to staff committees now in this House with 12 more members than existed

in previous governments. That is why I have every expectation that the

legislative committees will function more and have more business

referred to them, because there are more bodies. It is a more realistic

approach.

With respect to the role of parliamentary secretaries, I would

suggest that the issue is much less clear than the member for Alberni

suggests. I have been rereading recently the diaries of Richard

Crossman who was a cabinet minister in the Labour government of Harold

Wilson from 1964 to 1970. I see the member for Nanaimo laughing. It's a

great pity, because they are among the best....

Interjection.

MS. CAMPBELL: Well, they're not too esoteric for me, hon.

member. I do have an IQ in three digits, and I'm prepared to stand up

in this House and discuss these things. The hon. member's intellectual

condescension is often very hard to take, but it may surprise him to

know that I do read those diaries without moving my lips and I am able

to understand them. I don't even run my finger along the lines as I

read them; I'm actually able to read and comprehend them. They are a

brilliant exposition of cabinet government.

But I would point out that in the British parliament, for example,

when Richard Crossman was the Minister of Housing and Local Government,

he had two parliamentary secretaries. Those parliamentary secretaries

were actually assigned by him to specific areas of his responsibility

in the ministry. In other words, he delegated great responsibility to

them. They met with interest groups, lobby groups and local groups

around the country. They traveled around Britain and met with him in

London. They functioned very much as junior ministers, although they

weren't junior ministers and didn't have cabinet status.

Interjection.

MS. CAMPBELL: Well, there are many hundreds of members in the British

House, and therefore it is very interesting to see how the parliamentary secretaries

functioned, because they have a large cabinet and a large parliament.

The point is, I think what the hon. member raises is an important

issue and one worth discussing, but the issue in this particular

section of the bill is whether there should be a limit to the number of

parliamentary secretaries who can be appointed. That raises the

question as to what the conceptual basis for that number is. Should

every minister be entitled to a parliamentary secretary, or should only

some ministers be entitled to a parliamentary secretary? Should a

parliamentary secretary work for two ministers, or should a

parliamentary secretary...? And I would point out that the financial

emolument to parliamentary secretaries is, in my view, very modest and

hardly an incentive to take on a job which would double the workload of

most MLAs.

I think what we're really getting down to here is the point that the

government has asked the House to authorize the possibility of an

increase in the number of parliamentary secretaries. There are

ministers in this House who I think could be well served by having a

parliamentary secretary of their own. I would respectfully suggest that

the way parliamentary secretaries are functioning in the current

government is not out of phase with the way parliamentary secretaries

function in other parliamentary systems, and that this a perfectly

appropriate piece of legislation for the government to bring in.

I think the other issues we're discussing about how the Legislature

functions and the role of parliamentary secretaries in general are best

discussed on another occasion in another forum. I think they might well

be discussed through the committee on internal economy and some of the

other structures that we have set up in this House to discuss these

particular issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On

section 2, the member for Burnaby North — I'm sorry, the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. MILLER: The confusion on the Chair's

part I think mirrors

the confusion on the government's part when it comes to the

parliamentary secretaries. I was really interested in the remarks of

the member for Vancouver-Point Grey with regard to the system of

government and the need for parliamentary secretaries. I must confess

that my IQ is perhaps not large enough or doesn't have enough numbers

in it to figure out what she was saying. Perhaps some of the members on

the other side of the House might be suffering the same fate at this

moment.

In fact, there is such a hodgepodge of parliamentary secretaries

responsible to so many ministers, and ministers of state, ministers for

this and ministers for that. that they all might require the IQ of the

member for Vancouver-Point Grey to figure out exactly what their job

is. Certainly we are having some difficulty fully understanding what

the government's intent is by lifting the ceiling on the number of

parliamentary secretaries in this new approach to the regions of our

province. My experience with government is that you appoint a cabinet

on a number of considerations. and I would hope that talent would be

one of the foremost. From time to time, without casting any aspersions

on the opposite side, people are revealed for their lack of talent and

are subsequently removed. Certainly a premier, in making up his

cabinet, also

[ Page 2846 ]

looks at the regions that various members come

from, because he's cognizant of the fact that there has to be that kind

of regional representation in the makeup of the cabinet, so that all

British Columbians are really represented.

I might note that for a good number of years there have been — and

I'll stick to the north; I won't deal with other areas of the province

in my address — at least two.... Sorry, there are three members in the

cabinet who represent the regions of the northern part of this

province. Adjoining my own constituency we have the Minister of Forests

(Hon. Mr. Parker) from Skeena, the hon. House Leader from the Prince

George area, and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Brummet) from the

Peace River area. One would logically conclude that these very able

gentlemen are able to represent, with some conviction at the cabinet

table, the interests of the northern part of this province. Given that

consideration, I'm wondering why they have to appoint ministers of

state. Why does the second member for Vancouver South (Hon. Mr. Rogers)

have to be appointed to represent the Nechako region? Is there some

failure on the part of the northern members of cabinet to carry forward

the arguments for and representation of the northern part of this

province? It could be interpreted as an admission of failure.

At the federal level there have been parliamentary secretaries for a

number of years. In fact, I did some hasty research and got a book that

It makes some references to parliamentary secretaries. I just want to

briefly quote some of them and try to put them in the context of the

debate we're having today. I had to go to my colleague from Nanaimo to

get the meaning of a particular word. I'll just cite the sentence here.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: No, my dictionary is in my office, but I didn't have time to go and get it.

"From time to time one or two members would appear in the ministry — that

is, chosen by the Prime Minister to be his advisers — who were not in the cabinet

and, since the Second World War, a fairly large, penumbral group of parliamentary

secretaries." Well, I understand the word "penumbral" means shadowy.

A fair number of shadowy people are being given a job in this bill. They're

going to be flying up to constituencies they don't represent, to represent

the people in those areas. And believe me, I think the member for Omineca (Mr.

Kempf) has spoken with some passion about his feelings there.

HON. MR. VEITCH: He's on board now.

MR. MILLER: Well, Mr. Minister, in relation to the open

negotiations you had with the member for Omineca, I wonder whether you

are giving him a ride or taking him for a ride.

[12:45]

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He'll find out.

MR. MILLER: He'll find out, and I can assure you, it might not be pleasant.

We also have to look at our experience to date with this government

in terms of their argument that really they want to have a better voice

for the region; they want to listen. When we talk about listening, I

guess we talk about a poll that says there's some 61 percent opposition

to the privatization of highways maintenance, which the government

doesn't want to listen to. The BCGEU doesn't like it, Mr. Minister, and

I don't think you can make a convincing argument that they do like it.

It's a pretty sad day when people have to resort to that sort of thing

because they fear for their jobs. People shouldn't have to buy their

jobs, Mr. Minister.

It's interesting that the federal Department of Fisheries has just

brought in some regulations so that fishermen don't have to buy their

jobs on fishboats. It's too bad this government wouldn't pay attention

to that.

Interjection.

MR. MILLER: I'm against people having to buy their jobs, Mr. Member.

I wonder why the government, in the spirit of listening to people,

chose to ignore the recommendations of a committee that toured this

province, went the length and breadth of this province, dealing with

liquor. Yet the members — 90 percent of whom are, if I'm not mistaken,

on the payroll — can quite easily dismiss a report from their own

colleagues recommending against an action of the government. That's

another important point when we come to the whole issue of

parliamentary secretaries, because another very important feature of

government which this rookie back bench has learned all too quickly is

solidarity. We never hear them speaking out with any kind of conviction

in opposition to government initiatives. It's only the first member for

Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser) who has the conviction to do that.

I listened with interest to the second member for Cariboo (Mr.

Vant), who's a parliamentary secretary. I listened with interest to his

remarks this morning, because I've always liked to pay attention to

that member since I heard his maiden speech, when he proudly proclaimed

that he'd worked eight months without a day off. I wondered then and

I'm still wondering, Mr. Member.... The topic of your speech was the

commitment of government to downsize government. Don't you think that

applies to the cabinet and the parliamentary secretaries? Man, you've

just upsized it in this bill. Ninety percent of you are on the payroll.

Why aren't you up speaking against it, Mr. Member, if you're in favour

of downsizing? Or is it one rule for the people who sit in this House

on the government side and another rule for the people of British

Columbia?

I also have some deep concerns in relation to my job. I was elected

to represent the members of my constituency. I want to tell you that I

do that regardless of the political stripe of people who approach me

for assistance. I can't say, unfortunately, that the same attitude

exists on the other side of the House. I recall, and I'm sure other

members recall....

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: It's unfortunate that the level of din in this

House is so great. It must indicate that the members don't want to

listen to what I'm saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members.

MR. MILLER: I recall vividly the last election. The reason

the person who ran against me lost is that the only argument he put

forward was: "Vote for me, because if you

[ Page 2847 ]

don't have a member on the government side, this

constituency will not get anything." That was the sum and substance of

the argument used by the Social Credit Party during the last election.

You're the same Social Credit Party now presenting a bill in this House

saying: "We want to listen to the people; we want to have regional

representation."

Perhaps the Provincial Secretary will respond to some of the

specific questions I'm raising. Is that the reason why, when there's a

press release when