1987 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 34th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1987

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 2849 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Tabling Documents –– 2849

Oral Questions

Privatization of highway maintenance. Mr. Harcourt –– 2849

Referral of Bill 28 to Fisher commission. Mr. G. Hanson –– 2849

Vancouver Stock Exchange. Mr. Sihota –– 2850

Indian language training at College of New Caledonia. Mrs. Boone –– 2851

Sale of tree nursery. Mr. Clark –– 2851

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

(Hon. B. R. Smith) –– 2851

Mr. Clark

Mr. Lovick

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. Williams

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Crandall

Mr. Cashore

Ministerial Statement

Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 2862

Mr. Miller

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

(Hon. B. R. Smith) –– 2863

Mr. Cashore

Hon. Mr. Veitch

Mr. Clark

Mr. Sihota

Mr. Lovick

Mr. Miller

Mr. Blencoe

Mr. Skelly

Mr. Guno

Hon. Mr. Rogers

The House met at 2:11 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. VEITCH: In the members' gallery today we have a

long-time servant of the people of British Columbia, particularly in

the municipality of Burnaby, Mr. Vic Stusiak. I would ask this House to

bid him welcome.

MR. PELTON: Mr. Speaker, in the precincts today we have some

90 grade 10 students from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary School; at the

moment we have 30 in the gallery, and the other 60 will be coming along

to see us as the day progresses. These young people are accompanied by

Mrs. Trimmer, who's a counsellor, and by Mr. Finnegan, who is a student

teacher. I would ask the hon. members to make them really welcome here

this afternoon.

MR. BRUCE: A number of colleagues of mine here in the House

have been wondering why I haven't been making any introductions; they

were wondering if everything was all right in Cowichan-Malahat. Today

I'd like to tell you that things are as wonderful as they possibly can

be in Cowichan-Malahat. Today two of my very good friends, the

treasurer of the party constituency, Jim Painter, and his good wife

Shirley are here to spend a little time in the House to see all the

wonderful work that we do here on behalf of the constituents of the

province of British Columbia. I'd ask that you bid them a nice warm

welcome.

Hon. L. Hanson tabled the sixty-sixth annual report of the liquor distribution branch for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1987.

MR. G. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. G. HANSON: In the gallery today is a friend of ours in

Victoria, Joyce Heynsbroek, a person who has worked many years as a

nurse and who cares deeply about the quality of health care in this

province. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming her today.

Oral Questions

PRIVATIZATION OF HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

MR. HARCOURT: My question is to the Minister of Labour. On

the weekend he took the occasion to publicly dissociate himself from

the position that the former Minister of Highways, first member for

Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), has taken on privatization. I'd like to ask

the Minister of Environment and Parks whether he agrees with the Labour

minister or with the first member for Cariboo.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: A very interesting question. I hear

alleged reports of statements made by two members. I haven't seen

either statement, so it's very hard for me to comment.

[2:15]

MR. HARCOURT: It's a very straightforward question. Do you agree with the privatization of the highways service — yes or no?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes.

MR. HARCOURT: I'd like to ask the member for Kamloops, the

Minister of Social Services and Housing: does he agree with

privatization. or is he going to listen to the former Highways minister

about the dangers of privatizing the highways?

MR. SPEAKER: Before the minister answers, I would have to

caution the Leader of the Opposition that questions must fall within

the administrative responsibility of the minister. If the Leader of the

Opposition were to ask the minister questions within his own

department.... But to canvass the government members as to a statement

of another minister.... If he were to check with May, page 339, he

would find that it's not in the parliamentary tradition.

MR. HARCOURT: Mr. Speaker, I ask the question, and they've

heard the response of the first member for Cariboo. Thev're not

unaware. They can't be wilfully blind, when the first member for

Cariboo, ex-Minister of Highways, has made a very clear public

statement. I'm asking them whether they agree with that position from

the first member for Cariboo. Yes or no? It's a very simple,

straightforward question.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Leader of the Opposition's question

is out of order. If he wants to ask the minister a question relating to

his own department....

MR. HARCOURT: In terms of clarifying the statements made by the first

member for Cariboo?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes. If you want to put that question to the

Minister of Transportation, that's fine. But to start canvassing

cabinet members on another member's department....

MR. HARCOURT: I think that's entirely appropriate. After all,

the advice that the Minister of Highways has had.... The ex-Minister of

Highways and three ex-deputy ministers are saying that to privatize the

maintenance of the roads of this province is going to harm the public.

Does he agree with the ex-Minister of Highways, or is he one of the

sheep we just heard baaing over there?

REFERRAL OF BILL 28

TO FISHER COMMISSION

MR. G. HANSON: I have a question for the Provincial

Secretary. Given the fact that British Columbia has appointed an

electoral commissioner, Justice Thomas Fisher, I'd like to ask the

Provincial Secretary if he's decided to refer the provisions of Bill 28

to Justice Fisher for his consideration and opinion on this very

sensitive matter.

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's future action, Mr. Speaker. I won't offend the rules of the House.

[ Page 2850 ]

MR. G. HANSON: I asked if the minister had decided to refer this sensitive matter to Justice Fisher.

I'll go on to another question. Other provinces in Canada and the

federal government have permanent, independent electoral commissions

that make recommendations to government with respect to election

machinery matters. Given the antiquated electoral machinery in British

Columbia, why not refer this matter to Justice Fisher for a fair and

impartial assessment, rather than tinker... disfranchising British

Columbians of their right to vote, which they have in the Charter of

Rights and which the United Nations has conventions on?

HON. MR. VEITCH: This hon. member has a private member's bill

before the House. We have Bill 28 before the House. We have a royal

commission. He's been around here long enough to know that he ought not

offend the rules of this House. His question is completely and

absolutely out of order, and I will not honour him by answering it.

MR. G. HANSON: I'm asking the Provincial Secretary why he's afraid to have this handled in a fair and impartial manner.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm not afraid of anything. I just don't believe in offending the rules of parliament.

VANCOUVER STOCK EXCHANGE

MR. SIHOTA: Mr. Speaker, I have with me here in the House a

report prepared by Brown Farris and Jefferson Ltd. with respect to the

Vancouver Stock Exchange. It's a report that has been kept under wraps

by the provincial government for some eight and a half years because of

its devastating conclusions.

My question to the Minister of Finance, who's responsible for the

stock exchange, is as follows. This report concludes that the odds of

losing overall on the Vancouver Stock Exchange are 84 percent — in

other words, five out of six small investors lose; that 27 to 37 cents

on every dollar spent on the stock exchange ever realizes a venture;

and that an incredible 48 cents of every dollar invested on the stock

market goes to promoters and brokers on the stock exchange. Does the

minister understand that, and what steps does he intend to take to

implement the recommendations of this report?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Mr. Speaker, we dramatically increased

the funding to the opposition party's research group so that they could

do a more effective job of preparing themselves. If we're going to be

dealing, on a subject as dynamic as the stock exchange, with a report

that's eight years old which wouldn't recognize all the changes we've

put in place, the new act, the new regulations and the new

personalities, I'm somewhat at a loss to understand whether the

questioner is really serious.

MR. SIHOTA: That was just more huff and puff from the minister of fluff over there.

The report suggests that the system of betting on lotteries and on

horse-racing is fairer than the system on the Vancouver Stock Exchange.

The report indicates that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is not achieving

its goal of raising venture capital for worthwhile projects. The report

is suggesting that the Vancouver Stock Exchange is a rigged game; it

amounts to legalized theft. Will the minister agree to immediately

consult with the drafters of this report with a view to finding out

whether they would cooperate with the minister to update the findings

of the report?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: The report and the conclusions drawn in

the report, by the questioner's own admission, are eight years old.

Since the time the report was prepared, we have had put in place by

this government a new Securities Act, we have created a Securities

Commission, we have brought in new regulations, and we have added

significantly to the staff and to the budget of the Securities

Commission.

The Vancouver Stock Exchange has been very aggressively working on

some of the historical problems — and making dramatic progress in

addressing them, I might add. The facts today are entirely different

than the facts alluded to eight years ago. I'm very pleased to stand up

today and say that we have made significant progress towards the

objective of bringing the Vancouver Stock Exchange to a higher degree

of maturity, and I refer, as indication of that fact, to all the

changes that I've just alluded to.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister obviously does not understand that

the new Securities Act does not touch upon the issues raised in this

report; the minister obviously does not understand that the new

securities regulations do not touch upon the recommendations made in

this report; the minister does not understand that some of the changes

that have come down with respect to personnel and their mandate do not

deal with the provisions of this act and its recommendations. The

question to the minister is simply this: has he read the Brown Farris

and Jefferson report?

HON. MR. COUVELIER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have read the report.

MR. SIHOTA: In light of that, obviously the minister cannot

say that the new securities legislation, the new rules that have been

brought forward by the government with respect to these reports,

embraces and deals in any way with the recommendations made in this

report. Will the minister explain to this House which of the

recommendations in this report have been implemented and brought about

in terms of addressing those changes through the new Securities Act

regulations? What are these recommendations, and how have they been

dealt with in the new Securities Act, Mr. Minister?

Interjections.

HON. MR. COUVELIER: I must agree with some of the asides

here. The issue of the Vancouver Stock Exchange has been the subject of

much sensational news reporting, and has given the hon. member for

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew the material for some useful questions. I think

it has also provided us with the opportunity to make some explanations

as to what we are doing, what our objectives are, and how we are going

to get there.

I repeat again that the operating style of the Vancouver Stock

Exchange is something that this government is very sensitive to, and it

is one that we are monitoring on a constant basis. I also reiterate

that in the judgment of this government

[ Page 2851 ]

the Vancouver Stock Exchange provides a unique

opportunity for us to use its potential in a way that enhances the

development of Vancouver as a financial centre. We are ever cognizant

of that prime objective, and everything we are doing in terms of

regulations and in terms of legislation is aimed to that grander goal.

For the member from Esquimalt-Port Renfrew to use this opportunity

in what is obviously a pretty dull question period to further identify

for personal gain the situation does a disservice, I think, to the

economic opportunities this province faces. This government is prepared

to make sure that the Vancouver Stock Exchange fulfils all its

opportunities. If the member has any concrete suggestions which might

be useful on a daily basis, we'd be pleased to hear them.

INDIAN LANGUAGE TRAINING

AT COLLEGE OF NEW CALEDONIA

MRS. BOONE: A question to the Minister of Advanced Education

and Job Training. Bill Gilgan, your appointee to the board of directors

of the College of New Caledonia, has gone out of his way to make

critical remarks about the Indian language training. These remarks have

been interpreted as racist and damaging to the credibility of CNC.

Given your government's support for Indian language training in the

throne speech, has the minister decided to reconsider his appointment

of Bill Gilgan?

HON. S. HAGEN: No, I haven't, Mr. Speaker.

SALE OF TREE NURSERY

MR. CLARK: A question to the minister of privatization; I

guess that's the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. I

have here a copy of the Buy and Sell

newspaper, and next to the ads selling used furniture is an ad selling

a used forest nursery worth several million dollars. Could the minister

explain the government's privatization ad campaign, and specifically,

was the ad placed in the Buy and Sell because it's located in Richmond, or is it a specific market niche, that of used furniture buyers, that we're aiming at?

[2:30]

HON. MR. DAVIS: After I have had an opportunity to read the interesting ad, I'll endeavour to reply to the hon. member.

MR. CLARK: Perhaps the minister could give us a ballpark figure as to the expenditure of taxpayers' money on ads like those we see in the Buy and Sell .

HON. MR. DAVIS: Inexpensive, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take further notice of that ad.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. STRACHAN: 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.

MR. CLARK: I'm glad the minister responsible for privatization is

here, because I managed to look at a clipping from March, 1985, where the minister

— before he was a minister — talked about parliamentary secretaries. I must

say it was one of the most eloquent arguments I've seen yet against the

need for parliamentary secretaries in this House. That was, of course, before

he got into the cabinet and followed the lines that the former Minister of Highways

has mentioned, and that was also before we had this

section of the bill, which

deals with unlimited parliamentary secretaries. So the Minister of Energy (Hon.

Mr. Davis) goes on at great length in one of the best speeches I've read

for a long time in this House, and I'd like to paraphrase some of the things

he says.

"Parliamentary secretaries are hired guns who extend cabinet's

grip over the Legislature, says..." — a Socred back-bencher; I won't

read his name; I guess that's not parliamentary. "The eight newly created

secretaries, drawn from the government back benches, will get $3,000 a year in

addition to their basic $40,000 salaries.... Davis," — oh, excuse me; I

shouldn't say that, I guess — "an outspoken MLA from North Vancouver-Seymour,

says the positions are costly perks that have altered the nature of the 57-member

Legislature and weakened parliamentary democracy in the province.

"The secretaries were itching to be cabinet ministers,

said Davis, and owed their allegiance to cabinet. A parliamentary

secretary has to watch his or her step, because they are a hired gun,

'he said in an interview.' They are not a free member. They are a hired

gun by the Crown, the Premier and the cabinet. They toe the line. The

Premier appoints them. He can unappoint them. The Crown is the Premier,

cabinet and parliamentary secretaries, which makes up just over half

the House.'"

Now to paraphrase, the member from North Vancouver-Seymour stated

that in the federal House, a House of close to 300, they have about ten

parliamentary secretaries, but in the provincial House at that time

with 57, we were going to have ten as well, and that was a completely

different thing — an order of magnitude different from the federal

House.

But now we have a

section of a bill before us which makes it

unlimited, which, as some members have indicated, means there will only

be five members on the government side of the House who aren't getting

$3,000 more than the basic MLA salary. So all members on the government

side of the House will be paid more than all members on the opposition

side of the House. More importantly, as the member for North

Vancouver-Seymour said, it alters the nature of democracy by creating a

two-tiered level of democracy. It means that in fact the cabinet

extends its grip on the back-benchers, so that they keep silent in the

face of what could be opposition to the kinds of initiative we've seen.

MR. WILLIAMS: Hush money.

MR. CLARK: Hush money; I like that. That's very good.

Therefore the only members who have the opportunity to speak out on

these matters are those four or five poor backbenchers who don't get a

chance to act that $3,000. We know that already one of them — the

former Minister of Highways

[ Page 2852 ]

— has made clear his unequivocal opposition to the direction the government is taking them in.

Let me just go through some of the remarks made by the member for

North Vancouver-Seymour, since he is still in the House. Maybe he'd

like to respond. Maybe his views have changed now that he's in cabinet.

He's in rather than out, as he was when he made these comments.

"The great debate that has gone on down the years

about the survival of parliament has really revolved around the

executive as distinct from the generality of members. The executive in

the United Kingdom and Ottawa, and most places, has been small compared

to the totality of members. Here we have an executive, if you extend it

to include parliamentary secretaries, that is over half the House. This

is remarkable. This is unusual.

"The secretaries were sworn to secrecy, he said. 'But

they are not in cabinet meetings, so they are not totally privy to

everything that is going on in government. Nevertheless, they have one

limited area of secrecy: aspirations to get into the cabinet. So they

are now, through pay and through oath and through aspirations, tied to

the Crown'" — and tied therefore to the cabinet.

That is what the member for North Vancouver-Seymour said when we

were looking at six new parliamentary secretaries. This bill gives

unequivocal, unlimited rights to the cabinet to extend their grip on

the caucus, to include all but five members of the government side. So

rather than being half of the House, as the member for North

Vancouver-Seymour said, we now have two-thirds of the House, or more,

who are basically bound by the oath of secrecy or by cabinet

solidarity, or bound to support the government in all its endeavours.

Incidentally, you have other perks that go along with the job of

parliamentary secretary, which weakens the role of the opposition. For

example, they have the ability to be absent from the House for more

than ten days before money is docked from them, unlike members of the

opposition, who lose $200 a day if they miss more than ten days.

Parliamentary secretaries, like the second member for Vancouver-Little

Mountain (Mr. Mowat), can therefore be absent from the House,

campaigning on behalf of the government, selling the government's

message, without any loss of pay.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, this offends the very reason for

parliamentary democracy. As the member for North Vancouver said at an

earlier stage, very clearly this offends the very reason we have

parliament, the very reason we have a cabinet as distinct from the

generality of members. We should be very cognizant of it and very

vigilant that we don't extend that privilege and that power of the

executive to all members on the government side of the House. I think,

quite frankly, it has dangerous precedents. Those remarks, you must

remember, were stated when we were only looking at a very modest

increase in the practice of parliamentary secretaries. This offends it

even more, because it doesn't even limit it. It doesn't limit it to 15

or to 20. It is unlimited on the part of the cabinet to extend their

grip onto the back bench.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to stand here and oppose this

section of the bill. I think other members on this side of the House

will be doing so. I hope to participate in a debate at some later date.

MR. JACOBSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN: Earlier, Mr. Chairman, you introduced the first

group of the visiting students from Maple Ridge Senior Secondary

School, the grade 10 students. I understand that the next group is now

in the Legislature. On behalf of yourself and myself, I would ask the

members to give them a warm welcome.

MR. LOVICK: I'm devastated to discover that my colleague the

hon. member from the other side of the House is not speaking to this

bill. I was quite looking forward to hearing his words on the subject.

So please forgive me, Mr. Chairman, if I am not as prepared as I should

like to be.

I didn't have the advantage of being in the House for all of the

Provincial Secretary's opening comments on the measure, and therefore I

have had to take him secondhand, as it were, and read good chunks of

the Blues. I have read good chunks of it, and I must confess, Mr.

Provincial Secretary, that I'm a little disappointed that I don't see

the kind of ringing and eloquent defence for which you are so justly

famous. Indeed, I'm a little concerned, because I heard a statement

made earlier today, in question period as it happened, when in response

to a question from one of my colleagues the Provincial Secretary said:

"I just don't believe in offending the rules of parliament." It strikes

me that what we have in this miscellaneous statutes amendment to the

Constitution Act is a paradigm case of offending the rules of

parliament.

I hope that the minister will respond to these suggestions, because

I would love to engage him in debate on this subject. I hope he will

pick up my challenge.

Let me present to him why that is the case. The predicament we are

dealing with here, of course, is that what the measure amounts to is a

significant restructuring of government. We are talking about a large

expansion of the role of parliamentary secretary. One of the defences

that the Provincial Secretary has used quite consistently throughout,

Mr. Chairman, is: why should you complain if it's not costing any

money? In other words, if individuals are effectively fulfilling the

roles of parliamentary secretary, they don't have those rights and they

don't have those duties by fiat from the Legislature; but as long as

it's not costing us money, says the Provincial Secretary, we should not

be exercised or concerned about that. I want to suggest to the

Provincial Secretary — and I invite him to respond — that that amounts

to a blurring of distinctions that is a retrograde step for parliament.

It is not just a matter of money. To be sure, most of the great debates

and the great struggles for the supremacy of parliament have been built

around the principle of a right to spend the public's money without

consultation. But embedded within that struggle and underlying that

struggle about money is another one: that governors do not presume to

govern until they have the consent of the governed, until they have

gone through the correct procedures to create individuals and to create

duties, to create functions and to create roles that the people,

through their elected representatives, decide they wish to have created.

To be quite blunt about it, the question of whether the individuals

are being paid for the duties they perform is quite irrelevant, quite

beside the point. What my colleagues have

[ Page 2853 ]

consistently said throughout this debate thus far

is that we should not have had these roles of parliamentary secretaries

being fulfilled in any way, shape or form until such time as the

mandate was granted by this Legislature. That's the fundamental

principle.

Rather than burden the minister with 20 different points, perhaps I

can stop there and let him respond to that one to begin with, if he

wishes.

HON. MR. VEITCH: This has been an interesting couple of days,

and I had a weekend in which to do other things. You remember that when

we left last Friday I was almost negotiating with the member for

Omineca (Mr. Kempf), when he suggested that if he had a plane ride up

to Burns Lake or someplace he would be fully on side with this

initiative.

Then the hon. member for Vancouver-Point Grey got up and, in her own

eloquent way, ably defended the proposition of parliamentary

secretaries and, indeed, went back a little into history. Then the hon.

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) complained that his name was not

showing up in press releases and was not on highway signs — at least

that's what I gathered from it all. I'm wondering if there is some kind

of quid pro quo there that I ought to establish as well. Maybe he ought

to be talking with the member for Omineca, and I could take them both

up to Bums Lake, and they could put their names on a highway sign or

something.

Two or three years ago we went around this country on a committee on

private bills, and we talked about re-establishing the rules of this

House. At that time, one of the initiatives that came forward — not to

a large extent but to some extent from the House Leader at this

time.... He told me and the members of that committee what a wonderful

job the parliamentary secretary system did in Ottawa at the federal

House.

We came to a vote here in this House, and I didn't see one member of

that opposition stand up and vote against the principle of

parliamentary secretaries. They accepted it 100 percent, Mr. Chairman —

and you were chairman of that committee at that time. They supported it

100 percent.

[2:45]

The hon. member over there talks about representation. He suggests —

I guess his thesis is — that you ought to represent only the people

within your own riding. Is that what you're saying, hon. member, that

you ought not to talk to anybody from any other place or any other

riding?

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Yes, you. If that's what it is, then I would

ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition to stay the heck out of

Burnaby-Willingdon. Because he comes through there quite often, and he

probably does himself more harm than good in the process.

You are elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly for British

Columbia. The fact that you represent a particular riding doesn't mean

that you don't vote here on other issues or do other things. I fail to

see the logic of that particular argument. If the NDP were correct in

supporting the principle of parliamentary secretaries a couple of years

ago, then that principle exists today and is just as valid today as it

was a couple of years ago. You can't have it both ways.

I believe the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Clark) was

talking about history. The history of parliamentary secretaries goes

back an awfully long ways. I read that out to you when I introduced

this subject to the House a few days ago. It's a time-tested tradition

in the British parliament, and it will continue to be so. As we change

the way we govern, as we come into — not the 19th century, we don't

have our minds locked into the industrial revolution — this new era

that we're in now, the role of people like parliamentary secretaries

will grow even more and more important. Government will change. You

must change. If you don't want to, you'll stay in opposition all the

rest of your life. That's entirely up to you.

MR. LOVICK: I'm almost apoplectic when I listen to these

comments, because I recognize that the Provincial Secretary and I are

working on parallel streams: we do not converge. I posed a very simple,

finite, direct, specific kind of question. Sadly, there has been no

effort, it would seem, to answer that question. I'm sorry about that

because I do want to focus on that point, which I think is the most

significant and fundamental principle involved.

Let me address, however briefly, the point you made about the

principle of parliamentary secretary. None of us on this side of the

House, as nearly as I can comprehend and understand from my reading of

the debate thus far, has said that parliamentary secretaries as a

species are the problem. What we are arguing, rather, is the

justification for significantly — radically — increasing the numbers of

parliamentary secretaries on the one hand, and on the other hand, doing

so apparently without legislative approval. That's what my question was

about.

My whole question was that you have in effect created these jobs.

You've got people apparently stumping the province, claiming to be

parliamentary secretaries, claiming to be serving the people, who have

no mandate, no right to take that designation unto themselves. Nor have

you, Mr. Provincial Secretary — through you, Mr. Chairman — the right

to confer those titles and those functions and those responsibilities

without coming first to the Legislature. That's the principle I'm

enunciating. Once again I offer you an opportunity to respond to that

one. If I'm wrong, show me.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I don't want to be tedious or repetitious,

and I've already answered this question before. By the legislation that

exists at the present time, there are ten parliamentary secretaries who

have been granted that title by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. If

there are others who have not, it is the intention that when this bill

is fully debated, when it has been given royal assent, when it is

proclaimed, those individuals will receive that same designation by

order-in-council. In fact, I think I can assure the hon. member of

that. So that should put his mind at rest.

MR. LOVICK: Is the Provincial Secretary then telling me that

insofar as we have gone through the legal procedure of the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council minutes thereof, we have addressed all

the concerns we need to about legislative approval? Is that, in effect,

what is being said?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member knows full well that you

can't do by order-in-council that which is not already embodied in

statute. What I'm telling the second member for Nanaimo is that there

are ten parliamentary secretaries established at the present time. They

function as parliamentary secretaries. There are others who are

intended to become parliamentary secretaries when this piece of

legislation that

[ Page 2854 ]

was not heretofore on the books has finally been established in all its form. That is what I'm telling you.

MR. LOVICK: Is it not the case that currently there are

individuals who are functioning as parliamentary secretaries to the

newly created ministers of state — all of whom have also been created

without legislative approval — whether or not they have been paid?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member may or may not know that

under the Constitution Act any member, even the Leader of the

Opposition, may be asked to go to Ottawa, or to a ten-day conference or

first ministers' conference, or he may indeed send a designate, as he

did with the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Williams). If

the government asks someone to do that and the other person accedes,

then that person can act in that capacity for the government. When this

act is proclaimed, when it has received royal assent, I'm sure, as I've

told the hon. member — and I don't want to be repetitious — that there

will be some additional parliamentary secretaries. How many I do not

know.

MR. LOVICK: I think the answer to the question, then, is in

the affirmative. Those functions are now being performed; the only

difference is that the individuals have not been formally appointed and

have not been paid. I see the minister acknowledging that yes, indeed,

that's the case.

The point I am trying to make, and I think it's an important one — I

don't think it's a frivolous one; with all due deference, I don't

believe it's a frivolous point — is that what we're looking at is a

blurring of distinctions, insofar as we are saying that unless it

really fits directly into somebody's rather rigorous and carefully

circumscribed definition of parliamentary secretary, i.e. somebody who

gets paid for a particular duty, then it's really okay to be sort of a

part-time, ad hoc kind of parliamentary secretary. I think that's

deplorable; I think that's wrong; I think that's a mistake.

What I want to suggest to the minister.... I suppose this is really

the point I was trying to elicit. I was trying to find out if indeed I

was correct in that analysis evaluation, because I want to suggest that

one of the difficulties we have with the government is that that

propensity for blurring distinctions is all too apparent here, Mr.

Chairman. That in fact is why my colleagues and I have taken this much

time on this ostensibly rather small measure in this miscellaneous

statutes bill. We want to emphasize, to stress, that here indeed is a

blurring of distinctions that ought not to occur.

The minister makes the claim that the role of parliamentary

secretaries, of government and of MLAs is changing. The predicament,

however, is that we don't respond to change by simply adapting to the

change and forgetting the rules of the game that allow us to make

changes so we can respond to change. This legislation is coming after

the fact. We've got parliamentary secretaries out there strutting and

fretting their stuff, playing out their parts to the world, showing

everybody that suddenly they have new status, not to mention an extra

$6,000 per or whatever. We've got that in place, and then after the

fact we're told: "Well, why don't we have a talk about this business of

parliamentary secretary?" I'm suggesting quite bluntly that that's

putting the proverbial cart before the proverbial horse, and there's

something wrong with that. It's a blurring of distinctions that ought

not to be there.

In that whole argument, Mr. Chairman, that whole business about

saying that we all have to somehow get on the bandwagon called change

ere we get lost in the shuffle and in the course of history or some

such cant.... That kind of argument, frankly, I find offensive. Because

when people start talking in those terms, all too often what they're

really suggesting is: "Trust us. Ignore procedure. Ignore due process.

Let's get moving. Let's get something done."

Interjection.

MR. LOVICK: Yes, they want us to be as bovine and sheeplike as some of the members on the other side of the House we've picked up.

I've just realized that bovine does not describe sheep, does it, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Probably I can't find too much fault with the

choice of words, but in the context of parliamentary language, I can't

really accept those, hon. member.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bovine and sheeplike? Perhaps you could use some other terminology and withdraw those two.

MR. LOVICK: Mr. Chairman, I accept the criticism. Perhaps I

can clarify.... I am suggesting that if indeed hon. members opposite

respond to contentious issues by saying, "Yes, sir; no, sir; three bags

full," and apparently not calling into question what they are being

asked to do, then it seems to me that the terminology "ovine" as an

adjective describing their behaviour seems somehow appropriate. If I

give offence thereby, of course I apologize; I don't mean to.

My concern, however, is that we are falling into this trap, one that

we have seen laid before us on a number of occasions in this

Legislature, of being told that we must get behind a particular

measure. I'm suggesting that the danger with that approach — albeit

that the lure of activism is powerful — is that we too often, it seems

to me, ignore due process and ignore proper procedure. When the

Provincial Secretary says before this House that what Parliament might

have been and what parliamentary secretaries might have been and what

MLAs might have been was perhaps something that was connected to the

era of the Industrial Revolution, that is....

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm talking about what your mindset would be.

MR. LOVICK: Exactly. The mindset and the institutions we create in response to a mindset. I would remind the minister.

When we start from that assumption that we are somehow out of tune

with the present, with the contemporary reality, I'm suggesting to the

minister that what ought to be said is.... If he indeed believes that

Parliament is somehow obsolete, is somehow anachronistic and has not

caught up, then it's precisely that kind of measure, that kind of

resolution that ought to be brought before this House for debate.

Clearly the onus is on those wanting to change the rules to bring in

the case and to argue the case, not to come in via some kind of

back-door route.

[ Page 2855 ]

I'm afraid that when I read the debate thus far on

section 2, the

amendment to the Constitution Act — specifically about uncapping the

numbers on parliamentary secretaries — and the defence I discover there

is that perhaps the old system is obsolete, then what I want to hear is

a defence from the minister in terms of why we need a new system, not

simple comments and cavalier kinds of utterances to suggest that we on

this side are somehow not au courant , not up to date, not contemporary. That's the point I'm making, and perhaps the minister would like to respond to that comment.

[3:00]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I think there's an old adage that if the shoe fits, one can wear it.

I'll reiterate — and I don't want to be tedious or repetitious: back

at the time of the Union of B.C. Municipalities convention, the Premier

of this province announced an initiative, an intention of government to

decentralize government and to do it in a very bold manner. Part of

that process, hon. member, was the appointing of several ministers of

state — eight — and nine parliamentary secretaries.

At the first opportunity to bring all these things legislatively to

fruition, the government placed on the order paper a piece of

legislation; it's dealt with here in

section 2 of this miscellaneous

stats act. That is the first opportunity to help to bring to fruition

that initiative.

MR. WILLIAMS: Where's the rest of it?

HON. MR. VEITCH: If you'd come around, hon. member, and visit

some of the meetings and join in the process, you might find out about

the rest of it, but you're not going to do it sitting here on your duff

— is "duff" unparliamentary? — in Vancouver East.

But, Mr. Chairman, when...

Interjection.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I know the hon. member isn't listening; he seldom does.

...this legislation is complete in all its forms, other

parliamentary secretaries may be appointed. You said that I asked you

to get behind the measure; I haven't asked you to get behind the

measure; I merely suggested that it might be the best thing you could

do for your constituents if you wanted to keep up with this bold

initiative at this point in time.

The hon. member knows full well that the process is that when you

first have the opportunity, you bring in legislation, it's debated, and

then, I guess, if the opposition wants to they can filibuster the

debate. It's up to them.

MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, what we just heard from this

minister of state is that if we're serious people in this democracy,

what we should do is go to his meetings in the lower mainland and

southwest riding, and not sit here in the Legislature of British

Columbia.

You talk about mindset, Mr. Minister. Mind set. You bet. That is

incredible. Out of your mouth just now you dismiss the Legislature, you

show contempt for this process in terms of the parliament of this

province, and say: "Don't waste your time here. Don't sit on your duff

here. You come to my meeting." What damned nonsense! Come to your Grey

Cup party. Come to your bun-fight. Come to your bull sessions. Come on!

You think about what you said.

It's as good as we got from that Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Couvelier) last week when he dismissed a million for you birds, you

ministers of state. He said: "It's not a potful; it's only a million."

When the people of this land heard "what's a million?" from C.D. Howe

some decades ago, they got rid of him forthwith, and they got rid of

the government that he was part of forthwith. I suggest you think about

that, Mr. Minister.

Statements like we got last week from the Minister of Finance are

justification for getting rid of a government. Statements like yours

are justification for getting rid of a government because it betrays a

kind of arrogance. You've only been around for a year with this

Premier. You have an obligation. The Premier's lieutenant briefed the

press, and they said, "What we're talking about is something more

radical than has ever been considered in terms of structure in this

province before: a United States of British Columbia."

What's the process here, Mr. Minister? This little bit of

legislation gives jobs to the boys — parliamentary secretaries. That's

the legislation you bring in. At the very least, you bring in

legislation that designates those regions. You haven't done that. You

haven't brought anything in here that talks about why the Nechako

region is a new state in British Columbia. You've come in with this

miserable little thing called "jobs for the boys," and a little bit of

a patronage wagon. As the Minister of Finance would say, what's a

million? It's not a potful. Eight million. It's not eight potfuls. No.

It just tells you something, doesn't it? It just tells you something

about what it's all about.

You're saying I shouldn't sit here in this Legislature, that I

should attend your 300-person party on Grey Cup weekend, that that's

where the action is, and that that's the new democracy in British

Columbia. I don't think you realize what you said, Mr. Minister.

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Even on a Saturday. No, you said that Saturday

meeting was more important than meeting here in the Legislature today.

Maybe you can unburden yourself and let us know why it was so important

and what you achieved. Maybe you can establish this whole new direction

that came out of those 300 people. I'm impressed; the chamber of

commerce packs more weight than the Legislature. Is that what you're

saying? Because you invited every chamber of commerce in the whole

southwest region to your meeting. After all, we're all equals, aren't

we? They all got elected in a riding in British Columbia, didn't they?

No, they did not. All of your friends and lackeys come to the free

party. That's in the grand tradition of the member for Little Mountain.

All of the people that supported her went to a great party that was

very expensive, and you're telling me....

Interjection.

MR. WILLIAMS: Oh, maybe the minister would like to jump into

the debate and explain her $500-a-person bun-fight that included so

many of her supporters from the Whistler convention. Maybe she'd like

to explain that in some detail. But at least you, Mr. Minister, could

explain in some detail why you happen to think that it is more

important than meeting here in the Legislature of British Columbia.

[ Page 2856 ]

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I guess some of the friends and lackeys that

came to the meeting were people like Mayor Baker from New Westminster

and Mayor Driscoll from Port Moody. I suggest that they are hardly

friends and lackeys of our administration, or anyone else's. If the

hon. member doesn't want to take some time on Saturday to go out to a

meeting — I don't think that we're really debating the parliamentary

secretaries when we speak of this — I take it back; don't come. Take

your time on Saturday and do what you do with it, and don't do it.

That's entirely up to you.

MR. SIHOTA: What a response! Somewhere between the fact and

the principle.... The minister obviously didn't catch the principle and

just sort of focused on whether or not people should come to parties. I

don't think that was the point the previous speaker was trying to make.

But that's not surprising — this minister doesn't seem to catch on to

those principles.

I want to talk about something else from a different dimension. This

is the first time I've had an opportunity to rise in debate on this

section. But you know, an interesting kind of situation occurred in my

riding during the summer. I want to talk a little about that incident

and ask the minister some questions as a consequence of that incident.

It's my submission that the purpose of this

section is simply to do an

end run around MLAs, around the democratically elected members of the

Legislature who happen to be on the opposition side, to try to

circumvent the democratic process that we have in this province with

respect to the election of MLAs on a region-by-region,

constituency-by-constituency basis, whereby people, within their given

regions and constituencies, go to the polls — in this case, last

October — and make decisions as to who it is from their riclings they

want to fight for their interests, for all the local issues that

inspire each and every one of us to get into politics, and who it is

they want to speak out for them and fight for the larger provincial

issues that divide us as a province.

[Mr. Pelton in the chair.]

It seems to me that the current provincial regime simply cannot

accept the verdict when it comes down on election day with respect to

people on this side of the House. The assistant to the Premier, Mr.

Poole, said it very clearly back in September of this year, at the

UBCM, which the minister made some comments about earlier on. I don't

have to repeat the quote, but the thrust of the quote was essentially

that the role of MLAs is "overrated." My submission is that the purpose

of decentralization and parliamentary secretaries is simply to do an

end run around democratically elected MLAs. If there isn't ample proof

in the statements made by Mr. Poole — and we know this is a one-man

government, and the person closest to His Highness is Mr. Poole — then

there's ample proof in the type of comments made by a minister of the

government in my riding during the past summer while the House was

recessed.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It wasn't in your riding.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says it wasn't in my riding. I don't

know if he's trying to be funny or not. The point is, Mr. Minister, it was

in my riding. The comment was made by the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid)

at a Social Credit Party gathering in my riding.

HON. MR. VEITCH: On a point of order, we are in committee of

this House and we are supposed to be debating a

section of a particular

statute. I'm trying very hard to find what relevance there is in any of

these members' statements to

section 2 of this particular statute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Minister. You certainly raised a

good point, I must admit, and we would ask that all members.... I

wouldn't want to be construed as in any way inhibiting debate on a

point which the Chair appreciates is of great importance to all

members, particularly members of the opposition. But we do come to the

point in time when, under the rules under which we operate.... We do

have fairly strict rules with respect to repetition and relevancy. I

have a quotation from Sir Erskine May here which I could give you, but

I think we're all quite capable of appreciating the fact that these

rules are required in order that debate be orderly and that we get the

people's work done in this chamber. We are getting to the point now

where.... Even though the Chair has perhaps not got the best memory in

this assembly, I'm hearing things for the third and fourth time. I just

bring this to your attention so that we can all bear in mind the very

strict requirements for relevancy, and particularly about repetition

when it gets tedious and very, very repetitive.

On that basis, perhaps the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew would like to continue.

MR. SIHOTA: This is the first time I've spoken on this

section, so it's difficult for me to repeat myself. But I take it that

the comment was meant in a general way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'll clarify that. This is not

referring to you individually, but to the general tone of comments

being made by all members. Please proceed.

MR. SIHOTA: Fair enough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to suggest that the minister stood up because he knew exactly

where I was going, and he knew exactly why the comment I was going to

make was relevant to the

section before the House right now, with

respect to the appointment of parliamentary secretaries, because I said

right at the outset....

[3:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: Don't be cynical.

MR. SIHOTA: I'm not being cynical.

The purpose of this section, as I see it, is to do an end run around democratically elected MLAs.

The Minister of Tourism came into my riding during this past summer in a very celebrated way....

MR. MICHAEL: We've heard this before.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, you're going to hear it again. It hasn't

come up in this debate. I haven't brought it up, and it certainly is

worthy of coming up again, Mr. Member.

MR. WILLIAMS: It's a potential job; you should enjoy this.

[ Page 2857 ]

MR. SIHOTA: He came into my riding and said — and I will

paraphrase — that if you want a highway built.... He was talking about

the road to Sooke, which I happen to be lobbying on with the Minister

of Highways.

HON. MR. VEITCH: What about the icebreaker?

MR. SIHOTA: We can talk about the icebreaker. I can sure as

heck tell the minister that this chap over here did a lot more work on

that issue than the minister ever did.

He said if you want a highway built to Sooke, then you elect a

Socred member; if you want anything done in any riding in this

province, you make sure you have a government member in. That was the

thrust of his comment. Now that comment was criticized by all.

Editorials were written about it. The Premier criticized it. Certainly

I didn't waste an opportunity to chastise the minister for it. I had a

duty to do that. In any event, that type of comment was made.

There are parliamentary secretaries appointed for the greater

Victoria area. The parliamentary secretary responsible for the greater

Victoria area does not reside in the greater Victoria area. I'm not

making a personal attack on him, but he's from the Mackenzie area. He

is not elected by the people of the greater Victoria area. He is

certainly not elected by the people of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. Yet the

people of Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, if I hear the government right, are

being told that they must go to that parliamentary secretary because he

happens to be the appointed representative, as the new parliamentary

secretary, for my riding. That's an end runaround. It's a diversion

from the democratic format that we have for electing people.

The thrust of the message that goes throughout the province is:

"Ignore your MLA." It reinforces the outrageous point made by Mr. Poole

with respect to the role of MLAs. It says we as a government don't care

who is supposed to be the advocate for a particular riding and for the

interests of people in that riding. It says that we want to bypass the

advocate and encourage people to deal with a government lackey, with a

parliamentary secretary appointed to deal with that region.

Let me tell the minister something: the people of my riding did not

elect the MLA from Mackenzie. They elected me. The people from Victoria

elected the two members for Victoria. They did not elect the member

from Mackenzie. How dare this government consider that somehow it has

got the prerogative to set up a scheme through these parliamentary

secretaries to allow for that type of end runaround? How dare you do

that? It's an affront to the people of my riding; it's a slap in the

face to the people of the greater Victoria area; and, more important

than that, it's a violation of the cherished virtues of democracy in

this province. That's where this government is coming from: one-man

rule with a bunch of barons set up as parliamentary secretaries around

the province. It's a feudal form of government. I thought that when we

did the Magna Carta in 1295, or whatever it was....

MR. CRANDALL: It was 1066.

MR. SIHOTA: That was the Battle of Hastings, for the member,

who wouldn't know any better. We put an end to the type of feudal

regime we used to have....

MR. LOVICK: It was in 1215.

MR., SIHOTA: I'm told by my good friend the historian that it

was in the year 1215. You've decided to turn back the clock seven

centuries, Mr. Minister. You've chosen for the setup of this so-called

facade of decentralization — it really is centralization — for the

establishment of these parliamentary secretaries, to go back seven

centuries. You did it with just a flick of the pen. You do it without

even thinking about the ramifications — just like a few minutes ago,

when the comment was made with respect to the party in Vancouver, "Come

join us in the back rooms, and let's not be involved in debate in the

Legislature," without even an ounce of thought.

So it wasn't surprising when the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mr. Reid)

came into my riding and said what he said. It was indicative of the

mentality on the part of the government. The act of deception may well

have been the comment made by the Premier chastising it, because

although it dealt with the short-term problem of having a minister say

something that was essentially, in my mind, stupid.... You deal with a

short-term public relations problem that.... The reality of the

government's mentality came to the fore when we saw the announcement

made at the UBCM.

Now we have this crazy system of parliamentary secretaries. Does the

minister not consider the appointment of these people to be an end run

around the democratic process? If not, why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we continue, hon. members, I believe the

second member for Dewdney would like to make an introduction. Shall

leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. JACOBSEN: I apologize for interrupting the House again,

but now the third and final group of students from Maple Ridge Senior

Secondary School is in the Legislature. I think it's nice that young

people be recognized when they come here, so would the House please

give them a warm welcome.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I thoroughly enjoyed the impassioned speech

from the member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew. I'm pleased to know also

that he's somewhat of a scholar in British history. I guess with that

in mind, I can assure him that parliament has evolved a bit since the

time of Cromwell, and that we do have an arrangement now where we have

at least two levels of government. We have two levels of elected

officials and we have the Legislature, which is there as a legislative

body of which we're all part, to vote as a particular member thinks is

correct in his mind, and hopefully in the best interests of those

people that he or she represents.

Secondly, we have the executive branch of government, which is

commonly known as the executive council, the privy council, cabinet or

whatever you want to call it. For the last 75 years or so, going back

into the British system, we have had either under-secretaries of state

or parliamentary secretaries — call them what you want — who have been

assigned by cabinets of the day to assist ministers.

Government has a right to govern. Government can have 35 members

that the Premier can appoint through the Lieutenant-Governor as members

of cabinet, or one member of cabinet, or as many as a Premier wishes to

appoint. By that very same token, those ministers can be appointed

under our present constitution to serve in any portfolio. So to say that

[ Page 2858 ]

somehow or other the executive branch of

government. because it happens to go through an area such as yours and

try to do good for the people in that area, to expand the service

sector or the economic development sector, is somehow militating

against the opportunity you have as a member leaves me absolutely cold.

I fail to see your argument.

Parliamentary secretaries are a long-time institution in the British

parliamentary system. They are a rather recent institution in this

system; and they are evolving, just as government evolves, throughout

the Commonwealth.

No one is trying to usurp your authority. If you don't want to be

part of the system.... Parliamentary secretaries are appointed to

assist the minister, to be aware of the needs of a particular area,

region, ministry, whatever it may be. They are supported by a vast

network of talent and energy, in this particular case, throughout the

region. And they are asked — in fact, instructed — to work very closely

with the MLAs within that particular region. If the MLAs don't want to

work with the ministers of state, or don't want to work for the

parliamentary secretaries, that's entirely up to that particular

member. You are elected as a private member. as we all are, and how you

operate your business is entirely and completely up to you. But they

are two separate and distinct roles: the executive branch and the

legislative branch. That's the way it works.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to thank the minister for that little

lesson in terms of the executive branch and the role of legislatures.

We'll come back to that in a minute.

The minister talks about parliamentary secretaries, so that's what

the focus of this debate is all about. He talks about parliamentary

secretaries. He said: "Well, you know, they've been here all along.

They've been here for years. What's all the fuss? We see them in

Ottawa; we see them in Victoria; now we see them everywhere else. So

what's all the fuss?" I'll tell you, Mr. Minister, what the fuss is.

Never before in a democratic society has the mandate of parliamentary

secretaries been such as that which is contemplated by this government

right now.

Sure, there's a role that each one of us plays. Each one of us has a

role. Sure, I'm going to do the best that I can to get the best deal I

can get, as a lobbyist for the people of my riding. I don't hide the

fact that I've gone and chatted with ministers. In fact, the minister

and I were chatting the other day about an issue in my riding. I don't

want to use that as the point of debate. But I think it's fair to say

that I've talked to many a minister about issues that affect my riding.

Sure, we play that lobbying role as well in some cases as much as we

play the role we play here. I recognize that. That's part of the

democratic system. But through that system I'm the advocate for the

people of my riding. It's a democratic system that put me in that role.

The minister understands that. So it's an affront when the government

says: "Well, that's not good enough. We're not happy with the choice

the people made in that riding, so we're going to appoint our own" — I

forget what the member for Vancouver East called them — "colleagues to

do that job."

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: "Sheep," as someone says. "Jobs for the boys," as I believe somebody else put it.

That's not acceptable. What's more galling than that is the

appointment of these people, with a mandate to do that end runaround. I

understand why we had parliamentary secretaries in the past. He

appreciates the fact I've got an understanding of history. I understand

why that was done before, but never, ever were they given a carte

blanche specific mandate to do an end run around MLAs. It's an abuse of

the role. It's an exaggeration of the function. It's unleashing all of

the constraints and limitations that were put on parliamentary

secretaries before. That's what's being contemplated here. That's why

we're standing up and opposing this. That's why. And the minister

wonders why we get so upset. There are a lot of reasons why we get

upset. I've already given you the example of what transpired in my

riding.

[3:30]

This reminds me of another instance that galls me. I just came from

Sooke the other day. I noticed there was a cheque being handed out in

Sooke by, again, the Minister of Tourism, who has this great delight in

coming to my riding and doing it. He wants to live out here. The former

Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Ritchie, used to be the buddy MLA

for my riding from the government side in the old days, and he did

wonders for my chances of re-election. It used to be funny, because he

represented Central Fraser Valley and used to come into my riding. Mr.

Mitchell was the MLA at the time. When Mr. Ritchie was dethroned as the

party choice for the Socreds in, I believe, Central Fraser Valley — I

stand to be corrected on that, but it was somewhere in the Fraser

Valley — he indicated that he wanted to run in Esquimalt. That

explained why he came to Esquimalt so often. If I look in the crystal

ball, I'm wondering whether the same holds true for the current

Minister of Tourism. Maybe he knows that the axe is about to fall, that

he has lost favour with his party supporters in Surrey, and he's

looking for a new place to run. Maybe that's why he has been coming out

to Esquimalt-Port Renfrew.

MR. RABBITT: An end runner.

MR. SIHOTA: It'll be an end run, because we'll run him out of the riding faster than the member can say "end run."

In any event, he was there last week.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Did he have his parliamentary secretary?

MR. SIHOTA: I could get you the story about the parliamentary

secretary coming too, because I had an interesting chat, if the

minister wants to know. The parliamentary secretary showed up at a

chamber of commerce function in my riding, which I also happened to

attend because I go to all the chamber functions.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: I have no difficulty as a business person in being a member of one of the chambers in my riding.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: The minister says: "Don't corrupt them."

Certainly that's not the intent. Is it the minister's suggestion that

only certain types of individuals ought to be members of the chamber of

commerce, or is it okay for those of us on this side of the House also?

Chambers have an important function

[ Page 2859 ]

in our community. Sure, it's fine for us to attend

their meetings and talk to them, to highlight for them the outstanding

programs that we've got with respect to small business.

HON. MR. VEITCH: With respect to parliamentary secretaries.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, the minister asked. What can I say? The minister got me off on this diversion.

Anyway, the Minister of Tourism, after his last gaff....

MR. CRANDALL: Diversion. Surely not a diversion.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: I want to tell the members over there who love to

heckle that this is the first time I've spoke in this debate, and I'm

serious. I want to make some points. If they want to hear stories,

maybe we can go outside.

So there was the Minister of Tourism this week again, without the

parliamentary secretary — we'll talk about the parliamentary secretary

in a minute — handing out a cheque in my riding for a historical museum

request, one I'd worked with, been involved in and supported; one I'd

written letters on and actually talked to staff in the minister's

department about. The minister's department had told me it was going to

be approved at some point, and I thought that was great. But of course

we never found out when it was approved, and we weren't told when the

cheque was being handed out. It's like those silly press releases:

every time there's an announcement in a Socred-held riding, it's made

by the minister and the member. When there's an announcement made in

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew or a cheque handed out in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew

or a significant development in Esquimalt-Port Renfrew, of course

they're going to bypass us, because that's the mentality over there —

the end runaround mentality. It's the point of view that says: "Let's

pretend" — I'm sure somebody is going to have a laugh over this comment

— "there are invisible MLAs and visible MLAs. Let's decide that we're

going to bypass MLAs elected from ridings held by the opposition." The

parliamentary secretary system is an effort to do just that. It's

simply another way of furthering that deplorable type of mindset.

That's the purpose.

I'm glad to see that the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce) is

here — and he's awake. I think he knows I was born in Lake Cowichan,

and I have more than just a passing interest in what transpires in that

riding. I know the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Miller) raised this

point, and I should have brought the picture in with me. We have a

highway project, I believe it was, and underneath it the name of the

minister — I forget which minister was in charge of Highways at the

time, but whoever it was — and then the name of the hon. member for

Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Bruce). The largest single highway project on

Vancouver Island was in the Esquimalt-Port Renfrew riding. I didn't

see, nor did I really want, that type of promotion or advertising —

whatever you want to call it — in my riding. But there it was. Someone

took a picture and sent it to me, although I had noticed it while I was

driving by, and I must confess I can't remember whether it was on the

road to Youbou or Lake Cowichan. Someone talked earlier about the same

situation in Nelson-Creston and other Socred-held tidings.

Why does the government do things like that — this sort of blatant

digging away, this two- and now three-tiered system that the government

wants to establish for MLAs through the provision of parliamentary

secretaries? After cabinet ministers you have parliamentary

secretaries, and you have MLAs.

I just find names on hilghway signs in that fashion in selected

ridings, or the leapfrogging of MLAs with respect to the granting of

funds that we all work for, the total ignoring of opposition MLAs,

highly offensive. I'm glad I'm putting it on the record, because two

and a half years from now, when we're government, I'll make sure that

that type of practice is not made by individuals on this side of the

House. We will not generate the type of disrespect that this government

has for democratically elected MLAs. We're not into that type of game,

and we will never condone the granting of this type of mandate to

parliamentary secretaries.

Does the minister not consider, in light of his comments about the

historical role of parliamentary secretaries, the granting of power

they are now giving to parliamentary secretaries offensive and

certainly beyond the type of power granted to parliamentary secretaries

historically, in terms of what he was saying earlier about

parliamentary secretaries; and if not, why not?

MR. CRANDALL: I just want to say that I'm really surprised at

the incredible feelings of inferiority we're hearing about so many

times from the other side of the House. This decentralization program

is designed to enhance the economy of the whole province, of every area

in the province; it's not designed to usurp the authority of any MLA.

The member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew who just spoke.... Incidentally,

I want to thank him for that lesson in history: 1066 was surely not the

date of Magna Carta. I was wrong. He has corrected me — it was the

Battle of Hastings.

I really am concerned about the time we're spending in this chamber

debating this principle, when we hear the same thing so many times from

different members of the opposition. I know that when my constituents

sent me down here, they didn't send me to listen to 12 different

versions of the same speech. We had an exceedingly poor question period

today, and the debate on this bill isn't any better.

The previous member said that his riding did not elect the member

for Mackenzie (Mr. Long). I recognize that, but what we've got here is

a situation in which the very able member for Mackenzie has been

appointed a parliamentary secretary to help construct the economy in

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew — and please note that I am remembering the name

of your riding.

MR. SIHOTA: Why were you passed over?

MR. CRANDALL: Because I was already parliamentary secretary to two other ministries.

I want you to know that I'm delighted that we've got a parliamentary

secretary — the able member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Dirks). to lend

some help along with our minister of state, who is the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mrs. Johnston). I am more than happy to have

these two other members of this Legislature come to Columbia River to

do whatever we can to increase our economy in that area. I don't feel

that they're in any way taking away from my role as an MLA. and I'm

sure that the parliamentary secretaries and

[ Page 2860 ]

ministers of state will not take away from the opposition MLAs either.

So I would suggest that all the members on the opposite side should

look at this as a benefit, and if they don't, surely, as the Minister

of State for the Lower Mainland (Hon. Mr. Veitch) has said, you don't

have to participate if you don't want to.

I'm delighted that this past weekend there was a meeting in Creston

for the Kootenay region, and it was attended by about 80 people from

throughout that area. We're going to have one on December 15 for the

Okanagan region. What this is all about is an attempt to improve the

economy in this province. It's an attempt to improve every part of this

economy.

I want you to know also that I just got a telephone message saying

that one of the aldermen in our riding wants to know when the meeting

in the Okanagan is, because he's anxious to participate. That's what

the people in my riding are saying: they're saying we have two more

people to help. I would suggest that that's what we have in all the

ridings in this province, including those held by the opposition

members.

We on this side of the House are anxious to build and improve the

economy in every riding in this province, and that's why this

decentralization program has been put forward. We don't have feelings

of inferiority; we've got positive feelings. We're anxious to build the

whole province from one end to the other.

Yet we are having to continually listen and, I would suggest, waste

the time of this chamber hearing 22 people say that they don't think

there should be more parliamentary secretaries. Even though this

Legislature is one of the most efficient in this country of ours, if

not the most efficient, surely our time could be better spent getting

on to more germane legislation than in listening to different people

continually say the same thing.

Mr. Chairman, I'm for this

section of this bill. I know it's going

to be a help to this province, and it would be a help to every riding

including the opposition tidings if they would participate and want to

be of help in building this province. To date they have had a very poor

record of attendance at the meetings on decentralization. I would

encourage them to attend and help build this province as the people on

this side of the House are trying to do.

[3:45]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we continue, let me share something else with hon. members who happen to be in the chamber at this moment.

You will probably all recall, because most of us have spent some

time in the House over the past little while, that when these

miscellaneous statutes or omnibus bills, as they're sometimes called,

come forward in the House, it is most unusual that they be debated at

second reading. Now this particular bill was very well debated at

second reading, and what I am finding is that the committee work we're

doing at the moment, dealing clause-by-clause.... This doesn't just

apply to the hon. opposition members; it applies to all members of this

House. In a lot of cases we are back into second reading again. Hon.

members, I must say that that is just not acceptable, and we'll have to

keep in mind these requirements for relevancy and for non-repetition.

MR. SIHOTA: In dealing with

section 2 of Bill 59 and the role

of parliamentary secretaries as envisioned under that piece of

legislation....

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: Well, those who have no time for debate have little time for democracy, I guess.

MR. CRANDALL: We have little time for a needless waste of time.

MR. SIHOTA: The member says "a waste of time." I'll be very

quick on this point, because it's slightly off the mark. If the

member's worried about time, there's no doubt in my mind that the time

of this Legislature could have been better spent debating the

privatization issue, instead of allocating one hour to it. If the

member wants to debate some meaty topics, then let's deal with the

debate on privatization instead of trying to simply.... Well, let me

get back to the point.

Interjections.

MR. SIHOTA: If the cheerleaders on the other side would

settle down, they might learn something. But they're obviously

interested in some of the more fringe benefits that will come from the

passage of this legislation.

Don't take my comment the wrong way, in terms of the member for

Mackenzie (Mr. Long), but it flows from the comments made by the

previous speaker. Let me say at the outset that this is not an intent

to attack him in any personal way whatsoever. I enjoy the friendly

relationship I have with the member for Mackenzie, and I'm sure it will

continue on that basis. But let me make it clear: the government side

doesn't have a monopoly on the desire to bring about economic reform in

this province. All of us have an interest. As it pertains to

Esquimalt-Port Renfrew and the parliamentary secretary — who happens to

be the member for Mackenzie — the point is that the people of my riding

asked me to fight for their economic interests. On shipbuilding, people

of my riding and certainly myself have a better reading of what's

happening in that industry — I say with all respect — than the member

for Mackenzie, who doesn't have a shipbuilding industry in his riding.

I see the minister waving a white flag, so I take it he's not

prepared to withdraw

section 2. Is that what the minister is

indicating? The point is this: the member for Mackenzie doesn't have an

understanding of that very vital industry in my riding.

What we've done in the provision of new parliamentary secretaries is

simply this: we have created not an effort to try to bring about

much-needed economic reform — and Lord knows we need it in this

province — but we've just created another layer of fat, another layer

of bureaucracy.

As an MLA lobbying for the shipbuilding industry, I guess that now I

am supposed to talk to the Minister of Economic Development — I know

she's in the House. After I talk to the Minister of Economic

Development, somehow she or I — the two of us, one of us, I don't know

— has got to go to the next layer, which is the parliamentary

secretary, and after that, the next layer, which is the minister of

state. What happened to the old system — democracy — the system before

this province was brought under the control of the one-term-wonder?

[ Page 2861 ]

What's happening here is not a move to try to bring about efficient

economic development through the appointment of parliamentary

secretaries. Think about it. We're talking about economic development,

and you want to appoint another layer of bureaucracy that all of us

have to go through in terms of trying to sell an idea with respect to

our ridings. And this comes from the same government that talks about

deregulation, about the elimination of red tape, about decisions being

made more efficiently.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: And the private sector is supposedly solving our economic problems. I don't know how members reconcile that.

Interjection.

MR. SIHOTA: That's all you're creating here.

MR. RABBITT: Oh, another government will take care of it. That's what we need, eh?

MR. SIHOTA: That's all you're creating here — another layer

of fat, at $3,000 or $3,500 per person. How does that work in terms of

efficiency on economic issues? It doesn't, and it won't.

There was a time in this province — and I can remember it as an

alderman — when we had this great announcement of Partners in

Enterprise, saying: "We're going to put money at the local level so

that people can develop their local plans and get on with economic

development." All of us in this valley scurried off and utilized the

funds to develop economic plans for, in our case, the greater Victoria

area. That was only a year and a half ago. Whatever happened to those

plans? What happened to all that input? You want efficiency? Take a

look at some of those plans.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'm going to

read, if I may, without boring you, I'm sure, the

section we're

debating:

section 12.1 of the Constitution Act, RSBC 1979 ,

c. 62, as amended by striking out "not more than 10." With great

respect, I'm afraid this member has offended the rule of relevancy over

and over and over again, and I ask you to bring him to order.

MR. SIHOTA: The question to the minister then is: why an unlimited number?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Because once this legislation is passed, we want to appoint more than ten.

MR. CASHORE: I find this

section absolutely offensive.

Mr. Chairman, you have made the point about us having had a debate

on the principle. The point I want to concentrate on now I made during

the discussion on the principle so that the hon. Provincial Secretary

would have the opportunity to research the point I was making and be

prepared to respond to it as we go a, long.

I wasn't here when the decision was made to have the ministerial

parliamentary secretaries. I did not have the opportunity to

participate in that process, and I cannot answer for what happened on

either the government or the opposition side of the House. But it seems

to me that as the responses are being made to our questions, the hon.

Provincial Secretary is not distinguishing between the already-in-place

parliamentary secretaries who are secretaries to ministers and what is

now a whole new situation — to wit, parliamentary secretaries to

ministers of state for regions of the province. Therefore a lot of the

arguments — with all due respect — that this minister has given have

not really been on target, because they have not dealt with the

situation my colleagues have been talking about, the situation that

section 2 opens up, which is to have a whole new concept with regard to

the scope and responsibility of what are called parliamentary

secretaries. I don't think this has been responded to in anything that

could be considered a sincere, straightforward way.

We still await some kind of explanation that points out on what

basis, given our parliamentary system, this type of appointment would

be made on a regional basis. I make it very clear that we're not

talking here about a person who is a secretary to a minister who has a

provincewide sphere of responsibility. We're talking about a minister

who has a responsibility to a region of the province for which people

have already been elected. So that's one point: I think there's real

confusion in the understanding of the party in power and the cabinet

with regard to its responsibility there.

[4:00]

I would like to say that it's very clear to me that this government

and this Provincial Secretary have refused to listen to the words

expressing outrage that have been heard by at least the MLAs on this

side of the House. They've heard them from the public, and they have

tried very patiently to communicate them to this minister. I want to

ask the minister to just consider again the point I was making during

debate on the principle, that it seems that MLAs on the government side

of the House are appointed to various kinds of responsibilities.

For instance, some time ago we had the liquor review commission, to

which MLAs were appointed to go throughout the province and conduct a

study and listen to people all through B.C. When that took place, there

was some concern expressed by people on our side of the House about the

process. There was concern that this was not being done by independent

people who were not elected MLAs obviously having a political bias.

There was concern expressed, but the government persisted and went

ahead with that process and — I must say, much to my surprise — came

down with a report that cautioned against any further privatization of

liquor outlets.

We now have the situation where one of the people appointed to the

position of parliamentary secretary — and I dare say within the region

for which this minister, the Provincial Secretary, is responsible, the

lower mainland — is the member for Chilliwack (Mr. Jansen), who also

headed that liquor commission. What seems to be an extremely confusing

thing for the public and for myself as an MLA is whether we have lost

any possibility of the role of dissent within the entity which is the

Social Credit caucus and the entity which is the Social Credit cabinet,

now that this process has been set up. Somebody has said that there

will only be five who are not part of this process. It appears to me

that in appointing this individual, who was an advocate against

privatization, a very dangerous step has been taken, because we now as

a parliament have lost his voice of dissent. It appears that this

individual has been bought off by paying him a salary and by bringing

him into the fold in this way.

[ Page 2862 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I appreciate the fact that it must be very

difficult for all those of you who are speaking to this

section of Bill

59 to stay relevant, but relevancy is a requirement of our standing

orders. Therefore, since we all abide by our standing orders and are

subject to them, it is a requirement of each and every one of us to be

relevant when we speak.

I am having some difficulty with the remarks over the past four or

five minutes. I think I understand the point that the member is trying

to make, but it becomes somewhat irrelevant and it causes me a great

deal of problem. I would ask that the member kindly bear in mind this

basic requirement of debate in this House, which is that it shall be

relevant to the point in question, that

section 12(

l) of the

Constitution Act is amended by striking out "not more than 10."

Please continue, hon. member. Oh, I'm sorry, hon. member; the chair recognizes the hon. Minister for Economic Development.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I would like to ask leave to make a statement.

Leave granted.

Ministerial Statement

HOWE SOUND PULP AND PAPER CO. LTD.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have an economic development

announcement to make, which is of great significance to our province,

regarding a major investment by a Japanese corporation in our pulp and

paper industry. I am pleased to say that this announcement is partly

the result of our Premier's recent Asian trip, where he met with

principals of the company in Japan, as well as of meetings that he has

held in British Columbia with Canfor.

As I speak, both Canfor Corp. of Vancouver and Oji Paper Co. Ltd. of

Tokyo — where it is now 11 a.m., December 8 — are announcing a joint

investment and development program in British Columbia that could mean

an investment of up to $1 billion between now and the mid-1990s. For

the people of British Columbia, especially those in the Howe

Sound-Sunshine Coast area, it will mean up to 450 construction jobs

over three and a half years, in addition to permanently protecting

present jobs and creating new ongoing jobs.

Canfor and Oji Paper are to team up fifty-fifty to establish a new

company to be called the Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Co. Ltd. Oji will

contribute $307.5 million in cash to the new company, while Canfor will

contribute the assets of its Howe Sound pulp and west coast cellufibre

division. The new company will carry out a major program of

modernization and expansion at the existing pulp mill at Port Mellon on

Howe Sound which will be the state of the art in that kind of

technology.

The existing 650-tonne-a-day pulp mill will be modernized and

expanded to 1,000 tonnes a day by 1990 at a cost of $280 million. A new

newsprint mill will be constructed for startup in 1991 at a cost of

$355 million, and this new mill will produce 200,000 tonnes a year of

high-quality newsprint, mainly for the Japanese market. This initial

investment of $635 million is expected to be followed by future

expansion in newsprint production, which is likely to push the total

investment in the project to about $1 billion.

These major investments being announced here and in Japan

simultaneously are still subject to the outcome of discussions between

various levels of government. Matters such as the security of the

additional wood supply required and energy cost levels still have to be

finalized. The parties involved have been assured that our government

is available for meetings at an early date so that the program can be

implemented with confidence starting very early in 1988.

This is exactly the kind of project and investment in British

Columbia that our government wishes to attract. The project not only

adds investment and jobs to our province, but it adds value to our wood

fibre products that would otherwise be exported from the province in

chip form.

Oji Co. does business all over the world — South America, South-East

Asia, Europe, North America — but they've never had a Canadian head

office. The transaction announced today is also accompanied by their

plans to open a Canadian head office in Vancouver.

Mr. Chairman, I know that my colleagues in the House understand that

this creates greater security of employment and that the project also

expands our trade in forest products. I know that they will join me in

expressing the appreciation of our government to the partners in this

excellent development program. British Columbia welcomes this

initiative, because not only is it good for the expansion of our

economy, but the $300 million cash investment by Oji Paper is a clear

vote of confidence in our province, in our future and in our economy.

I appreciate very much having the opportunity to make this announcement today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the member standing have leave to make a reply?

Leave granted.

MR. MILLER: At the outset, we on this side of the House also

welcome these kinds of investments in our province. Speaking as an old

pulp and paper man....

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you that old?

MR. MILLER: No, I'm not that old. But we think that there is

a lot to be gained in British Columbia by putting that kind of

investment into value-added products. I just came from a meeting on

Saturday morning with George Petty of Repap Enterprises, which is also

making considerable investment in the province, as are other forest

companies. After listening to him talk about getting more value out of

our forest products, it's clear to me that that's the direction we have

to head in.

Without belabouring the point to any extent, we welcome the

announcement of further investment in the newsprint and pulp end of

British Columbia.

We have some concern, Madam Minister, over the state of our forests.

Without getting into any extensive comment on that, we still think that

there is considerable work to do in assuring that there will be a

continued fibre supply, so that the forest industry will be the

strongest sector of the provincial economy, and we'll be looking for

more efforts in that regard as well.

We hope that the cyclical problem that frequently happens with the

pulp and paper industry is being well thought about in terms of this

additional investment, because, as was noted just days ago by some

forestry industry analysts, the

[ Page 2863 ]

pulp industry is cyclical, and we don't know when the next downturn will come.

I think that's enough. Again, to restate very simply, we welcome this kind of investment in the province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to

section 2 of Bill 59. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam continues.

MR. CASHORE: I was just getting to the point that you were

asking me to make. I'm referring to an individual who has been

appointed by virtue of the enabling motion in this

section to that

position of parliamentary secretary, and I'm trying to establish the

relevance in terms of his role and duty as an MLA, a parliamentary

secretary and a person who has chaired a very important commission paid

at taxpayers' costs within this province. I'm trying to establish how

we can understand the relative relationship between these functions

with regard to this individual, and that's why I believe that my points

are bang on.

[Mr. R. Fraser in the chair.]

MR. CASHORE: I want to ask the Provincial Secretary how we

can, as MLAs and as citizens of British Columbia, expect that there's

going to be any possibility of a voice of dissent from the government

side of the House given this kind of a creeping, drifting process that

is going on without benefit of parliamentary debate and decision. I'd

like the minister to answer this very specifically.

Given that the second member for Cariboo (Mr. Vant) has gone on

record as opposing user fees on museums, does this minister anticipate

that we will ever again hear from him publicly with regard to his

concerns of that nature? And given that the hon. member for Chilliwack

(Mr. Jansen) has delivered a report recommending no further

proliferation of privatization in the liquor distribution outlets, can

we expect that we will ever again hear from that member with regard to

where he stands on issues such as that, or can we only expect that if

he does have any private feelings of that nature, those feelings will

be heard within the confines and the context and the privacy of that

very small, powerful group of individuals?

[4:15]

HON. MR. VEITCH: I know that the former minister had a little

trouble sticking to his text, but that's only a diving board from which

to depart, never to return again, isn't it? It just gets one launched.

He was mentioning that the hon. member for Chilliwack was appointed

to a committee, and indeed other members might be appointed to various

kinds of committees of the House, and that through that they derived

some kind of independence, and through being a private member they

derive an independence. The hon. member, I'm sure, being aware of the

parliamentary system, would know that there is government and there is

opposition. I don't have to tell you that your traditional role is to

oppose, because you do a pretty darned good job of that. No question

about that.

You also ask if we will hear from the second member for Cariboo.

Well, I want to tell you that you'll hear from that member for Cariboo

again and again, because he'll be elected as long as he wants to be, as

will the member for Chilliwack. They're good members. They'll speak

their mind, and also as parliamentary secretaries they'll also do a

good job. You can't tell me, hon. member, that a person has to somehow

or other negate his or her role as a member of this Legislative

Assemblyjust because they're appointed to executive council or as a

parliamentary secretary. I would think more of individuals. The

individuals generally rise to the challenge — always rise to the

challenge, as I'm sure you would.

I'm sure you'll hear from these members again and again. I don't

believe for an instant that the hon. member for Maillardville-Coquitlam

(Mr. Cashore) has anything to fear from someone trying to help his or

her region in this province. You'll go on and you'll represent the

people of your constituency as you always do. realizing that your role

here in this Legislature is that of opposition and not of government.

The government has a right to appoint; the a vernment go has the

right to govern. The Lieutenant-Governor has the right to appoint

members to the executive council. and the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council has the right to appoint parliamentary

secretaries. When this legislation is passed, they will have the right

to appoint more if the Lieu tenant-Governor-in-Council so decides.

MR. CASHORE: You better believe that I have a lot to fear,

and the fear that I'm expressing is not simply fear from this one

individual but fear being expressed for democracy because of the

process that we see going on, limiting the number of government MLAs

from whom we might expect to hear with regard to anything faintly

critical.

It's interesting that the hon. Provincial Secretary mentioned the

second member for Cariboo, saying that we'll hear lots from him in the

future. He's right. We heard from him on Friday during statements. and

he was reiterating the party line. We did not hear the refreshing type

of comment that we heard from him during the time the debate on museum

user fees was going on.

Just to make the point a little more more strongly, his fellow-cand

I date. the first member for Cariboo (Mr. A. Fraser), has gone on

record as being deeply critical of and deeply disturbed by the

privatization plan. lt'~interesting to ask why we have not heard from

the other member for Cariboo with regard to his concerns on that issue.

I would say. Mr. Chairman. that the argument being put forward by

the Provincial Secretary really begs the question, and I don't think it

does anything to satisfy the doubts out there in the minds of the

people of British Columbia, who are seeina democracv being eroded

through this process.

I have one last point I wish to make. with reference to lobbying.

The hon. member for Esquimalt-Port Renfrew (Mr. Sihota) mentioned that

he will lobby on behalf of his constituency. as that is a

responsibility that all of us have. What concerns me about this is

that.... You may be aware of a book published recently' written by John

Sawatsky; it's called The Insiders. It's about the burgeoning lobbying

industry in Ottawa. What we have here is a lobbying instrument inside

the parliament. brought in like a Trojan horse, in a way that enables a

much simpler method for the powerful lobbyists who come to government

to have their will done. This again erodes the opportunity for those

people we should be standing up for, the low-income people. the people

who have nobody to speak for them. This has been a process of setting

up a lobby within the parliament, in order to receive those wise men

from the east bearing gifts.

MR. CLARK: I actually want to deal with what is more normally the committee stage of debate. and ask a few questions to clarify.

[ Page 2864 ]

I understand that these parliamentary secretaries for the ministers of state have already been chosen, pending the passage

of this act. Many of them are actually acting as parliamentary secretaries to the ministers of state...

AN HON. MEMBER: Without pay.

MR.CLARK: ...without pay, attending the dinners and the functions, or whatever it is that they do.

I'm glad the second member for Dewdney (Mr. Jacobsen) is here, as

the parliamentary secretary to the minister of state for the lower

mainland. I'd like to know about the role of the parliamentary

secretaries in procuring a proposal to build a motor-sport complex in

the lower mainland. What was the role of the parliamentary secretaries?

HON. MR. VEITCH: That's for question period.

MR. CLARK: I don't agree, because we have here a

section of a

bill that's asking us to retroactively approve their appointment. I

think it's quite in order for us to ask questions about what they've

been doing with their appointments, before their being approved

retroactively by this House. I would like the minister of state for the

lower mainland, who is shepherding this

section of the bill, to give us

some explanation as to what the parliamentary secretaries that are

going to be approved by this

section are actually doing now.

HON. MR. VEITCH: When this statute is passed.... I'll repeat,

for the umpteenth time, and that in itself is offending the House. When

royal assent is given, when it is proclaimed, the role of the

parliamentary secretary will be to carry out routine tasks in relation

to the House; to answer questions in the House; to present the

government position in discussions with the general public and with the

committee; to support the government position in committee; and to meet

with members of the public and with organizations and other bodies on

behalf of the minister.

Neither in the federal House nor in provincial legislation has there

been a detailed description of the duties of a parliamentary secretary.

Their role varies with the demands of the minister whom they assist.

This is future action, and I ought not to be answering it. But that is

what they will be doing.

MR. CLARK: With all due respect, I didn't ask about future

action; I asked what they've been doing to date. They've been

appointed; they've been acting, and pretending to be parliamentary

secretaries to the ministers of state, without legislative approval.

Interjection.

MR. CLARK: It doesn't offend the rule. We're asked to vote on

this

section of the bill. The minister likes to pretend he's in the

Speaker's chair or the Chairman's chair. Maybe the minister could

answer this question: has there been a decision made to pay the

parliamentary secretaries retroactively upon completion of this bill,

or are they acting really in a volunteer capacity at this time?

HON. MR. VEITCH: If there was a retroactive provision, it would have been in the bill. I don't see any retroactive provision in the bill.

MR. CLARK: Okay. So the minister is saying.... I'm sure that

members in that capacity are relieved to know that they are acting in a

volunteer capacity and won't be paid retroactively.

Could the minister do two things for me? First, confirm my

understanding of his last answer, which is that they will not be paid

retroactively; and second, inform the House whether the parliamentary

secretaries, as contemplated by this

section of the bill, report first

to the ministers responsible and not to any other body. In other words,

they don't report to Mr. Poole; they don't report to the Premier's

office; they don't report to cabinet. They report, as I understand it,

to the ministers whom they are ostensibly being the parliamentary

secretaries to. So two things: confirm my understanding of his first

answer and inform us whom they report to.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I will reiterate. Neither the

provincial nor federal legislation provides detailed descriptions of

the duties of a parliamentary secretary; their role varies with the

demands of the minister whom they assist. They report to the minister

whom they assist. We all have a responsibility to other people in this

society. We have a relationship with and a responsibility to the people

and the other members in this House. We have a responsibility to the

public, a responsibility to our constituents and a responsibility to be

relevant within this

section — and I wish you would get on with it.

MR. SIHOTA: A question to the minister: will the parliamentary secretaries be paid retroactively?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I said no.

MR. SIHOTA: Sorry, I didn't hear that. Could the Minister put that answer back on the record?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's on the record.

MR. SIHOTA: I take it that I heard the minister say no then.

HON. MR. VEITCH: It's on the record.

MR. LOVICK: I want to pose a direct question to the minister,

somewhat more focused than the kinds of questions I was offering

earlier today and which the minister, it seemed, was somehow reluctant

to answer — at least at any length. The question I want to pose is

really to elicit explanation from the minister concerning what he meant

when he said in the course of this debate the following words. I'm

quoting, by the way, if it's any help, from the sitting of Friday,

December 4, the morning sitting. The minister, on page 15 of the Blues,

is quoted as saying:

"What we're doing here" — in terms of this

parliamentary secretary proposition — "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," — which was alluded to earlier — "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."

[ Page 2865 ]

Now in the climate in which we are now living, Mr. Minister, I would

suggest that some people might look upon that statement as the

parliamentary secretaries being given a role of intelligence-gatherers,

to go and find out what's happening in those constituencies not

currently represented by government members. I'm wondering if the

minister would be good enough to explain in somewhat more detail

precisely what he intends by that statement.

HON. MR. VEITCH: Mr. Chairman, I personally believe that

probably one of the most important roles of the parliamentary secretary

is that of facilitating communication and the exchange of ideas. The

more people we bring into the decision-making process, the more our

government decisions will reflect the needs and aspirations of all

regions of the province.

I don't believe — and I'll say it again — that you can govern this

province at this time in our history, as we approach a new century,

from the southern tip of Vancouver Island. You must decentralize. As

the Leader of the Opposition has said many times: get out into the

regions of the province. The parliamentary secretaries will act as a

conduit for the exchange of ideas, to bring information and ideas back

from the people. For after all, in a democracy, the people really are

the government.

MR. LOVICK: The rhetoric sounds impressive, and I want

desperately to say: "Yes, yes, Mr. Minister, this is indeed your

intention, and we shouldn't be suspicious. God help us, we shouldn't be

cynical at all." However. the point is that the question I'm posing is

not getting answered. Moreover, the predicament is that with this cant

about decentralization, we're ignoring certain realities: that if you

expand the people who are reporting directly to cabinet and put that

kind of authority into a structure or system that reports directly to

the Premier, paradoxically you are imposing a more centralized model,

not a less centralized model. If we want to talk about

decentralization, then surely what we ought to talk about, in terms of

economic development initiatives and regional initiatives, is to make

use of all-party committees of the Legislature, not simply to expand

the cabinet.

[4:30]

The use of parliamentary secretaries. the way we're seeing that plan

unfold here, Mr. Minister, looks to us on this side of the House like

simply producing a kind of minicabinet or a cabinet with training

wheels, or some such thing. We wonder again then whether in fact one of

the purposes of this initiative is to be an intelligence-gatherer. When

the minister talks in the Blues — and I assume those are indeed his

words; he's certainly not denying them — about reporting to cabinet on

what's going on out there, then I have to wonder whether in fact the

motivation is not so much to be a conduit in the sense of going two

ways, but rather information going one way, which government can then

use to serve its own ends rather than the people's ends.

I would again offer the Provincial Secretary the opportunity to

respond, because with all due deference, I don't think my original

question was answered.

HON. MR. VEITCH: I can assure you that each and every one of

the people who are proposed to be appointed as parliamentary

secretaries will gather information intelligently. Not only that; you

can't have a democracy without two-way communication. Again, the role

of parliamentary secretary — indeed. the role of minister of state — is

to facilitate communications, to bring government out to the people, to

bring those ideas back to the decision-making centre, which is

Victoria. It will work well in spite of you, hon. member, whether

you're part of the process or not.

We had some 280 people in Vancouver — most enthusiastic. This week

in Chilliwack and in New Westminster we'll have more enthusiastic

people. More and more people will come on board, more and more people

will join in this decentralization process, and the parliamentary

secretaries will be part of that process. In fact, they will be

vehicles in ensuring that government is brought closer to the people

and that the ideas are brought back to Victoria.

You have nothing to fear, my friend, but fear itself, whatever that

happens to be. If you're worried about someone usurping your role as a

MLA in Nanaimo, I wouldn't worry about it. I think you'll probably

continue to do whatever it is you do in Nanaimo.

MR. LOVICK: That kind of smug and self-satisfied stuff does

not impress, I'm sorrv. What we're talking about here — and again,

we've tried to say it a number of different times — is the simple point

that the minister's side of the House does not represent all people of

the province. You're suggesting that we on this side of the House

somehow forget that we were elected as opposition, with all the duties

inherent in that job, and suddenly become part and parcel of your

extension of cabinet via parliamentary secretaries.

When the minister says to me and to others on this side of the House

that it is somehow our loss and we are letting down our constituents by

not going to the party, or some such thing, I want to remind him that

the enthusiasm for the party was manifested only because those

individuals who attended the party were afraid they wouldn't get in on

the $1 million that was going to be made available. What choice do

those individuals have?

The predicament, as I've said before, is that we on this side of the

House do not want to buy into a process that we regard quite clearly —

and I think quite defensibly — as a corruption of the process. You

might have come to the House and said: "This is what we're going to do.

This is our intention. Vote on these measures. Change the system of

parliamentary secretaries so that we can achieve the~e ends." If you

had come to us and further said,"Here's what's wrong with the existing

system, here's why you need to make these changes," then perhaps we

could meet you; perhaps we could agree with you. But when we come via

this back door kind of route, obviously we're going to be suspicious.

And obviously our suspicion is not going to be allayed or assuaged when

we listen to the kinds of comments we've had in response to our

questions.

That's our point, and that's why we've taken the stand that we have

and — I admit it — have extended the debate thus far. I think we're

entirely justified and legitimate in doing that, and I make no

apologies for having done so.

MR. MILLER: It's a pleasure to see the competition on our

side of the House get to the mikes to raise some serious questions with

this minister. Despite the comments from the cheap seats over there,

very seldom do we get anyone asking detailed questions about what this

system is all about. Perhaps that's because they're on the payroll.

[ Page 2866 ]

Interjections.

MR. MILLER: I seem to raise the level of conversation in this

House whenever I get to my feet. I don't always want to do that.

Sometimes it's worthwhile, but sometimes I just like to ask some

questions. Specifically, with regard to the parliamentary secretaries

to the ministers of state, do they report, as you said on Friday in

Hansard, to the cabinet?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I said they'd bring ideas to cabinet. You should have listened.

MR. MILLER: I'll quote Hansard, Mr. Minister. It's for these

people "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." So they're

going to be reporting to cabinet?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Parliamentary secretaries report to cabinet

ministers; cabinet ministers meet in cabinet. That happens to be the

highest level in this province.

MR. MILLER: The parliamentary secretaries then, for

clarification, will be reporting to their respective ministers of

state. Would the parliamentary secretaries have any powers in terms of

approving spending under this new proposal you're putting forward?

HON. MR. VEITCH: Any member can suggest that something be

done. In fact, you often do suggest that something be spent. The

parliamentary secretaries wouldn't necessarily be asked to make

recommendations based on their findings. But as far as approval goes,

the answer is no.

MR. MILLER: I raised the point on Friday with regard to that

fear that is obviously being expressed about the role of MLAs. I'll

refer to one specific document and a quote. One is a letter that I

received from the minister of state for region 6, saying, in effect,

that the role of the MLA is an important one and there is no intent to

abrogate that through the system. I contrast that with the quote from a

"senior government official" at the time this announcement was made.

When the question was put to this person,"If, as a person in the

region, I was going to get something done, would I go to the

parliamentary secretaries assigned to the region more than my MLAT' the

answer he gave was: "Yes." I have yet to be satisfied on this point,

Mr. Minister. There appears to be a conflict in what various cabinet

members and government officials have stated with respect to the role

of the MLA. Given a possible conflict between a position an MLA might

take in regard to his or her region and a position a parliamentary

secretary might take about his or her region, which advice would the

government listen to?

HON. MR. VEITCH: We're dealing here with the appointment of

parliamentary secretaries and the striking of 1110, 11 and I don't

intend to deal in hypothesis.

MR. MILLER: Unfortunately, Mr. Minister, you either fail to

recognize or simply don't want to recognize that central to the debate

is the government's program to restructure our system of government.

It's an undeniable part of this bill. To stand up and say we're simply

dealing with the addition of parliamentary secretaries, and "I'm not

going to answer any questions," does not do you any good. I just came

from my constituency, where I met with two of the northern mayors who,

quite frankly, Mr. Minister, are baffled. These are people — one of

them is the mayor of Prince Rupert — with many years of experience, and

they have yet to understand in their own minds what is being proposed.

The only advice I could give them is to go to a meeting that is being

called next weekend and ask questions.

You've claimed that this is a great program, that the mayors in

various communities are all in favour of it and that they support it.

Yet here I have two mayors of some standing saying: "What's this all

about?" It's central to the discussion of the addition of more

parliamentary secretaries, because the parliamentary secretaries that

we're talking about under this legislation are the parliamentary

secretaries that presumably are going to be the conduits, the

pipelines, for these regions. Yet you refuse to answer a question about

a possible conflict between an MLA and a parliamentary secretary.

Again, that's central to the debate.

I don't know why you won't answer the question. If there's a

particular issue in a particular constituency, whose advice will the

government heed? Will it be the person who was elected by the people of

that region, or will it be the person that this government has

appointed in that region'?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The hon. member gave the correct advice. If

the mayor didn't understand, the mayor or mayors should ask someone who

does. They came to their member and the member said rhetorically that

he didn't know anything about it, so I suggest that the advice was

absolutely correct. The mayor should go to a meeting and find out.

If the hon. member wants to find out more about it, he won't have to

change his relationship with his caucus in any way. I'd be happy to sit

down and write him a whole thesis on it and tell him what it's all

about, and then he can give a copy of it to one of his mayors or he can

read it himself, so that they won't have to ask anyone else in the

future.

I'm sure that these parliamentary secretaries will be very

knowledgeable in this area; they are very knowledgeable now, and

they'll certainly help. There are always going to be conflicts between

individuals in this House. That's the nature of the parliamentary

system.

MR. MILLER: I never went to university, unlike the minister, so I don't have too much familiarity with theses.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: These.

MR. MILLER: Or these, as the House Leader says.

But I do know a straight answer from one that doesn't give me the

information I want. The only experience so far in my region with

decentralization has been where the provincial Parks ministry has come

in and said: "We're going to decentralize. These two parks that we used

to take care of in your constituency we're now going to give to the

municipality, and they're going to pay for it." That initial experience

with decentralization cost them money. I don't know what the others are

going to cost them.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Didn't they want them?

MR. MILLER: No, they didn't. Without getting into specifics,

in a general way what I say is quite true. Under decentralization the

Parks ministry came in and said to the

[ Page 2867 ]

municipality of Prince Rupert: "We're going to abandon these parks

that we have been responsible for for many years. It's now your

responsibility. Aren't we great guys? We're decentralizing."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I think you will recognize that

the Chair has allowed a lot of deviation from the subject at hand. I

would request that you pay slightly more attention to the thrust of the

amendment to

section 2 of Bill 59.

[4:45]

MR. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've tried to ask a

number of questions about the role of these parliamentary secretaries.

Is there, Mr. Minister, a substantive difference between the role of

these parliamentary secretaries to be appointed as part of the

decentralization scheme and the parliamentary secretaries that

currently exist with line ministries?

HON. MR. VEITCH: I'm sorry. I didn't hear the question.

MR. MILLER: Is there a difference between the role of these

parliamentary secretaries to be appointed to ministers of state who

basically really don't have any guidelines, despite what you have said,

as opposed to the parliamentary secretaries that are appointed to

ministers who are responsible for a line ministry where there is a very

clear set of responsibilities in terms of the administration of various

acts and policy and the rest of it? Is there a fundamental difference

between the two kinds of parliamentary secretaries?

HON. MR. VEITCH: The role of the parliamentary secretaries

varies upon the demands of the minister whom they assist, whether the

individual would be a parliamentary secretary to a line minister or to

a minister of state. Necessarily, if one were dealing only with

Agriculture and Fisheries, the role would be quite different. If one

were dealing only with Education, the role would be different. If

you're dealing with a very broad spectrum, such as that of a region,

then of course the role would be more intense and different, and they

would be expected to accumulate at least a broader knowledge of many

more subjects.

MR. MILLER: More specifically, then. It seems to me there is

a fundamental difference, at least in the tradition of parliamentary

secretaries, as I'm aware of it. As a parliamentary secretary to a line

ministry, you clearly have a role: to be, in some sense, a backup to

the minister. Without any clear definition of a minister of state'sjob,

it becomes even murkier when we talk about the role of a parliamentary

secretary. It seems to come down to almost a political henchman. who

will get into the region and keep this ear to the ground, find out

what's going on and report. So there is a fundamental difference.

With regard to a specific issue that may be dealt with under

decentralization — that is, the agricultural land reserve — if the

government follow through with their intent to deal with this at a

regional level, is it their intention to advise parliamentary

secretaries to ministers of state that there is a government philosophy

that must be adhered to in dealing with this issue? Or are these people

simply going to go out and deal with it ad hoc in the various regions

that they purport to represent? As much as decentralization as a

concept is worthwhile in terms of the reizions having a greater say in

what happens in their areas, in terms of resource development and those

kinds of things. It's my opinion that because they have a vested

interest in the area. fundamentally over the long term we'd probably

make better decisions about the use of a particular resource.

Nonetheless, when we're dealing with some questions. clearly there must

be a government philosophy.

The specific question is: are there instructions to parliamentary

secretaries dealing with that particular issue? Are they compelled to

follow some provincial guidelines or philosophy, or are they simply

going to go out and develop their own in each particular region?

HON. MR. VEITCH: It is the philosophy of this government to

take decision-making out to the regions; and to aid and abet in that

process, we will be appointing parliamentary secretaries to assist the

ministers of state. If you say that it's a good thing for people to

have a say in what occurs in their region or in their area. elected

officials and others.... If you agree with that. then you must agr